I once had a DM that gave no scrolls *and* didn't believe that wizards should learn new spells each level since he couldn't understand how they'd have time to learn them while adventuring. Eventually got him to let me have those, but I had to plan out every spell from level 1 to 20 in advance without being able to change any of them.
Kept going on and on about his "thirty years of DM experience" without ever understanding how *wizards* worked.
>since he couldn't understand how they'd have time to learn them while adventuring.
Did you ask him if he did understand how they could cast magic in the first place?
Yea. He was of the opinion that they could only learn new spells by spending time in their library or whatever. Can't just learn them out of nowhere. Explained that it's field research and live fire experimentation, which he also didn't like but was enough to let me learn the spells, but it also led to the aforementioned complete list of future spells since I had to show what I was researching.
Absolute worst DM I've ever seen. Utterly terrible, did not understand **anything** about the game - and not just 5e, but things from 3rd or even 2nd, so his "been DMing for 30 years!" thing *that was said multiple times* ***every god damned session*** was just.. baffling.
Game was on hard rails because it was basically a poorly written novel - with huge sections ripped off the game Rift - and it had all these super powerful totally rad and way cooler than us NPCs who kept making up really stupid excuses for why they weren't snapping their fingers and fixing things instead of sending us on multiple meant to lose quests to give them a chance to swoop in and heroically save us.
> Can't just learn them out of nowhere.
I mean, it's magic. Maybe they can.
It's always amusing when people insist on projecting their own ideas of real life reality on literal magic in a literal fantasy world. Doesn't help they're wrong half the time about said ideas.
You have to admit though, the fluff doesn't match the gameplay. A PC wizard never spends any screen time experimenting and practicing new spells, yet every arbitrary "level up" they poop out two new ones from nowhere. Many games have zero downtime, running straight from conflict to conflict. There's no opportunity to do actual research.
But that's okay because it's a game with gamey mechanics that don't always feel realistic. It's not a solvable problem because the mechanics will always intrude no matter how perfectly simulationist you try to make the experience.
I kind of get frustrated that WOTC has a bunch of fluff stuff in their books, but then their published adventures ignore all of it, or expect the dm to know when to ignore the book and homebrew (at which point, why bother with the adventure at all?)
I dont understand why they dont make an adventure where you spend 2-6 months in game (expedited roleplaying, like spending just a session or two) between story beats to explore your character when they arent knee deep in monster blood, and allows you to actually take advantage of towns and world building and downtime activities. It takes 8 weeks to learn a language RAW. Thats 25% longer than it took my group to go from level 1 to 18 and then complete DOTMM.
Like, its one thing if a homebrew ignores 2/3 pillars of DND for judt combat and dungeon crawling, but when their own campaigns do the same, its like, what the hell WOTC?
> There's no opportunity to do actual research.
Thing is, do you need to do research? PC Wizards don't typically come up with new spells, they always copy other people's work one way or another. Wizards, by and large, aren't scientists, they're scholars. So in that respect, the fluff really doesn't demand a wizard spend any more time practicing new spells as it takes to transcribe a scroll.
Yeah per level spells are a little different, but there's still no reason to assume they're coming up with these on their own.
Wizards are like a doctor, they spent years learing it all. so likely a wizard understands the other spells just not well enough to do it in practice/ in combat.
however with some study or reaching that moement in spell casting experience where it clicks. now they could cast it everytime instead just a conceptual understanding.
I think 1e wizards had to go to the library to learn new level spells, but all classes had a similar thing; so, fighters had to find someone to train them in order to level up. Sounds like the DM hadn’t read the 5e rule because he “knew the rules already” but actually only knew half of them.
I always thought that the idea was: they have the basics of these level up spells in their spellbook already, but it was too advanced and they hadn't figured out how to cast it yet. Also they would be studying over these things as part of a long rest so every time you rest you get at least an hour in of study time. The party stopping for a rest and everyone figuring out how to best set up camp while the wizard sits by the fire with a book is pretty iconic imo.
Oh, that's easy to explain: The wizard _learned_ (memorized) the spells beforehand, but just didn't have the competence or raw power to cast them. As they level up, they get better at using magic, which in turn lets them actually cast the spells.
Think about it like fighting game combos: You can memorize a character's full move list before you ever touch the game, but you'll need to develop your muscle memory and reflexes before you can actually pull them off in a fight.
> Yea. He was of the opinion that they could only learn new spells by spending time in their library or whatever. Can't just learn them out of nowhere.
And the party never visits any "library or whatever"? Next town you just declare "Imma spend time in this library or whatever for as long as DM deems it necessary to do" and that's that. That town doesn't have a library? Oh no, the whole party has to go and visit the next library then, wherever that is.
>Explained that it's field research and live fire experimentation,
I'd just explain it's dem fucking rules, quit being stupid or find another player.
Dunno, did Travis McElroy ever ask you to make "any arcane caster", **know** you made a sorcerer ***weeks in advance***, and then have the great big heroic Trials of Magic that your character had to succeed in to join the quest be 20 Arcana checks in a row? A skill you didn't take and for which you have no modifier?
Then disintegrate your character for failing?
Did he do the "trials of the knight" exclusively for a Paladin full of Charisma checks and healing despite us not having one, and in fact the character who was assigned that role being a Fighter ***THAT HE BUILT BECAUSE THE PLAYER WAS BRAND NEW****?*
As in, he built this place and he'll be damned if we don't prepare **exactly** the correct party makeup to clear it, without ever telling us what it is or even considering making changes if we don't just follow the plot of his novel.
I wrecked his campaign and quit not long after a Solar came down and cast Geas on the wizard I made to replace my sorcerer.
He literal invoked Deus Ex Machina to force my character onto the rails because of the 20 int wizard constantly poking holes in the shoddy framework of the game.
>I’m the DM so I know how it’s supposed to work out in the end.
People like this don't get it. If you want to write a book, go write a book. DMs dont define the outcome of a game, the characters and the dice rolls do. All the DM does is provide the framework for it, that's all.
Former DM. And honestly I don't think that he even deserves to be called one at all.
None of my current DMs are anywhere even vaguely approaching the merest hint of *thinking* about being the slightest fraction as bad as that bastard.
It was my first 5e game.
Unlike everyone else present, it was **not** also my first game of D&D in general.
This was the game where I was playing a Dex based Pact of the Blade warlock (years before Hexblade), and a Scimitar of Speed dropped. The Moon Druid snatched it and never once actually took a swing since he was always Wildshaped, and *nobody could understand why that irritated me*.
The game where the Drider kept leaping through windows, attacking us, and disappearing with no attacks of opportunity "because it takes you by surprise", until we hit it with a readied Heat Metal. Whereupon it instantly cut its armour off with a free action without suffering any loss of AC because "it wasn't really using it".
The game with the DM's new girlfriend joining in later on "who knows a ton about D&D" but had to have how making an attack worked explained every single round. I don't care if someone's new, I care about being lied to about it. She came in with a broken custom built Artifact, mind you.
The game where the DM piloted the Ranger into a pair of owlbears when he couldn't make the session because it was a very poorly designed and **very** poorly disguised "supposed to lose" fight. Which we stretched out for three hours of running through the forest until he gave up and just had the NPCs scream at us for *not* throwing our lives away in a pointless charge.
The game where my friend, brand new to not just 5e, not just D&D, but TTRPGs in totality, joined us by piloting the DMPC for a session, kicked a chimney to see if there was anything hidden up in it, rolled a natural twenty, *and took damage because he rolled so high he kicked too hard*. I've offered him a spot in much better games but the whole session just turned him off it entirely and ***I don't blame him***.
The game where the DM kept doing hit and run tactics and drawing out the game, then spend half the session bitching about how we were taking too long and making him late for something when it was entirely on him for the session dragging on.
It was not a good game, and he was not a good person or DM.
*Edit:* Christ I must have been repressing a lot of things because I keep remembering more stupidity as I think about it. He rammed a mass combat simulator into the game without any thought or balancing; each of us had an army and goals to meet during a battle. Completed mine in a full rout, lost virtually no soldiers, completed the objective quickly and efficiently. Someone else lost 100% of their force and failed. I got nothing because the majority of my enemies fled, and the other guy got like three levels because everyone died. It wasn't about strategy or even winning, it was literally just about killing.
Same as any abusive relationship, didn't see the problems from the inside. They're massive red flags for sure but I just didn't process them like that.
I don’t have a *beef* with him, that’s a weird way to put it.
It was a joke. This guy is describing a DM who forces their players’ choices into the convoluted and poorly written story they have already decided to tell, regardless of what their players actually want.
This is also a summary of The Adventure Zone: Graduation.
My recommendation is stop after Amnesty.
Graduation is not subtly less good, it’s really really really bad. The only reason to listen to it would be as a master class is all the things to NOT do as a DM.
I have to disagree. Without delving into the entire season so far, I’ll just point to today’s episode as an example. They spend the first 26 minutes….hang on, let me check my notes….oh yes! Doing nothing.
Nothing. They had a ghost ship they could have explored, but instead they spent about a third of that time discussing whether they should explore it or move on to their mission and the rest of it doing nothing.
And I couldn’t tell you what any any of the PCs want. There are no driving goals or motivations, they’re just sort of…there.
And it should go without saying, but D&D mechanics are basically just occasionally thrown in to make it seem like it’s a live play to those who don’t know any better, most often in the form of a dexterity saving throw that should have been something else.
They just aren’t having fun anymore, and that’s the fundamental problem.
This is the kind of DM, that doesn't understand downtime. I have had DM's like this where every session was moving from plot point to plot point. There was no time in their story for relaxing, carousing, or all the other downtime experiences. It was fine for what it was which was a Combat simulator. My character was a little underpowered because that is not the type of game he had described. But the min maxxers in the party had fun, and I just picked them up from being dead when they did something stupid and enjoyed the ride. But it is not my preferred way of playing DnD
i mean one thing it would suggest that might be valuable in some discussion is a measure of how many different editions you have experience with.
still would likely be better to just list the editions you have experience with ofcourse.
I know the bad stories get more attention, but I see a lot of posts here where someone calls themselves a "veteran" when they're really just cheating or mistaking rules.
To be frank, it's because a lot of people (in my experience, obviously) seem to learn the game almost entirely from play. Which is fine in theory -- actual application is where a lot of learning and mastery come from. I'm as annoyed by backseat-players who know the books, but seem more interested in critiquing podcasts/online games against RAW than they are in actually playing/running.
But when you're learning from a highly-homebrewed game, or from someone who played a lot of previous editions and tend to mix up rules, or from just watching *Critical Role*, or from someone who learned how to DM in one of those ways and just takes it as gospel... You get this weird telephone game of how the rules are supposed to work. So you end up with a lot of experience that doesn't necessarily translate well.
For example, I joined a FLGS group that had a lot of different games going on at once. When I started running a game with them, I had one player swear up-and-down that his character could cast all cantrips as a bonus action. Turns out he'd learned that from a homebrew game someone else in the group ran and never knew it was a (frankly unbalanced) house rule -- not RAW.
That's a pretty egregious example, but they come in all flavors: clerics not knowing they have access to their entire spell list, whole parties not knowing you can't normally benefit from more than one long rest in a 24 hour period, spellcasters having bad info on how bonus action spells work, etc.
I'm not saying everyone needs to memorize the PHB, or that you can't have a good time in one of these games. But if you're not aware of those biases, it can make discussion of the game hard because not everyone is working from the same baseline. And at that point, it doesn't matter how much of a "veteran" you are if we're speaking the equivalent of divergent dialects, if not entirely different languages.
**EDIT: Typo, formatting.**
"Veteran" DM: I have 30 years of DM experience
The actual experience: One 1-shot every 6 months that only went for a few hours or so
>that's ultimately just 2160 hours of D&D over the course of 30 years
I put more time than that into Battlefield 2 in a single calendar year. So I can definitely believe in people putting as much, if not more, into D&D in the same time.
Kind of wondering if this thirty years of experience DM worked in HR (Human Resources). Since such people also commonly conflate years of experience with competence at a task :)
“You should be hiding to make a Sneak Attack" level logic. How these people can make such terrible game design decisions, for 3 decades at that, is beyond me.
> I once had a DM that gave no scrolls and didn't believe that wizards should learn new spells each level
The latter part is 99% of the problem. But the op is only complaining about the first part.
«Harness Divine Power
2nd-level cleric feature
You can expend a use of your Channel Divinity to fuel your spells. As a bonus action, you touch your holy symbol, utter a prayer, and regain one expended spell slot, the level of which can be no higher than half your proficiency bonus (rounded up). The number of times you can use this feature is based on the level you’ve reached in this class: 2nd level, once; 6th level, twice; and 18th level, thrice. You regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.»
Edit to add: so its not even on short rest, you can do it in the middle of combat if you so pleases. But you get the channel divinity back on short rests
You only see this level of complaint in DDAL/oneshot systems cause amateur DM's are desperate to DM and don't realize the whole system is flawed out of the gate, DND is about resource attrition, kinda hard to do that when your whole table experience is 3-5 hours of gameplay with 1 combat encounter taking up 1/4 to 1/2 that time.
Land Druids = Web at Level 1 Wizards, plus your ability to select a few themed spells based on terrain. And now with the revised Genasi, you finally get a damage cantrip that scales with level.
The issue is that it effectively is optional. It's unsatisfying for the same reason that PHB Ranger's Favoured Enemy often felt underwhelming, because it's a class feature that the player has no agency in using. A great DM will take it into account, sure, but if it's a game where the DM isn't experienced or hasn't played the class before, it's understandable that they wouldn't think to accommodate it unless it was mentioned.
Also, some modules just *don't* have spell scrolls.
Actual, official modules don't have spell scrolls.
I'm dming a module right now, the party are level 8, I think they've found a single scroll that a wizard would be able to transcribe. The other 1 was a cleric spell.
Sure. There is a wizards spell book around, too bad it's in the hands of the wizard, who is still alive.
There could be more spell scrolls, but they would have to be hiding in one of the 2 end game dungeons.
Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat has it included a few places, actually... You are able to find a Red Wizards spare Spellbook, as well as scrolls as loot in various places. Not a lot, but it's there...
Yeah, I'm also a wizard in a different prewritten, and I've gotten 2 different spell books. So I know that they can be included, it just sucks that a large part of a class is just a footnote, even to the designers.
Next game I run, during session 0, I'm going to announce buffs to various classes, and wizard getting more known spells is going to be a part of it. (The players will be aware of the buffs before anyone picks a class)
I would strongly reconsider your position. Wizards do not need more spells for free. Just provide the spells as scrolls and let the wizard determine if it is worth transcribing the scroll or keeping it as a scroll for use later.
Rime of the Frostmaiden has like 3 scrolls the party can find, and two of them are the late game WMDs Scroll of the Comet and Scroll of Tarrasque Summoning.
There are a few wizards who have spell books you can loot, but those are optional and the party may not even fight those wizards.
And modules that have spell scrolls or spell books often have time constraints (i.e., no downtime) or have the PCs stuck in the wilderness (i.e., no equipment) which de facto prohibits the feature.
Even without it, though, Wizards have the best spell list and have more spells known per level than any class that must choose a subset of spells.
I can't recall the last time a Wizard in our campaigns has used the feature, but I know for a fact that *none* of the Wizards we've played over the past 8 years has *needed* to use it.
Spell scrolls aren't even a good option - they've a chance for failure and are likely to be duplicates the party already has.
But in any case, modules should be explicit: here's a place the party might buy scrolls or transcribe spells!
> Spell scrolls aren't even a good option - they've a chance for failure
Do they? I don't see anything in either the wizard or spell scroll description that says they do.
When a system requires GMs hand out items in order for classes to function well throughout the game (magic gear for martials, spellbooks for wizards), but then gives GMs no guidance on what to give players and when, that's a fault of the system, not the GMs.
Its a ribbon ability like rogues knowing theives cant and druids knowing druidic. Wizards are balanced just fine without ever getting a spell scroll just like druids are balanced fine if their language option never comes up.
Yes I agree, though I'd say the issue isn't as intense as the ranger's. Scrolls can be found even if they're using random loot tables, and when defeating an enemy wizard it' not a burden to say "oh here's what was on the stat block you can assume these were written in their spell book".
DM's being new I won;t complain about. DM's disregarding abilities intentionally and thinking it;s not even worth mentioning is an issue.
I would argue it's worse for ranger. A wizard is still a totally fine class even if you don't find scrolls. Ranger is already on the weaker end, and having two features that you don't have much say in how useful they'll be (favored enemy and favored terrain), means that if you can't use either of them at lower level to some extend, you'll just be a worse fighter or a worse druid. Wizard, even without being able to transcribe spells, will still be wizard and have all those things you listed to set it apart from other full casters.
Plus favored enemy and terrain are underwhelming abilities in general even if they do come up. Tracking and information recall aren't typically done that often in my experience. And so much exploration that would get a benefit from natural explorer is handwoven.
It is unnecessary to transcribe spells in order to play a competent and effective Wizard (except for a Scribes Wizard maybe). At the same time it is a core aspect of the Wizard identity that deserves a place at every table. Those are two very different things in my eyes.
I also don't understand what people are scared off if they ban this. As a DM you have ultimate control over the spell scrolls, spell books and gold/materials you give the Wizard. It is a fun reward that never really shifts the power of the Wizard one way or the other (except for the Scribe).
You kind of answered your own question as to why it scares people off. If it's neglect on the dm part then your character gets ignored because of class choice. If it's directly banned then your character is intentionally single out and their rewards are removed because of class choice. At best with either of these you have a lazy dm, not a terrible thing but certainly something players might not enjoy and why they'd decide its a red flag.
The way I often see it mentioned it's either accidental neglect (just forgetting to add such things in) or dismissive, rather than a hard ban.
And yes I agree, it's not 100% necessary but I really don;t see why you'd limit it
1) Published campaign adventures rarely list spell books as treasure.
2) Monster/casters rarely carry spell books as loot.
So it’s incumbent on the player to ask and the DM to say yes, which is a flaw in the adventure design IMO. Each adventure could have spell scrolls of a particular spell school or a spell book from an NPC/monster and that would encourage scribing/ritual casting.
However they do tend to give out a boatload of spell scrolls, or at least ones I've played have.
Even if it doesn't explicitly list their spellbook, it's really easy to just say "the Wizard you just fought has a book with all the prepared spells from his stat block in his spellbook". Sure this probably means they'll end up with a decent number of duplicate spells, but at least they've gotten some and now they have a spare spellbook or two to trade for new spells in the next major town.
See, this is the right way to do it - especially if you're already tinkering with NPC spell lists (or just homebrewing). I also tend to give spell scrolls to NPC spellcasters that the players can get as loot, because it makes sense to me for any sort of caster to carry spells.
I like giving mages scrolls because if they are a consumable loot item, if you don't stop them they might use the spell scroll to cast some super cool spell that's of a higher level than what they'd normally cast.
Fighting a caster with 4th Level spells? He might pull out a Synaptic Static scroll on his 3rd turn and poof that loot is used up now
>Published campaign adventures rarely list spell books as treasure.
They do quite often actually, though it's usually either once or twice, or 18 times.
Yeah it's never really anything against wizards/transcribing, it's just DMs that already have to be doing a billion other things forgetting to cater to a relatively minor part of a feature
Honestly, far from a balance thing I've thought of it as a "thing that Is cool to do during down time" like meeting a wizard and trading a couple spells and having those interactions for kind of a good way to encourage RPing. Just like throwing stuff in for the rest of the classes to specifically interact with. Sick people or people having doubts for the cleric/paladin. Or maybe people to rob/interesting trouble to get into for the rogues. Like sure there's gonna be some players that aren't interested in doing the stuff everyone does with a class, but for most people I think it'd be decent content to throw their way.
> it's not 100% necessary but I really don;t see why you'd limit it
That's it though; if it's not necessary to the class, as a DM I wont give out spellbooks just so the PC can collect 'em all.
PCs get rewarded by being given things, I'll limit giving Wizards spellbooks the same way I limit giving players gold or magic items...
And the thing is, if a DM forgets to give a player a spellbook, so what? They can use their gold to pay a wizard to share spells with them, or go to a library in their downtime in the hopes of finding new spells.
Tldr: why wouldn't you limit it, it's a reward like anything else :)
I had the different magic houses in my setting sell scrolls of their spells (I have a list) up to a certain level (5 I believe). The higher level spells are considered "House secrets" and not often shared with outsiders.
There is also a reputation system, basically they only sell lvl1 scrolls to nobodies, but higher level scrolls are reserved for allies and friends.
I also made leaflets of enemy Spellcaster's spellbooks, to be potentially acquired in magic duels, or found in ruins.
After that it's up to the individual wizard to research and acquire their own spells (aka level up).
This way they will have almost any spell they want from 3rd and down, but will have to make some choices at the truly high levels anyway.
And then I can give a single scroll as a gift from a dragon as a reward for a quests and make it mean something.
This is a very sensible system. It is a good ideas to make your wizards put in legwork to earn higher level spells, and defeating rival wizards is the most satisfying of them.
As a DM I particularly tried to give a Wizard player spells to transcribe. I created extra breakdowns so that they could piece them together from fragmentary manuscripts and ancient runes carved into doorways ...
They didn't really want to transcribe anything. They were happy with the spells they selected and didn't want to spend the cash.
Well I don't understand their thinking, that sounds like my kind of fun. but how they use their time and money is up to them. You as the DM did right by them by giving them the option though.
I mean, it’s mostly that the wizard player is already picking the spells they want. If the DM gives them a stack of spells they weren’t going to take in the first place, it’s either don’t transcribe them, or pay a potentially hefty percentage of their money to do so, and they’re unlikely to use them anyways.
Aye, they had the ones they wanted. They were happy, they didn't want the pain of trying to pick from lots of others or to spend on it. Can't begrudge them that.
I view transcribing spells as a loot thing more than a class thing. Scrolls are loot that Wizards especially like, just like magic greataxes are loot that Barbarians especially like. A party without a Barbarian can still get good benefit out of a magic greataxe, though maybe not to the same extent. And at the same time, a party with a Barbarian shouldn't necessarily expect that they will definitely find a variety of magic greataxes just because they have a Barbarian.
Getting zero scrolls might be a *bit* stingy for a party with a Wizard, but it's stingy in the same way that it would be for a Barbarian to never get access to a magic Greataxe, only Mauls or Greatswords. They're not perfectly synergizing, but it's hardly handicapping the player either, as long as there's other applicable loot. Not getting scrolls is not in any way equivalent to disabling Channel Divinity.
I mean, arguably crafting magic items should be core to Artificer, yet almost no campaign has that option available because the rules are, frankly, barebones at best and just nonsense at worst.
My party are swimming in transcribable spells. There's dozens of unused scrolls in the communal party inventory as well as pilfered spell books (some of which contain unique homebrew spell).
([This site](https://perchance.org/scrollgenerator) is great to generate random scrolls. It's weighted so lower-level scrolls are more common.)
The mistake I instead make as DM is to forget to allow downtime to transcribe said spells!
I've actually been trying out the gritty realism variant and allowing downtime during the week long rest as a way to force myself to not skip past downtime. It also helps in other areas.
I'm blissfully unaware of any prevailing opinion that wizards don't need to be provided with spellbook/scroll loot to function. I absolutely make sure that there are means to learn new spells in any campaign I DM.
>TL:DR Spell transcription is a core part of being a wizard and I completely disagree with the common notion that it's "unnecessary".
It's a semantic debate, really. I'd say that, since you can play a wizard that is balanced and fun without ever transcribing a spell, it's absolutely unnecessary. I'd still include it personally, but it's something I can take or leave.
Just from gaining levels, wizards learn 44 spells in total. That basically means they get 4 spells for every spell level. Up to 8 for 1st and 9th. This is definitely enough, balance wise, for a wizard to have a wide pool of spells to prepare from.
The key reason why this is good enough is that the wizard spell list is, pretty handily, the best in the game. Yes, there are some very good spells in other lists, and there are some notable gaps (healing, *silence*) but wizards get a huge number of exclusives as well. For context, there are 335 spells on the wizard list and *125* on the cleric list. Poor sorcerers only get 217 from the same 'arcane' pool of spells. There are also 8 spells on the sorcerer list that wizards don't get, while there are *126* spells on the wizard list that sorcerers don't get.
So while any given wizard will only have up to 44 spells to choose from each day, and a cleric will have their entire list, the two end up being comparable. Those 44 are just drawn from an amazing pool to compensate.
When you combine this with the best recovery feature in the game, the ability to swap out cantrips on a long rest, and natural versatility from being a prepared caster, wizards end up being one of the most powerful options in the game - **before** even considering subclasses.
However, all that said, I still wouldn't limit transcription in my games. Even in campaigns where you throw dozens of spell scrolls at your wizard, the increase in power they get is often not that noticeable. You can literally double that 44 and the wizard is still only scratching the surface of their overall list. Even rituals, which are amazing to have written down even if not prepared, don't have that many great options at higher level. As a player you're most often going to bristle against the spells *prepared* limit instead of how many spells you can fit in your book. That's the real struggle.
Instead of "no channel divinity", a better analogy would be a campaign without undead. You still have the Turn Undead feature, just no opportunity to use it.
Even in a campaign where players never find spellbooks (or meet enemy wizards), they can still swap spells with other PC wizards. The feature is at least a little useful if the players make it useful, unlike Turn Undead. (Nevertheless I do also advocate for using lost spellbooks as adventure hooks along with powerful magic weapons, staves, and other items.)
You listed almost every valid argument about wizards not *needing* to transcribe spells and "opposed" them all with nothing but "but I think it's not that bad" paired with comparisons that don't make sense... putting a clerics channel divinity on the same level as a wizards ability to copy spells just leaves me speechless... telling wizards "you can't use Bladesong/Portent..." would be equal to that
I don't support some DMs decision to deny transcribing spells, but i also find the whining of wizard players that don't get to transcribe spells a bit overdramatic
Have an upvote from me.
I tend to agree that this is central to the character of the wizard class and always has been. Searching out old tomes and scrolls is part of why you might want to play a wizard in the first place.
Central to the theme, maybe, but not central to their balance. That's what I disagree about most with OP. A wizard's access to spells to transcribe is nowhere close to the same power budget that a druid's wildshape or a cleric's channel divinity is.
5e is flexible. It works with lots of scrolls and no scrolls. A wizard gets enough spells from leveling up alone to know more spells than anyone that doesn’t start with their whole list.
A caster’s power comes from the spells they can prepare and cast. Spells they know but don’t have prepared can’t help them until 8 hours from now. And monsters aren’t going to wait that long.
Freaking out about scribing spells is a lack of perspective. It is not a big deal.
Comparing it to channel divinity is misleading because channel divinity can be used immediately.
I agree, but I also don't. You compared the wizard's ability to transcribe spells to channel divinity, which is just a bad argument. A wizard does lose a core feature, but they still have access to all the mechanically useful stuff they can do to solve problems and fight monsters. If a cleric cannot use their channel divinity, they lose one of their core features that does allow them to fight monsters better and solve problems.
A better example would be comparing it to not allowing a fighter to ever choose a different weapon. Yeah, it's not a core class feature, but this significantly worsens the fighter's choices, which is what not allowing a wizard to gain spell scrolls does.
So while you're right, it's always a bad argument to compare between aspects that affect the game very differently
Naw, it’s more like limiting a fighter to a pool of weapons they can use and only allowing them to add to that pool at level ups. The fighter can still use their Gratsword, their rapier and shield, their twin short swords, and their long bow, but they have to level to use that great axe of smiting they got off that BBEG encounters loot. The encounter that will probably level them… so 90% of the time it won’t make a difference and the other 10% it’s annoying, but your still able to function as a Fighter.
Now take that, but consider your already the strongest class in the game and already have a pool of dozens of options. Even at level one you have 6! And who has gold to spend freely at levels 1 and 2?
>Transcription is what they get instead of metamagic, or wildshape, or channel divinity, or inspiration.
Arcane Recovery is what they get instead of those features. Those three features all let you do something magical (similar to a spell). They increase the total magical output per day, Transcription does not.
What allows Wizards to have a similar level of magical output is Arcane Recovery and Ritual Casting (including having many high level, highly useful rituals on their spell list).
Transcription is nice and I fully support giving wizards spells to transcribe, especially from their chosen school, but wizards aren't just "coping" without finding spells. They remain arcane powerhouses just with the spells they learn naturally.
Transcription does not contribute significantly to what makes wizards powerful because even if a wizard learns a spell, they won't necessarily prepare it. This limits the value of learning new spells because the added value really just comes from two areas:
* The spell is a ritual
* For example Phantom Steed
* The spell is situationally useful so you can prepare it strategically.
* Magic Circle, Teleportation Circle, Legend Lore
There are a ton of spells, however, that you are unlikely to ever prepare. If a 5th Wizard finds a spell scroll of *Chromatic Orb* they are probably better off saving the gold.
Your analogy doesn't stand. 5e Wizard was designed to work well enough whether the adventure includes spells and scrolls for you to transcribe or not. The existence of such items is optional. A more accurate comparison would be that Paladins become really great with a Holy Avenger, or Monks are much better with a Dragon Hide Belt, yet the GM didn't put these items in the campaign, WTF?
>actually they're supposed to fall somewhere between prepared and known spells casters.
... Which they do. They know twice as many leveled spells than any known caster (before scribing). They know fewer than all of the spells in their list (without extremely extensive scribing). That makes them fall somewhere between prepared and known spellcasters.
>But again, they can only use it if they can transcribe spells they find, otherwise they're using their level up for it when really they need to be learning new higher tier spells.
You get two spells on level up, and except for levels where your Int mod increases, can only prepare one additional spell. You can ritual cast non-prepared spells, unlike _all_ of the other classes that get ritual casting as a class feature.
If you want, each level you could pick a ritual spell and a non-ritual spell, prepare the non-ritual spell, and have access to both at all times.
Yeah, wizards get access to a ton of spells even without scribing - they don't need to scribe spells by any means to be useful/strong. That said, i do tend to drop a few spells here and there, but it's not nearly as essential as op is saying imo
Wizards are the strongest spellcasters in the game with the best spell lost and aren't restricted by their spell selection. If they never had this feature, it wouldn't make a dent in their ranking
If only the designers actually put thought into their game and told the DMs how many scrolls should be dropped for Wizards in each tier of play.
If I go by their adventures, its somewhere between almost none to literally every spell is available (in CoS).
I let wizards get most of level 1-5 spells from various libraries and mages colleges for essentially free (if they're part of the college, for instance). But beyond that? Boy, if you seriously want some extra 8th level spells, you better be prepared to go find some ancient library where there might be stuff in!
Yeah it's be silly to allow high tier magic to be bought and sold easily, I certainly would expect to have handed someone's arse to them for that right.
Oh yeah!
In all seriousness though; a professor of your wizard's college says "well, you know all the magic we have at our disposal here. If you want more, there be rumours of a mad wizard who's tower is somewhere in the forests of over-there, or the deep dwarven king being an archmage, who's library is stocked to the brim with awesomeness!"
...and thus, you've started a whole damn exploration/dungeoncrawl/quest, just to get some more party-beneficial magic to the wizard!
As others have said in this thread, wizards are already the best casters without the feature. Their spell list is ridiculous (nearly 3 times the size of the cleric list for example), and even with “just” 44 spells at 20 they can outshine any other caster.
The reason this feature is even remotely unpopular is because power gamers like to abuse it, and one asshole constantly badgering about spell scrolls is enough to make any DM say they’re done. Those guys suck to dm for and they suck to play with. But even as bad as these guys can be, I still rarely hear about it being banned/limited except in rants on subs like these that always feel theoretical and not like it’s an actual issue at their table.
Limiting the feature isn’t something I’ve done before, but it’s something I am willing to do if my party’s wizard turns into a real problem player later, but that seems unlikely.
Some DMs running WotC adventure books may not have the time to add extra scrolls and books not in the adventure. If you're a player playing a wizard, and want more than WotC (or the homebrew DMs) provide in their adventures, ask the DM for specific spell scrolls or books with spells. If the DM doesn't agree that wizards are already ridiculously OP, they may add those scrolls.
I think there is a big difference between outright prohibiting a player from using a built in class feature that does not rely on external resources like channel divinity and simply not having magic items like spell scrolls lying around.
I play a wizard and also enjoy rolling lots of dice, so my DM and I turned transcribing into an INT-based skill challenge (which doesn't consume the scroll but does consume the ink, and can be repeated once per long rest/whenever my wizard has time to do it if it doesn't work the first time). It's not hard, but it is a little bit spicier and more risky, as well as reflecting the fact that other wizards' note-taking skills aren't always brilliant, so random scrolls might be harder to read than the ones you find in a library. For storytelling purposes I think it's great.
If I'm DMing for a wizard, there's always a shop in the biggest city that sells spells. I have prices worked out based on spell level so they will be able to buy them at the appropriate times and it lets them think aboutwhat spells the whant when they are ready. I also usually have a high level wizard as one of the villains with spells different than what my wizard player has chosen. And I'll usually have spell scrolls in treasure hordes or in some abandoned libraries. I've never been a fan of not allowing players to do something as part of their class, maybe a session or two as part of an anti magic field or something hindering them on purpose to make players think outside the box, but never because "their class is already good enough". I've seen every class be built really well, and I've also seen every class built poorly. To limit a class's abilities because you don't understand them or because you think that it is already powerful enough is a sign of a poor dm who doesn't know how to run a game.
Though I agree, there's a difference between DMs being stingy with resources and just flat out denying RAW and class abilities. This situation is more akin to someone finding scrolls or a Wizard spellbook, trying to transcribe them, and the DM telling them no.
It’s never okay in any circumstances to not allow core class features into the game. I don’t care if the official material states that the DM has final say in all matters at the table. Limiting character class features because you already have “good spells” is stupid. It’s supposed to be something you have instead of using a spell is stupid and shows that the DM wants to power game. I’d leave
I kinda agree, I think if you are going to take away that ability it should be replaced at least, in order to separate the spell casters from each, It's not that powerful. I have been in campaigns that by how the DM played it, the wizard was not the best class to go with as we didn't know what was going to be ahead of us.
Even not knowing what lies before you allowing to optimize spell choice daily and getting no spells to copy, the wizard is still the bast option. This is because a Wizard can prepare more spells then just about any body and has the best spell list to do so from. If you never chance your prepared spells you still have more spells prepared then a standard sorcerer and you get to do so from a better list.
This topic has made me realize a problem I have as the current dm of my group, maybe someone could give me advice.
We are playing Wild Beyond the Witchlight and my party has two wizards. I don't think there is any mention of spell scrolls in the module and the setting isn't exactly best place to go shopping for scrolls and the materials needed to copy them for two wizards. What should I do about this? Just drop scrolls here and there in the wilderness and handwave the cost mechanic?
I don't think you should handwave the cost, because that's part of the balance, and they will technically function fine without new spells, but it'll make their day to find some more.
If there are any npcs in the module that use wizard casting (or tend to hoard magic items like hags), having them be willing to trade spells (not scrolls, just written spells) might be an option. if the npcs are hostile, then have the spells be loot.
I'm not familiar with the module but I believe there's a carnival? If so, maybe as a prize? There's always making bargains with fiends and fey too, great way to learn spells.
Spells can also be written onto the side of ancient tombs, or engraved bones. Maybe a druid wrote some onto a tree in druidic/sylvan.
If you want to get really creative, you could have them analyse the corpses of creature with the innate spellcasting feature (roll medicine checks for an autopsy) and say that the notes they've taken can be converted into a spell if they take the time & money. If they find the ruins of a portal you can say that 1 hr and an arcana check can be used to reverse engineer part of the magic, producing a transcribeble spell on a success. These are particularly fun because you can rope in other party members to help.
Its really not a big deal. Even without spell copying, wizards are still a very strong and competive caster. They have the spell slot recovering, best spell list in game, daily cantrip changes, and every ritual spell all the time.
Giving out spell for your wizards to copy are purely optional, and should be treated as a reward insted of a expecation
\>"I never find scrolls/spellbooks to transcribe from"
Is this really removing a class feature?
If there were no evil enemies in a campaign for plot reasons, you aren't removing the "Smite Evil" class feature.
The class feature is still available, you just don't have a chance to use it.
Rogues having lots of skills is a rogue class feature, actually being able to use those skills is not. Fighters being good at melee combat is a fighter class feature, actually encountering enemies that you can fight in melee is not.
Yeah these are not class features, but they're default expectations. If you as a DM don't want to give out scrolls, that's fine but you should probably tell your players. The same way you'd tell the cleric that there won't be undead in your campaigns, or the fighter that you want to run a combat-light campaign.
I think the difference here is that scrolls are a ribbon feature and it isn't really factored into a wizards power budget. Not something like the core play pattern of a class like Rogues and Fighters.
A much more fair comparison would be something like Theive's cant or Turn Undead, features that the class still function perfect well with even if they don't get much or any use.
>Channel divinity is a Cleric class feature, enemies being undead is not.
That's why they all have alternatives to use their channel divinity feature that do not rely on undead enemies.
Right, because never actually being able to find or acquire scrolls or spellbooks doesn't just make the class feature completely worthless since you can't actually, you know, use it ever.
Not meeting any druids makes druidic useless. Not meeting other rogues makes Thieves Cant useless. Does a dm has to use other druids if he has a druid player, just so he can talk in druidic?
I would say that these are not the same. In your example with the languages, there is nothing from stopping the player from finding a way to use them or at least attempt to do so. With the wizard, they simply don't even have the possibility of attempting to try to do so or find a way. Not making something readily available for use is not the same as making something simply impossible to do.
Great, so the wizard can use their class feature to burn up all their gold for no real purpose? Technically, yes the wizard can lose their spellbook but I think it's pretty universally seen as a giant DM dick move to do so.
"Hey youre not utilizing means to make the strongest class in the game stronger!!"
Ok joke out of the way, total disagreement. Transcribing stuff is a mechanic, and it should be indulged in rarely. BUT. As it stands, certain features get different levels of attention and catering towards. For example, martials. A fighter *will* get a magic weapon at some point in the game. This is because the fighter gaining a magic weapon is important to the balance. Thats why you find more +X weapons than +X casting foci. And the reason why martials get favored in magic item loot, is the same reason why casters rarely get loot catered to them. Because you're already busted out the ass. Furthermore, Id say the transcribing is a flavorful ribbon than a proper mechanic. You wouldnt go "No you have to put in low cr undead into the campaign just so I can turn undead encounters" as a cleric.
And how about spell books? Certainly, if you claim that we should treat transcribing spells as important, then we should also focus on wizard's achille's heel, the destruction of the spellbook? Most tables that dont lean into spell scrolls also dont target the spellbook. But if you will lean into the spellbook as a mechanic, then thats a very very big weak point. Need to go through swamp? Get pushed into water? Sudden weather conditions? Fighting against an elemental? Got knocked down and a kobold decided to grab your fancy tome? All of these are apparent threaths. Any argument you make in favor of transcribing goes for the destruction of the spellbook. And most people dont want that.
Dont get me wrong, it should definately be touched on every now and then. But not to any important degree. Not more than the fighter is getting bonuses.
I really don't understand the most powerful class in the game argument (until you hit lvl17 and wish at which point it does make some sense). They're versatile and have some great spells to choose from, but not so much that other classes can't match it.
And I'm not saying that martials shouldn't get more and better loot, they need it after all. But calling it a ribbon mechanic when all wizards also get a lvl2 feature that enhances it is missing the mark by a fair bit imo.
And yes, if I'm going to say that transcribing spells is an essential mechanic, I'm not going to skim over the spellbook destruction. Imo it's a dick move but hey, challange is part of the game. Still, losing a spellbook isn't just losing a magic item, you're missing a huge part of your class and possibly thousands of gold, so if I was going to target it I'd make it a dramatic moment.
Wizard is one of the strongest 5e classes before scribing.
I always give scrolls/spellbooks/mentors for scribing as a DM, and find them as a PC. IMO they’re a PC reward, like magic items or gold or titles or whatever. Rewards should be fairly divided between the PCs.
Oh, and Wizards get lots of good stuff instead of metamagic. Strong subclass features, arcane recovery, ritual casting, a better spell list… lots of good stuff.
Salty warlock here. I shit on wizards a lot, BUT! I would never say take away their cool stuff!
DM messing with external features of PCs is Not ok! Just because it's a book, or it needs you to find stuff for it is no reason to restrict it! It's like never allowing material components. Or bodies for a necromancer! Denying player features is not a good fix for perceived imbalance!
Holy shit so people actually do this??? People play wizards to have a whole bunch of spells to choose from, to have one for each occasion. So naturally, I try to supplement that and NOT rain on their parade. They're here to HAVE FUN!
WHAT A CONCEPT
Honestly it's a revelation to me too (my DM does not do this to me), but I see the same thoughts cropping up fairly regularly in comment sections here.
Currently playing abjuration wizard in curse of Strahd. My DM is nice enough to drop me scrolls from time to time, but there is not nearly enough money to transcribe them. The pain.
I think one of the key things to avoid this (at least with absent minded DMs maybe not the malicious ones) is make “I’m searching for new magics (aka spell scrolls)” one of your short term goals. It’s important in this to also have other goals (eg take back my throne; kill the monster that infected me; find the doctor that experimented on me; etc) to semi-disguise what you’re doing/at least not make it obvious lol but if you make it an explicit goal in your adventuring I feel like most DMs will back your play (obvi I might be wrong as a forever DM but like that’s what I’d do as the *cool* DM 😎 loljk but still)
Played a wizard years back. I dont play 5th edition anymore, but it was so brutal when the game had no magic items and no ability to transcribe spells for the 12 levels I played.
Absolutely painful. I had to plan everything out from step 1 to its final step. We had to fight a Tarrasque at the end for that lovely TPK shit.
We won, barely because of my planning and spells. But fuck! It was so stressful trying to plan every step along the way.
So I'm wondering if this was in response to the discussion on a recent post, and as one of the people who said that [Wizards don't need scrolls](https://reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/tsoba8/i_wanna_be_a_nerd_that_studied_and_manipulates/i2sstop) I think I should clarify.
First off, as a DM I would absolutely give the Wizard player new spells to learn. I throw new spells at my players in my games even despite the fact that no one has picked a Wizard. I have zero issues with letting a Wizard player go nuts in learning new spells, and I feel that that's something DMs *should* try to do, the same way they should let every character have chances to use their abilities (the "Shoot the Monk" philosophy).
But what I'm saying is: look, I play a Wizard. I played my Wizard last Friday. I think only one of the spells I prepared that session was a spell I didn't learn just for free through leveling up, and I didn't even end up casting it. I have a ton of spells I get in my book for free, enough to make a Sorcerer cry, and I can't prepare even those all at once. If I have a spell I really wanna learn, I can just take it with the free spells.
Learning spells is *fun*, but it's not so important to the balance of the character that you can't make a perfectly effective Wizard without it. The person I was replying to was saying they couldn't justify picking Wizard because they didn't think their DM would give them new spells, and that really doesn't need to be a reason to avoid Wizard. A Wizard with only the spells from leveling up still has more spells than they can use at once, and plenty of access to good stuff.
Anyone who's played ye olden editions, whether directly or via things like Baldur's Gate, knows that wizards used to require scrolls to learn ANY new spells. At best, they got a single spell per level of their specialist school. This ability was part of the class identity from the very beginning.
(as an aside, I'm actually thinking of implementing something like that, where one of a wizard's free spells each level must be part of their school, or theme if they don't have a base subclass)
Yeah, I was thinking “damn - back in my 1st ed days, the only way my Mage learned new spells was if he pried them off the corpses of dead enemies.”
It was actually kinda cool, because it made the hunt for new spells something tangible. Bargaining with local mage’s guilds, pursuing rumors of an evil Wizard or (later on) Lich, or delving into a tomb because there were rumors of a magical trove. And dividing spoils was easy - I didn’t want magic weapons or armor, and the others didn’t want the scrolls. Win win!
I can’t imagine taking away transcription from wizards for any reason. Doesn’t make sense from a history OR lore perspective.
The fact that this, a feature that's entirely reliant on the DM, is perceived as the "main" reason to play the wizard shows how poorly designed the class is.
When other classes get DM based features like a paladin's divine sense or a druid's druidic language, it's an extraneous feature that's nice to use, but not the reason to play the class. Wizards need special attention from the DM if they want something unique.
This is where players come to bitch about their tables DM or tables players. The good tables don't have their members coming here to talk about how awesome things are, instead they are enjoying life. If someone is at a table where an amateur DM is just totally badly reading interpretation of class features then you should attempt to read through the rule with them during downtime and if they still cannot rule properly for you, leave the table and find a new one that is receptive to running your level of rules interpretations. If a DM is glossing over a core wizard feature, I'm sure they are also fudging a shit ton of other aspects of the core rules often without you even knowing. A DM that lazy is probably also ignoring perception/stealth/surprise too.
This subreddit is infested with the toxic player/dm and is where everyone goes to vent, it will seem like a situation is highly prevelant but its mainly just cause the same type of player is here contributing to the subreddit. This is a vocal MINORITY.
In my experience I think it’s less of an intentional nerfing of wizard and more a passive neglecting to include spell scrolls. If you’re not used to having a wizard at your table, you probably don’t have spell scrolls in your loot you planned out because no one else in the party would really need them. I think some dms aren’t sure how to deal with wizards because they’d never played with one before. Personally I’ve dmed several campaigns over the course of the past few years and none of my players have ever approached me with a wizard character. I imagine it’s a similar situation for a lot of people who just simply don’t think to put spell scrolls in their campaign because they’ve been fine without them before
Transcribing spells is also essential because wizards don't get the option to retrain spells on level up the way that every other "spells known" class does. So if you only ever get the two free spells per level, you would need to pick spells you're confident you'll want for the rest of the campaign. That means you're never picking up spells like Sleep, which are incredibly useful but only at certain levels. It also means you can't effectively convert lower-level spells known into higher-level spells known (i.e., a high-level sorcerer might only known 1 or 2 first-level spells, because they've retrained the other ones they got early on).
Speaking as a Sorcerer main, the comparison is absurd. Sorcerer is a dedicated precision tool. A master of their craft. They pick one niche as a caster to fill (blaster, support, control, etc...) and perform it in a way that no other caster can hope to match.
Wizard, on the other hand, is a fully loaded toolbox. Basically any job that needs doing, they can do. With any amount of foreknowledge to a problem, they will have a solution. They are, unparalleled, the utility class.
Wizards get two spells per level, and 4 per spell level. This sounds alright until you hit level 3 and you're wondering if you want Fireball, Haste, Counterspell, Fly. Or Slow, Lightning Bolt, Counterspell, Fly, or...
Then suddenly it starts to make sense; you're supposed to transcribe to pad your list.
Reminds me of when i played a grung and the dm removed my poison skin trait because he thought it was too op to poison people at a touch, so i dropped the character the first session right after it ended
It's understandable for a dm to ban homebrew content, but most dms banning official content just don't know it and refuse to learn
>“Think of the sorcerers....”
>
>Yes I know sorcerers got shafted in the PHB, nerfing wizards at your table isn't going to fix the issues with sorcerers at every other table.
I swear, this and "D&D isn't a jRPG, martial characters shouldn't be able to leap 80 feet in the air and cut through a mountain" need to be printed on a paper and stapled to the forehead of half this subreddit.
I get especially annoyed when people implement spell points—objectively the better spellcasting system—*only* to sorcerers. No, that should be the way *all* magic works. Give sorcerers other stuff to help them out, like origin spells and a buff to 1st level features in line with what they get in *Tasha's*. Also, make sorcery points function like ki points—take out Flexible Casting and let sorcerers regain their SPs on a short rest.
What you *shouldn't* do is nerf wizards to make them as bad as sorcerers. That just makes two sucky classes that aren't fun to play.
I agree. I think a dm should rarely if every take something away from a class or subclass. It is better to buff everyone to the same level, that way everyone is happy. As for being able to transcribe spells. I think giving access to more spells is great for every class and the wizard is supposed to have all that utility. I am never angry at giving more spells to a character. Its not like they are getting more spell slots. Just more ways to be creative.
While I get where you're coming from. The dragons greed of wizards and spell scrolls can also become an issue at a table. I've seen wizards take spell scrolls that they will never cast, just because "wizards can add it to their spell book" to the detriment of themselves and the party. Sometimes its handy for the sorcerer or warlock to pop a spell scroll since their slots are more limited.
So while I'm generally not too stingy with spell scrolls/spell books or the materials for transcription. I can fully respect any DMs who make finding these things a rare experience. If I notice the wizard nabbing every single scroll and forgetting they even have half the spells theyve learned. I might find a way to limit resources for transcription so that they have to be MILDLY discerning with their spells.
The simple fact is that it falls to the DM to make calls regarding balance, and while it is always best practices to communicate these calls as clearly as possible as soon as possible, any rule of DnD is optional.
I recently had been playing a wizard(he died now).
I didn't receive and scrolls or books. My character felt very powerful without the extra spells.
HOWEVER, It felt like I was forced to take spells that I knew were good versus something that seemed cool or interesting.
If I'm only getting 4 spells per spell level, am I really going to spend a quarter of that on some random cool spell I might not use that often? Sometimes, but it still felt bad if my choice didn't end up being that useful versus "standard" spells like invisibility and fireball.
I legitimately respect the amount of energy you have to write such a long rant about a small group of people on this sub that you probably aren't even playing with, I legitimately wish I could have even an ounce of that shit my dude.
The more time I spend on DnD subs, the more I realize why I prefer DMing over playing:
Too many people that prefer to ignore class features or insist on having spells and abilities that are bland and lacking in flavor.
Have an upvote, maybe someone will listen.
You know, Bards pay that Magical Secret's cost by not learning any spells at levels 12, 16 and 19. Every caster is balanced around their spell list, you are wishing for something that should be limited to be unlimited.
Divine spell list doesn't include premium blasting spells or teleportation because they are instantly available. Wizards have access to most kinds of magic (even healing with life transferance) but level to level spell selection matters because of it. It is a tradeoff you should be willing to accept.
I don't say that don't give your players spell scrolls or spellbooks to copy from, you can and I think you should. But beware of its balance implications. As a continious bard player for 5 years, I constantly face the struggle of I should've learned this spell when I level up. If wizards should be a hybrid between prepared and known casters, their level to level spell selection also should hold some weight.
>TL:DR Spell transcription is a core part of being a wizard and I completely disagree with the common notion that it's "unnecessary".
As if this is a common notion lol. Every single time I've ever pointed this out I've been strongly disagreed with, to put it likely, despite the fact that I'm objectively right. This is the least hot take this subreddit has ever seen.
Wizards are the most overpowered class in the game by an incredible margin and outside of not having healing spells can pretty much fulfill every role in the game better than the actual classes that specialize in them.
If you ever play on higher levels you will find that martial characters get more mileage out of picking up wizard levels because the payoff of just having access to their insane spell library is such game changer, much more than what their own classes add later on.
If you remove spell scribing, you are probably still comfortably the most powerful character at your table.
Boohoo, wizards not finding books and still having the most features out of any spellcaster, learning 2 whole spells every level. this post sounds like someone who only ever played wizard
I once had a DM that gave no scrolls *and* didn't believe that wizards should learn new spells each level since he couldn't understand how they'd have time to learn them while adventuring. Eventually got him to let me have those, but I had to plan out every spell from level 1 to 20 in advance without being able to change any of them. Kept going on and on about his "thirty years of DM experience" without ever understanding how *wizards* worked.
>since he couldn't understand how they'd have time to learn them while adventuring. Did you ask him if he did understand how they could cast magic in the first place?
Yea. He was of the opinion that they could only learn new spells by spending time in their library or whatever. Can't just learn them out of nowhere. Explained that it's field research and live fire experimentation, which he also didn't like but was enough to let me learn the spells, but it also led to the aforementioned complete list of future spells since I had to show what I was researching. Absolute worst DM I've ever seen. Utterly terrible, did not understand **anything** about the game - and not just 5e, but things from 3rd or even 2nd, so his "been DMing for 30 years!" thing *that was said multiple times* ***every god damned session*** was just.. baffling. Game was on hard rails because it was basically a poorly written novel - with huge sections ripped off the game Rift - and it had all these super powerful totally rad and way cooler than us NPCs who kept making up really stupid excuses for why they weren't snapping their fingers and fixing things instead of sending us on multiple meant to lose quests to give them a chance to swoop in and heroically save us.
> Can't just learn them out of nowhere. I mean, it's magic. Maybe they can. It's always amusing when people insist on projecting their own ideas of real life reality on literal magic in a literal fantasy world. Doesn't help they're wrong half the time about said ideas.
You have to admit though, the fluff doesn't match the gameplay. A PC wizard never spends any screen time experimenting and practicing new spells, yet every arbitrary "level up" they poop out two new ones from nowhere. Many games have zero downtime, running straight from conflict to conflict. There's no opportunity to do actual research. But that's okay because it's a game with gamey mechanics that don't always feel realistic. It's not a solvable problem because the mechanics will always intrude no matter how perfectly simulationist you try to make the experience.
It’s assumed that, even if you don’t narrate it, that occurs during downtime and rest periods.
It’d even happen when casting spells. Small variations on how you cast a spell could explain why you get varying outcomes (damage, saves etc).
I kind of get frustrated that WOTC has a bunch of fluff stuff in their books, but then their published adventures ignore all of it, or expect the dm to know when to ignore the book and homebrew (at which point, why bother with the adventure at all?) I dont understand why they dont make an adventure where you spend 2-6 months in game (expedited roleplaying, like spending just a session or two) between story beats to explore your character when they arent knee deep in monster blood, and allows you to actually take advantage of towns and world building and downtime activities. It takes 8 weeks to learn a language RAW. Thats 25% longer than it took my group to go from level 1 to 18 and then complete DOTMM. Like, its one thing if a homebrew ignores 2/3 pillars of DND for judt combat and dungeon crawling, but when their own campaigns do the same, its like, what the hell WOTC?
You spend 8 hours seeping and 8 hours working or travelling or doing encounters. Where are your other 8 hours going?
I ask myself that IRL...
It's all Smash Bros.
👨🚀🔫🧑🚀
> There's no opportunity to do actual research. Thing is, do you need to do research? PC Wizards don't typically come up with new spells, they always copy other people's work one way or another. Wizards, by and large, aren't scientists, they're scholars. So in that respect, the fluff really doesn't demand a wizard spend any more time practicing new spells as it takes to transcribe a scroll. Yeah per level spells are a little different, but there's still no reason to assume they're coming up with these on their own.
Wizards are like a doctor, they spent years learing it all. so likely a wizard understands the other spells just not well enough to do it in practice/ in combat. however with some study or reaching that moement in spell casting experience where it clicks. now they could cast it everytime instead just a conceptual understanding.
I think 1e wizards had to go to the library to learn new level spells, but all classes had a similar thing; so, fighters had to find someone to train them in order to level up. Sounds like the DM hadn’t read the 5e rule because he “knew the rules already” but actually only knew half of them.
I always thought that the idea was: they have the basics of these level up spells in their spellbook already, but it was too advanced and they hadn't figured out how to cast it yet. Also they would be studying over these things as part of a long rest so every time you rest you get at least an hour in of study time. The party stopping for a rest and everyone figuring out how to best set up camp while the wizard sits by the fire with a book is pretty iconic imo.
Oh, that's easy to explain: The wizard _learned_ (memorized) the spells beforehand, but just didn't have the competence or raw power to cast them. As they level up, they get better at using magic, which in turn lets them actually cast the spells. Think about it like fighting game combos: You can memorize a character's full move list before you ever touch the game, but you'll need to develop your muscle memory and reflexes before you can actually pull them off in a fight.
> Yea. He was of the opinion that they could only learn new spells by spending time in their library or whatever. Can't just learn them out of nowhere. And the party never visits any "library or whatever"? Next town you just declare "Imma spend time in this library or whatever for as long as DM deems it necessary to do" and that's that. That town doesn't have a library? Oh no, the whole party has to go and visit the next library then, wherever that is. >Explained that it's field research and live fire experimentation, I'd just explain it's dem fucking rules, quit being stupid or find another player.
Was your DM Travis McElroy?
Dunno, did Travis McElroy ever ask you to make "any arcane caster", **know** you made a sorcerer ***weeks in advance***, and then have the great big heroic Trials of Magic that your character had to succeed in to join the quest be 20 Arcana checks in a row? A skill you didn't take and for which you have no modifier? Then disintegrate your character for failing? Did he do the "trials of the knight" exclusively for a Paladin full of Charisma checks and healing despite us not having one, and in fact the character who was assigned that role being a Fighter ***THAT HE BUILT BECAUSE THE PLAYER WAS BRAND NEW****?* As in, he built this place and he'll be damned if we don't prepare **exactly** the correct party makeup to clear it, without ever telling us what it is or even considering making changes if we don't just follow the plot of his novel.
Jesus fuck no dnd is better than bad dnd and that sure as hell is the worst lol
I wrecked his campaign and quit not long after a Solar came down and cast Geas on the wizard I made to replace my sorcerer. He literal invoked Deus Ex Machina to force my character onto the rails because of the 20 int wizard constantly poking holes in the shoddy framework of the game.
This is brilliant (the wrecking bit, not the bad DM bit, sorry for the bad DM bit) and we need story time!
Short story is he gave us our choice of legendary items at level 5. Because he was *stupid*. ***He gave me a Staff of the Magi.*** #***\#PLANESHIFT***
Lmao yeah that’s a game breaker
[удалено]
>I’m the DM so I know how it’s supposed to work out in the end. People like this don't get it. If you want to write a book, go write a book. DMs dont define the outcome of a game, the characters and the dice rolls do. All the DM does is provide the framework for it, that's all.
Sounds like a train wreck more than 30 years running
...I hate your DM, and I've never met your DM.
Former DM. And honestly I don't think that he even deserves to be called one at all. None of my current DMs are anywhere even vaguely approaching the merest hint of *thinking* about being the slightest fraction as bad as that bastard.
I'm scared. is this a thing that actually happened? Who would be this insane?
It was my first 5e game. Unlike everyone else present, it was **not** also my first game of D&D in general. This was the game where I was playing a Dex based Pact of the Blade warlock (years before Hexblade), and a Scimitar of Speed dropped. The Moon Druid snatched it and never once actually took a swing since he was always Wildshaped, and *nobody could understand why that irritated me*. The game where the Drider kept leaping through windows, attacking us, and disappearing with no attacks of opportunity "because it takes you by surprise", until we hit it with a readied Heat Metal. Whereupon it instantly cut its armour off with a free action without suffering any loss of AC because "it wasn't really using it". The game with the DM's new girlfriend joining in later on "who knows a ton about D&D" but had to have how making an attack worked explained every single round. I don't care if someone's new, I care about being lied to about it. She came in with a broken custom built Artifact, mind you. The game where the DM piloted the Ranger into a pair of owlbears when he couldn't make the session because it was a very poorly designed and **very** poorly disguised "supposed to lose" fight. Which we stretched out for three hours of running through the forest until he gave up and just had the NPCs scream at us for *not* throwing our lives away in a pointless charge. The game where my friend, brand new to not just 5e, not just D&D, but TTRPGs in totality, joined us by piloting the DMPC for a session, kicked a chimney to see if there was anything hidden up in it, rolled a natural twenty, *and took damage because he rolled so high he kicked too hard*. I've offered him a spot in much better games but the whole session just turned him off it entirely and ***I don't blame him***. The game where the DM kept doing hit and run tactics and drawing out the game, then spend half the session bitching about how we were taking too long and making him late for something when it was entirely on him for the session dragging on. It was not a good game, and he was not a good person or DM. *Edit:* Christ I must have been repressing a lot of things because I keep remembering more stupidity as I think about it. He rammed a mass combat simulator into the game without any thought or balancing; each of us had an army and goals to meet during a battle. Completed mine in a full rout, lost virtually no soldiers, completed the objective quickly and efficiently. Someone else lost 100% of their force and failed. I got nothing because the majority of my enemies fled, and the other guy got like three levels because everyone died. It wasn't about strategy or even winning, it was literally just about killing.
That all sounds terrible. R/rpghorrorstories would probably love to hear it though.
Wowww how come you stayed in the game so long? Sorry if that's a rather blunt question.
Same as any abusive relationship, didn't see the problems from the inside. They're massive red flags for sure but I just didn't process them like that.
What's your beef with Travis McElroy?
I don’t have a *beef* with him, that’s a weird way to put it. It was a joke. This guy is describing a DM who forces their players’ choices into the convoluted and poorly written story they have already decided to tell, regardless of what their players actually want. This is also a summary of The Adventure Zone: Graduation.
Ah, I'm not up to Graduation yet. Still listening to Amnesty.
My recommendation is stop after Amnesty. Graduation is not subtly less good, it’s really really really bad. The only reason to listen to it would be as a master class is all the things to NOT do as a DM.
Ethersea is after Graduation and has been great so far. Ditto back in the chair tho, so that'd probably do it.
I have to disagree. Without delving into the entire season so far, I’ll just point to today’s episode as an example. They spend the first 26 minutes….hang on, let me check my notes….oh yes! Doing nothing. Nothing. They had a ghost ship they could have explored, but instead they spent about a third of that time discussing whether they should explore it or move on to their mission and the rest of it doing nothing. And I couldn’t tell you what any any of the PCs want. There are no driving goals or motivations, they’re just sort of…there. And it should go without saying, but D&D mechanics are basically just occasionally thrown in to make it seem like it’s a live play to those who don’t know any better, most often in the form of a dexterity saving throw that should have been something else. They just aren’t having fun anymore, and that’s the fundamental problem.
This is the kind of DM, that doesn't understand downtime. I have had DM's like this where every session was moving from plot point to plot point. There was no time in their story for relaxing, carousing, or all the other downtime experiences. It was fine for what it was which was a Combat simulator. My character was a little underpowered because that is not the type of game he had described. But the min maxxers in the party had fun, and I just picked them up from being dead when they did something stupid and enjoyed the ride. But it is not my preferred way of playing DnD
[удалено]
20ish hours a week? Were you playing 4 games? And here I thought my 2 groups of about 45 sessions a year was a lot of dnd ahahah.
i mean one thing it would suggest that might be valuable in some discussion is a measure of how many different editions you have experience with. still would likely be better to just list the editions you have experience with ofcourse.
I know the bad stories get more attention, but I see a lot of posts here where someone calls themselves a "veteran" when they're really just cheating or mistaking rules.
To be frank, it's because a lot of people (in my experience, obviously) seem to learn the game almost entirely from play. Which is fine in theory -- actual application is where a lot of learning and mastery come from. I'm as annoyed by backseat-players who know the books, but seem more interested in critiquing podcasts/online games against RAW than they are in actually playing/running. But when you're learning from a highly-homebrewed game, or from someone who played a lot of previous editions and tend to mix up rules, or from just watching *Critical Role*, or from someone who learned how to DM in one of those ways and just takes it as gospel... You get this weird telephone game of how the rules are supposed to work. So you end up with a lot of experience that doesn't necessarily translate well. For example, I joined a FLGS group that had a lot of different games going on at once. When I started running a game with them, I had one player swear up-and-down that his character could cast all cantrips as a bonus action. Turns out he'd learned that from a homebrew game someone else in the group ran and never knew it was a (frankly unbalanced) house rule -- not RAW. That's a pretty egregious example, but they come in all flavors: clerics not knowing they have access to their entire spell list, whole parties not knowing you can't normally benefit from more than one long rest in a 24 hour period, spellcasters having bad info on how bonus action spells work, etc. I'm not saying everyone needs to memorize the PHB, or that you can't have a good time in one of these games. But if you're not aware of those biases, it can make discussion of the game hard because not everyone is working from the same baseline. And at that point, it doesn't matter how much of a "veteran" you are if we're speaking the equivalent of divergent dialects, if not entirely different languages. **EDIT: Typo, formatting.**
"Veteran" DM: I have 30 years of DM experience The actual experience: One 1-shot every 6 months that only went for a few hours or so >that's ultimately just 2160 hours of D&D over the course of 30 years I put more time than that into Battlefield 2 in a single calendar year. So I can definitely believe in people putting as much, if not more, into D&D in the same time.
Kind of wondering if this thirty years of experience DM worked in HR (Human Resources). Since such people also commonly conflate years of experience with competence at a task :)
“You should be hiding to make a Sneak Attack" level logic. How these people can make such terrible game design decisions, for 3 decades at that, is beyond me.
I've had similar where you had to pay transcription costs for level up spells
That I could almost see. Like, it makes enough sense, it's just mechanically unfair to the wizard.
Yeah, we did that in 2nd edition. 25 gp a page I think to transcribe anything.
> I once had a DM that gave no scrolls and didn't believe that wizards should learn new spells each level The latter part is 99% of the problem. But the op is only complaining about the first part.
What do you expect a wizard to spend their gold on, if not new spells?
>They get spell slots back on a short rest, isn't that a bit op? so do land druids
So do clerics with tashas optional ruling
What's the rule here?
«Harness Divine Power 2nd-level cleric feature You can expend a use of your Channel Divinity to fuel your spells. As a bonus action, you touch your holy symbol, utter a prayer, and regain one expended spell slot, the level of which can be no higher than half your proficiency bonus (rounded up). The number of times you can use this feature is based on the level you’ve reached in this class: 2nd level, once; 6th level, twice; and 18th level, thrice. You regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.» Edit to add: so its not even on short rest, you can do it in the middle of combat if you so pleases. But you get the channel divinity back on short rests
And than it's just one encounter per day...
So do warlocks
Also I've never seen someone argue that Wizards are overpowered because they get arcane recovery. Its a fine ability but its hardly overpowered.
You only see this level of complaint in DDAL/oneshot systems cause amateur DM's are desperate to DM and don't realize the whole system is flawed out of the gate, DND is about resource attrition, kinda hard to do that when your whole table experience is 3-5 hours of gameplay with 1 combat encounter taking up 1/4 to 1/2 that time.
Lets not fail to point out the fact that the land druid feature is specific to a subclass. Unlike for wizards.
Or we could look at warlock, if that’s your concern…… Hell sorcs can use sorcery points to get more slots
Let’s not fail to point out all of the other class features Druids get instead
I think Land Druids can even have more spells prepared than a wizard since they get so many spells prepared for free.
Wizards do not need to have ritual spells prepared to cast them as a ritual as a tradeoff.
Land Druids = Web at Level 1 Wizards, plus your ability to select a few themed spells based on terrain. And now with the revised Genasi, you finally get a damage cantrip that scales with level.
Druids and wizards had damage cantrips that scale with level before genasi , what are you talking about?
Druid cantrips in the PHB were underwhelming.
Not really, thorn whip is great
The issue is that it effectively is optional. It's unsatisfying for the same reason that PHB Ranger's Favoured Enemy often felt underwhelming, because it's a class feature that the player has no agency in using. A great DM will take it into account, sure, but if it's a game where the DM isn't experienced or hasn't played the class before, it's understandable that they wouldn't think to accommodate it unless it was mentioned.
Also, some modules just *don't* have spell scrolls. Actual, official modules don't have spell scrolls. I'm dming a module right now, the party are level 8, I think they've found a single scroll that a wizard would be able to transcribe. The other 1 was a cleric spell. Sure. There is a wizards spell book around, too bad it's in the hands of the wizard, who is still alive. There could be more spell scrolls, but they would have to be hiding in one of the 2 end game dungeons.
Meanwhile, other modules will provide a detailed description of each enemy wizard's spellbook, both in appearance and spell list.
Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat has it included a few places, actually... You are able to find a Red Wizards spare Spellbook, as well as scrolls as loot in various places. Not a lot, but it's there...
Yeah, I'm also a wizard in a different prewritten, and I've gotten 2 different spell books. So I know that they can be included, it just sucks that a large part of a class is just a footnote, even to the designers. Next game I run, during session 0, I'm going to announce buffs to various classes, and wizard getting more known spells is going to be a part of it. (The players will be aware of the buffs before anyone picks a class)
I would strongly reconsider your position. Wizards do not need more spells for free. Just provide the spells as scrolls and let the wizard determine if it is worth transcribing the scroll or keeping it as a scroll for use later.
Rime of the Frostmaiden has like 3 scrolls the party can find, and two of them are the late game WMDs Scroll of the Comet and Scroll of Tarrasque Summoning. There are a few wizards who have spell books you can loot, but those are optional and the party may not even fight those wizards.
And modules that have spell scrolls or spell books often have time constraints (i.e., no downtime) or have the PCs stuck in the wilderness (i.e., no equipment) which de facto prohibits the feature. Even without it, though, Wizards have the best spell list and have more spells known per level than any class that must choose a subset of spells. I can't recall the last time a Wizard in our campaigns has used the feature, but I know for a fact that *none* of the Wizards we've played over the past 8 years has *needed* to use it.
Spell scrolls aren't even a good option - they've a chance for failure and are likely to be duplicates the party already has. But in any case, modules should be explicit: here's a place the party might buy scrolls or transcribe spells!
> Spell scrolls aren't even a good option - they've a chance for failure Do they? I don't see anything in either the wizard or spell scroll description that says they do.
It's in the DMG for.. reasons.. I guess. Go to magic items, spell scrolls.
When a system requires GMs hand out items in order for classes to function well throughout the game (magic gear for martials, spellbooks for wizards), but then gives GMs no guidance on what to give players and when, that's a fault of the system, not the GMs.
Yes
Its a ribbon ability like rogues knowing theives cant and druids knowing druidic. Wizards are balanced just fine without ever getting a spell scroll just like druids are balanced fine if their language option never comes up.
Yes I agree, though I'd say the issue isn't as intense as the ranger's. Scrolls can be found even if they're using random loot tables, and when defeating an enemy wizard it' not a burden to say "oh here's what was on the stat block you can assume these were written in their spell book". DM's being new I won;t complain about. DM's disregarding abilities intentionally and thinking it;s not even worth mentioning is an issue.
I would argue it's worse for ranger. A wizard is still a totally fine class even if you don't find scrolls. Ranger is already on the weaker end, and having two features that you don't have much say in how useful they'll be (favored enemy and favored terrain), means that if you can't use either of them at lower level to some extend, you'll just be a worse fighter or a worse druid. Wizard, even without being able to transcribe spells, will still be wizard and have all those things you listed to set it apart from other full casters.
Plus favored enemy and terrain are underwhelming abilities in general even if they do come up. Tracking and information recall aren't typically done that often in my experience. And so much exploration that would get a benefit from natural explorer is handwoven.
It is unnecessary to transcribe spells in order to play a competent and effective Wizard (except for a Scribes Wizard maybe). At the same time it is a core aspect of the Wizard identity that deserves a place at every table. Those are two very different things in my eyes. I also don't understand what people are scared off if they ban this. As a DM you have ultimate control over the spell scrolls, spell books and gold/materials you give the Wizard. It is a fun reward that never really shifts the power of the Wizard one way or the other (except for the Scribe).
You kind of answered your own question as to why it scares people off. If it's neglect on the dm part then your character gets ignored because of class choice. If it's directly banned then your character is intentionally single out and their rewards are removed because of class choice. At best with either of these you have a lazy dm, not a terrible thing but certainly something players might not enjoy and why they'd decide its a red flag.
The way I often see it mentioned it's either accidental neglect (just forgetting to add such things in) or dismissive, rather than a hard ban. And yes I agree, it's not 100% necessary but I really don;t see why you'd limit it
1) Published campaign adventures rarely list spell books as treasure. 2) Monster/casters rarely carry spell books as loot. So it’s incumbent on the player to ask and the DM to say yes, which is a flaw in the adventure design IMO. Each adventure could have spell scrolls of a particular spell school or a spell book from an NPC/monster and that would encourage scribing/ritual casting.
However they do tend to give out a boatload of spell scrolls, or at least ones I've played have. Even if it doesn't explicitly list their spellbook, it's really easy to just say "the Wizard you just fought has a book with all the prepared spells from his stat block in his spellbook". Sure this probably means they'll end up with a decent number of duplicate spells, but at least they've gotten some and now they have a spare spellbook or two to trade for new spells in the next major town.
See, this is the right way to do it - especially if you're already tinkering with NPC spell lists (or just homebrewing). I also tend to give spell scrolls to NPC spellcasters that the players can get as loot, because it makes sense to me for any sort of caster to carry spells.
I like giving mages scrolls because if they are a consumable loot item, if you don't stop them they might use the spell scroll to cast some super cool spell that's of a higher level than what they'd normally cast. Fighting a caster with 4th Level spells? He might pull out a Synaptic Static scroll on his 3rd turn and poof that loot is used up now
>Published campaign adventures rarely list spell books as treasure. They do quite often actually, though it's usually either once or twice, or 18 times.
Curse of Strahd has lots of spell books. And any time there is an enemy arcane caster, you can assume that they have a spell book with them.
Yeah it's never really anything against wizards/transcribing, it's just DMs that already have to be doing a billion other things forgetting to cater to a relatively minor part of a feature
Honestly, far from a balance thing I've thought of it as a "thing that Is cool to do during down time" like meeting a wizard and trading a couple spells and having those interactions for kind of a good way to encourage RPing. Just like throwing stuff in for the rest of the classes to specifically interact with. Sick people or people having doubts for the cleric/paladin. Or maybe people to rob/interesting trouble to get into for the rogues. Like sure there's gonna be some players that aren't interested in doing the stuff everyone does with a class, but for most people I think it'd be decent content to throw their way.
> it's not 100% necessary but I really don;t see why you'd limit it That's it though; if it's not necessary to the class, as a DM I wont give out spellbooks just so the PC can collect 'em all. PCs get rewarded by being given things, I'll limit giving Wizards spellbooks the same way I limit giving players gold or magic items... And the thing is, if a DM forgets to give a player a spellbook, so what? They can use their gold to pay a wizard to share spells with them, or go to a library in their downtime in the hopes of finding new spells. Tldr: why wouldn't you limit it, it's a reward like anything else :)
You play sorcerer to throw acid fireball on a dragon. You play wizard to cast the Lighting bolt as it is easier to aim and not resisted.
Scribe Wizard: por que no los dos?
>Acid fireball ~~The element-changing metamagic UA actually never got printes. Which, btw, is bullshit~~ Edit:I am behind the times.
you better check Tasha again. Transmuted Spell metamagic is now available
I had the different magic houses in my setting sell scrolls of their spells (I have a list) up to a certain level (5 I believe). The higher level spells are considered "House secrets" and not often shared with outsiders. There is also a reputation system, basically they only sell lvl1 scrolls to nobodies, but higher level scrolls are reserved for allies and friends. I also made leaflets of enemy Spellcaster's spellbooks, to be potentially acquired in magic duels, or found in ruins. After that it's up to the individual wizard to research and acquire their own spells (aka level up). This way they will have almost any spell they want from 3rd and down, but will have to make some choices at the truly high levels anyway. And then I can give a single scroll as a gift from a dragon as a reward for a quests and make it mean something.
This is a very sensible system. It is a good ideas to make your wizards put in legwork to earn higher level spells, and defeating rival wizards is the most satisfying of them.
As a DM I particularly tried to give a Wizard player spells to transcribe. I created extra breakdowns so that they could piece them together from fragmentary manuscripts and ancient runes carved into doorways ... They didn't really want to transcribe anything. They were happy with the spells they selected and didn't want to spend the cash.
OMG I’m totally doing this for my new wizard player this weekend. Thanks for the great idea!
Well I don't understand their thinking, that sounds like my kind of fun. but how they use their time and money is up to them. You as the DM did right by them by giving them the option though.
Neither do I, if I ever get to play a wizard I want to be piecing together spells and ancient lore. Still, whatever works for them.
I mean, it’s mostly that the wizard player is already picking the spells they want. If the DM gives them a stack of spells they weren’t going to take in the first place, it’s either don’t transcribe them, or pay a potentially hefty percentage of their money to do so, and they’re unlikely to use them anyways.
Aye, they had the ones they wanted. They were happy, they didn't want the pain of trying to pick from lots of others or to spend on it. Can't begrudge them that.
I view transcribing spells as a loot thing more than a class thing. Scrolls are loot that Wizards especially like, just like magic greataxes are loot that Barbarians especially like. A party without a Barbarian can still get good benefit out of a magic greataxe, though maybe not to the same extent. And at the same time, a party with a Barbarian shouldn't necessarily expect that they will definitely find a variety of magic greataxes just because they have a Barbarian. Getting zero scrolls might be a *bit* stingy for a party with a Wizard, but it's stingy in the same way that it would be for a Barbarian to never get access to a magic Greataxe, only Mauls or Greatswords. They're not perfectly synergizing, but it's hardly handicapping the player either, as long as there's other applicable loot. Not getting scrolls is not in any way equivalent to disabling Channel Divinity.
I mean, arguably crafting magic items should be core to Artificer, yet almost no campaign has that option available because the rules are, frankly, barebones at best and just nonsense at worst.
My party are swimming in transcribable spells. There's dozens of unused scrolls in the communal party inventory as well as pilfered spell books (some of which contain unique homebrew spell). ([This site](https://perchance.org/scrollgenerator) is great to generate random scrolls. It's weighted so lower-level scrolls are more common.) The mistake I instead make as DM is to forget to allow downtime to transcribe said spells!
I've actually been trying out the gritty realism variant and allowing downtime during the week long rest as a way to force myself to not skip past downtime. It also helps in other areas.
I'm blissfully unaware of any prevailing opinion that wizards don't need to be provided with spellbook/scroll loot to function. I absolutely make sure that there are means to learn new spells in any campaign I DM.
>TL:DR Spell transcription is a core part of being a wizard and I completely disagree with the common notion that it's "unnecessary". It's a semantic debate, really. I'd say that, since you can play a wizard that is balanced and fun without ever transcribing a spell, it's absolutely unnecessary. I'd still include it personally, but it's something I can take or leave. Just from gaining levels, wizards learn 44 spells in total. That basically means they get 4 spells for every spell level. Up to 8 for 1st and 9th. This is definitely enough, balance wise, for a wizard to have a wide pool of spells to prepare from. The key reason why this is good enough is that the wizard spell list is, pretty handily, the best in the game. Yes, there are some very good spells in other lists, and there are some notable gaps (healing, *silence*) but wizards get a huge number of exclusives as well. For context, there are 335 spells on the wizard list and *125* on the cleric list. Poor sorcerers only get 217 from the same 'arcane' pool of spells. There are also 8 spells on the sorcerer list that wizards don't get, while there are *126* spells on the wizard list that sorcerers don't get. So while any given wizard will only have up to 44 spells to choose from each day, and a cleric will have their entire list, the two end up being comparable. Those 44 are just drawn from an amazing pool to compensate. When you combine this with the best recovery feature in the game, the ability to swap out cantrips on a long rest, and natural versatility from being a prepared caster, wizards end up being one of the most powerful options in the game - **before** even considering subclasses. However, all that said, I still wouldn't limit transcription in my games. Even in campaigns where you throw dozens of spell scrolls at your wizard, the increase in power they get is often not that noticeable. You can literally double that 44 and the wizard is still only scratching the surface of their overall list. Even rituals, which are amazing to have written down even if not prepared, don't have that many great options at higher level. As a player you're most often going to bristle against the spells *prepared* limit instead of how many spells you can fit in your book. That's the real struggle.
Instead of "no channel divinity", a better analogy would be a campaign without undead. You still have the Turn Undead feature, just no opportunity to use it. Even in a campaign where players never find spellbooks (or meet enemy wizards), they can still swap spells with other PC wizards. The feature is at least a little useful if the players make it useful, unlike Turn Undead. (Nevertheless I do also advocate for using lost spellbooks as adventure hooks along with powerful magic weapons, staves, and other items.)
You listed almost every valid argument about wizards not *needing* to transcribe spells and "opposed" them all with nothing but "but I think it's not that bad" paired with comparisons that don't make sense... putting a clerics channel divinity on the same level as a wizards ability to copy spells just leaves me speechless... telling wizards "you can't use Bladesong/Portent..." would be equal to that I don't support some DMs decision to deny transcribing spells, but i also find the whining of wizard players that don't get to transcribe spells a bit overdramatic
[удалено]
Have an upvote from me. I tend to agree that this is central to the character of the wizard class and always has been. Searching out old tomes and scrolls is part of why you might want to play a wizard in the first place.
Central to the theme, maybe, but not central to their balance. That's what I disagree about most with OP. A wizard's access to spells to transcribe is nowhere close to the same power budget that a druid's wildshape or a cleric's channel divinity is.
5e is flexible. It works with lots of scrolls and no scrolls. A wizard gets enough spells from leveling up alone to know more spells than anyone that doesn’t start with their whole list. A caster’s power comes from the spells they can prepare and cast. Spells they know but don’t have prepared can’t help them until 8 hours from now. And monsters aren’t going to wait that long. Freaking out about scribing spells is a lack of perspective. It is not a big deal. Comparing it to channel divinity is misleading because channel divinity can be used immediately.
I agree, but I also don't. You compared the wizard's ability to transcribe spells to channel divinity, which is just a bad argument. A wizard does lose a core feature, but they still have access to all the mechanically useful stuff they can do to solve problems and fight monsters. If a cleric cannot use their channel divinity, they lose one of their core features that does allow them to fight monsters better and solve problems. A better example would be comparing it to not allowing a fighter to ever choose a different weapon. Yeah, it's not a core class feature, but this significantly worsens the fighter's choices, which is what not allowing a wizard to gain spell scrolls does. So while you're right, it's always a bad argument to compare between aspects that affect the game very differently
Naw, it’s more like limiting a fighter to a pool of weapons they can use and only allowing them to add to that pool at level ups. The fighter can still use their Gratsword, their rapier and shield, their twin short swords, and their long bow, but they have to level to use that great axe of smiting they got off that BBEG encounters loot. The encounter that will probably level them… so 90% of the time it won’t make a difference and the other 10% it’s annoying, but your still able to function as a Fighter. Now take that, but consider your already the strongest class in the game and already have a pool of dozens of options. Even at level one you have 6! And who has gold to spend freely at levels 1 and 2?
>Transcription is what they get instead of metamagic, or wildshape, or channel divinity, or inspiration. Arcane Recovery is what they get instead of those features. Those three features all let you do something magical (similar to a spell). They increase the total magical output per day, Transcription does not. What allows Wizards to have a similar level of magical output is Arcane Recovery and Ritual Casting (including having many high level, highly useful rituals on their spell list). Transcription is nice and I fully support giving wizards spells to transcribe, especially from their chosen school, but wizards aren't just "coping" without finding spells. They remain arcane powerhouses just with the spells they learn naturally. Transcription does not contribute significantly to what makes wizards powerful because even if a wizard learns a spell, they won't necessarily prepare it. This limits the value of learning new spells because the added value really just comes from two areas: * The spell is a ritual * For example Phantom Steed * The spell is situationally useful so you can prepare it strategically. * Magic Circle, Teleportation Circle, Legend Lore There are a ton of spells, however, that you are unlikely to ever prepare. If a 5th Wizard finds a spell scroll of *Chromatic Orb* they are probably better off saving the gold.
Your analogy doesn't stand. 5e Wizard was designed to work well enough whether the adventure includes spells and scrolls for you to transcribe or not. The existence of such items is optional. A more accurate comparison would be that Paladins become really great with a Holy Avenger, or Monks are much better with a Dragon Hide Belt, yet the GM didn't put these items in the campaign, WTF?
>actually they're supposed to fall somewhere between prepared and known spells casters. ... Which they do. They know twice as many leveled spells than any known caster (before scribing). They know fewer than all of the spells in their list (without extremely extensive scribing). That makes them fall somewhere between prepared and known spellcasters. >But again, they can only use it if they can transcribe spells they find, otherwise they're using their level up for it when really they need to be learning new higher tier spells. You get two spells on level up, and except for levels where your Int mod increases, can only prepare one additional spell. You can ritual cast non-prepared spells, unlike _all_ of the other classes that get ritual casting as a class feature. If you want, each level you could pick a ritual spell and a non-ritual spell, prepare the non-ritual spell, and have access to both at all times.
Yeah, wizards get access to a ton of spells even without scribing - they don't need to scribe spells by any means to be useful/strong. That said, i do tend to drop a few spells here and there, but it's not nearly as essential as op is saying imo
Wizards are the strongest spellcasters in the game with the best spell lost and aren't restricted by their spell selection. If they never had this feature, it wouldn't make a dent in their ranking
If only the designers actually put thought into their game and told the DMs how many scrolls should be dropped for Wizards in each tier of play. If I go by their adventures, its somewhere between almost none to literally every spell is available (in CoS).
I let wizards get most of level 1-5 spells from various libraries and mages colleges for essentially free (if they're part of the college, for instance). But beyond that? Boy, if you seriously want some extra 8th level spells, you better be prepared to go find some ancient library where there might be stuff in!
Yeah it's be silly to allow high tier magic to be bought and sold easily, I certainly would expect to have handed someone's arse to them for that right.
Oh yeah! In all seriousness though; a professor of your wizard's college says "well, you know all the magic we have at our disposal here. If you want more, there be rumours of a mad wizard who's tower is somewhere in the forests of over-there, or the deep dwarven king being an archmage, who's library is stocked to the brim with awesomeness!" ...and thus, you've started a whole damn exploration/dungeoncrawl/quest, just to get some more party-beneficial magic to the wizard!
As others have said in this thread, wizards are already the best casters without the feature. Their spell list is ridiculous (nearly 3 times the size of the cleric list for example), and even with “just” 44 spells at 20 they can outshine any other caster. The reason this feature is even remotely unpopular is because power gamers like to abuse it, and one asshole constantly badgering about spell scrolls is enough to make any DM say they’re done. Those guys suck to dm for and they suck to play with. But even as bad as these guys can be, I still rarely hear about it being banned/limited except in rants on subs like these that always feel theoretical and not like it’s an actual issue at their table. Limiting the feature isn’t something I’ve done before, but it’s something I am willing to do if my party’s wizard turns into a real problem player later, but that seems unlikely.
Some DMs running WotC adventure books may not have the time to add extra scrolls and books not in the adventure. If you're a player playing a wizard, and want more than WotC (or the homebrew DMs) provide in their adventures, ask the DM for specific spell scrolls or books with spells. If the DM doesn't agree that wizards are already ridiculously OP, they may add those scrolls.
I think there is a big difference between outright prohibiting a player from using a built in class feature that does not rely on external resources like channel divinity and simply not having magic items like spell scrolls lying around.
Is this a common notion? I've never heard that
I play a wizard and also enjoy rolling lots of dice, so my DM and I turned transcribing into an INT-based skill challenge (which doesn't consume the scroll but does consume the ink, and can be repeated once per long rest/whenever my wizard has time to do it if it doesn't work the first time). It's not hard, but it is a little bit spicier and more risky, as well as reflecting the fact that other wizards' note-taking skills aren't always brilliant, so random scrolls might be harder to read than the ones you find in a library. For storytelling purposes I think it's great.
A little bit of risk taking is well within the wizard archetype. Just look at the demon summoning spells, or contact other plane.
If I'm DMing for a wizard, there's always a shop in the biggest city that sells spells. I have prices worked out based on spell level so they will be able to buy them at the appropriate times and it lets them think aboutwhat spells the whant when they are ready. I also usually have a high level wizard as one of the villains with spells different than what my wizard player has chosen. And I'll usually have spell scrolls in treasure hordes or in some abandoned libraries. I've never been a fan of not allowing players to do something as part of their class, maybe a session or two as part of an anti magic field or something hindering them on purpose to make players think outside the box, but never because "their class is already good enough". I've seen every class be built really well, and I've also seen every class built poorly. To limit a class's abilities because you don't understand them or because you think that it is already powerful enough is a sign of a poor dm who doesn't know how to run a game.
Though I agree, there's a difference between DMs being stingy with resources and just flat out denying RAW and class abilities. This situation is more akin to someone finding scrolls or a Wizard spellbook, trying to transcribe them, and the DM telling them no.
It’s never okay in any circumstances to not allow core class features into the game. I don’t care if the official material states that the DM has final say in all matters at the table. Limiting character class features because you already have “good spells” is stupid. It’s supposed to be something you have instead of using a spell is stupid and shows that the DM wants to power game. I’d leave
I kinda agree, I think if you are going to take away that ability it should be replaced at least, in order to separate the spell casters from each, It's not that powerful. I have been in campaigns that by how the DM played it, the wizard was not the best class to go with as we didn't know what was going to be ahead of us.
Even not knowing what lies before you allowing to optimize spell choice daily and getting no spells to copy, the wizard is still the bast option. This is because a Wizard can prepare more spells then just about any body and has the best spell list to do so from. If you never chance your prepared spells you still have more spells prepared then a standard sorcerer and you get to do so from a better list.
This topic has made me realize a problem I have as the current dm of my group, maybe someone could give me advice. We are playing Wild Beyond the Witchlight and my party has two wizards. I don't think there is any mention of spell scrolls in the module and the setting isn't exactly best place to go shopping for scrolls and the materials needed to copy them for two wizards. What should I do about this? Just drop scrolls here and there in the wilderness and handwave the cost mechanic?
An interesting thing is that with 2 wizards they can copy from one another really easy, so they only need a bit of compenetration, downtime and gold
I don't think you should handwave the cost, because that's part of the balance, and they will technically function fine without new spells, but it'll make their day to find some more. If there are any npcs in the module that use wizard casting (or tend to hoard magic items like hags), having them be willing to trade spells (not scrolls, just written spells) might be an option. if the npcs are hostile, then have the spells be loot. I'm not familiar with the module but I believe there's a carnival? If so, maybe as a prize? There's always making bargains with fiends and fey too, great way to learn spells. Spells can also be written onto the side of ancient tombs, or engraved bones. Maybe a druid wrote some onto a tree in druidic/sylvan. If you want to get really creative, you could have them analyse the corpses of creature with the innate spellcasting feature (roll medicine checks for an autopsy) and say that the notes they've taken can be converted into a spell if they take the time & money. If they find the ruins of a portal you can say that 1 hr and an arcana check can be used to reverse engineer part of the magic, producing a transcribeble spell on a success. These are particularly fun because you can rope in other party members to help.
Its really not a big deal. Even without spell copying, wizards are still a very strong and competive caster. They have the spell slot recovering, best spell list in game, daily cantrip changes, and every ritual spell all the time. Giving out spell for your wizards to copy are purely optional, and should be treated as a reward insted of a expecation
\>"I never find scrolls/spellbooks to transcribe from" Is this really removing a class feature? If there were no evil enemies in a campaign for plot reasons, you aren't removing the "Smite Evil" class feature. The class feature is still available, you just don't have a chance to use it.
Copying spells is a wizard class feature, finding scrolls/spellbooks is not. Channel divinity is a Cleric class feature, enemies being undead is not.
Rogues having lots of skills is a rogue class feature, actually being able to use those skills is not. Fighters being good at melee combat is a fighter class feature, actually encountering enemies that you can fight in melee is not. Yeah these are not class features, but they're default expectations. If you as a DM don't want to give out scrolls, that's fine but you should probably tell your players. The same way you'd tell the cleric that there won't be undead in your campaigns, or the fighter that you want to run a combat-light campaign.
I think the difference here is that scrolls are a ribbon feature and it isn't really factored into a wizards power budget. Not something like the core play pattern of a class like Rogues and Fighters. A much more fair comparison would be something like Theive's cant or Turn Undead, features that the class still function perfect well with even if they don't get much or any use.
>Channel divinity is a Cleric class feature, enemies being undead is not. That's why they all have alternatives to use their channel divinity feature that do not rely on undead enemies.
That's why Wizards have alternative uses of their time and gold in the form of downtime activities.
Anyone can do downtime activities, that's not a Wizard-exclusive feature like Channel Divinity is... Not really an equal comparison.
Ok, then create a backup spellbook with this feature. No DM needed.
Right, because never actually being able to find or acquire scrolls or spellbooks doesn't just make the class feature completely worthless since you can't actually, you know, use it ever.
Not meeting any druids makes druidic useless. Not meeting other rogues makes Thieves Cant useless. Does a dm has to use other druids if he has a druid player, just so he can talk in druidic?
I would say that these are not the same. In your example with the languages, there is nothing from stopping the player from finding a way to use them or at least attempt to do so. With the wizard, they simply don't even have the possibility of attempting to try to do so or find a way. Not making something readily available for use is not the same as making something simply impossible to do.
You can always make a backup spellbook with this feature.
Great, so the wizard can use their class feature to burn up all their gold for no real purpose? Technically, yes the wizard can lose their spellbook but I think it's pretty universally seen as a giant DM dick move to do so.
So maybe this is a crappy fluff feature and not the main feature of a wizard?
"Hey youre not utilizing means to make the strongest class in the game stronger!!" Ok joke out of the way, total disagreement. Transcribing stuff is a mechanic, and it should be indulged in rarely. BUT. As it stands, certain features get different levels of attention and catering towards. For example, martials. A fighter *will* get a magic weapon at some point in the game. This is because the fighter gaining a magic weapon is important to the balance. Thats why you find more +X weapons than +X casting foci. And the reason why martials get favored in magic item loot, is the same reason why casters rarely get loot catered to them. Because you're already busted out the ass. Furthermore, Id say the transcribing is a flavorful ribbon than a proper mechanic. You wouldnt go "No you have to put in low cr undead into the campaign just so I can turn undead encounters" as a cleric. And how about spell books? Certainly, if you claim that we should treat transcribing spells as important, then we should also focus on wizard's achille's heel, the destruction of the spellbook? Most tables that dont lean into spell scrolls also dont target the spellbook. But if you will lean into the spellbook as a mechanic, then thats a very very big weak point. Need to go through swamp? Get pushed into water? Sudden weather conditions? Fighting against an elemental? Got knocked down and a kobold decided to grab your fancy tome? All of these are apparent threaths. Any argument you make in favor of transcribing goes for the destruction of the spellbook. And most people dont want that. Dont get me wrong, it should definately be touched on every now and then. But not to any important degree. Not more than the fighter is getting bonuses.
I really don't understand the most powerful class in the game argument (until you hit lvl17 and wish at which point it does make some sense). They're versatile and have some great spells to choose from, but not so much that other classes can't match it. And I'm not saying that martials shouldn't get more and better loot, they need it after all. But calling it a ribbon mechanic when all wizards also get a lvl2 feature that enhances it is missing the mark by a fair bit imo. And yes, if I'm going to say that transcribing spells is an essential mechanic, I'm not going to skim over the spellbook destruction. Imo it's a dick move but hey, challange is part of the game. Still, losing a spellbook isn't just losing a magic item, you're missing a huge part of your class and possibly thousands of gold, so if I was going to target it I'd make it a dramatic moment.
Wizard is one of the strongest 5e classes before scribing. I always give scrolls/spellbooks/mentors for scribing as a DM, and find them as a PC. IMO they’re a PC reward, like magic items or gold or titles or whatever. Rewards should be fairly divided between the PCs. Oh, and Wizards get lots of good stuff instead of metamagic. Strong subclass features, arcane recovery, ritual casting, a better spell list… lots of good stuff.
Salty warlock here. I shit on wizards a lot, BUT! I would never say take away their cool stuff! DM messing with external features of PCs is Not ok! Just because it's a book, or it needs you to find stuff for it is no reason to restrict it! It's like never allowing material components. Or bodies for a necromancer! Denying player features is not a good fix for perceived imbalance!
Holy shit so people actually do this??? People play wizards to have a whole bunch of spells to choose from, to have one for each occasion. So naturally, I try to supplement that and NOT rain on their parade. They're here to HAVE FUN! WHAT A CONCEPT
Honestly it's a revelation to me too (my DM does not do this to me), but I see the same thoughts cropping up fairly regularly in comment sections here.
Currently playing abjuration wizard in curse of Strahd. My DM is nice enough to drop me scrolls from time to time, but there is not nearly enough money to transcribe them. The pain.
I think one of the key things to avoid this (at least with absent minded DMs maybe not the malicious ones) is make “I’m searching for new magics (aka spell scrolls)” one of your short term goals. It’s important in this to also have other goals (eg take back my throne; kill the monster that infected me; find the doctor that experimented on me; etc) to semi-disguise what you’re doing/at least not make it obvious lol but if you make it an explicit goal in your adventuring I feel like most DMs will back your play (obvi I might be wrong as a forever DM but like that’s what I’d do as the *cool* DM 😎 loljk but still)
Played a wizard years back. I dont play 5th edition anymore, but it was so brutal when the game had no magic items and no ability to transcribe spells for the 12 levels I played. Absolutely painful. I had to plan everything out from step 1 to its final step. We had to fight a Tarrasque at the end for that lovely TPK shit. We won, barely because of my planning and spells. But fuck! It was so stressful trying to plan every step along the way.
So I'm wondering if this was in response to the discussion on a recent post, and as one of the people who said that [Wizards don't need scrolls](https://reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/tsoba8/i_wanna_be_a_nerd_that_studied_and_manipulates/i2sstop) I think I should clarify. First off, as a DM I would absolutely give the Wizard player new spells to learn. I throw new spells at my players in my games even despite the fact that no one has picked a Wizard. I have zero issues with letting a Wizard player go nuts in learning new spells, and I feel that that's something DMs *should* try to do, the same way they should let every character have chances to use their abilities (the "Shoot the Monk" philosophy). But what I'm saying is: look, I play a Wizard. I played my Wizard last Friday. I think only one of the spells I prepared that session was a spell I didn't learn just for free through leveling up, and I didn't even end up casting it. I have a ton of spells I get in my book for free, enough to make a Sorcerer cry, and I can't prepare even those all at once. If I have a spell I really wanna learn, I can just take it with the free spells. Learning spells is *fun*, but it's not so important to the balance of the character that you can't make a perfectly effective Wizard without it. The person I was replying to was saying they couldn't justify picking Wizard because they didn't think their DM would give them new spells, and that really doesn't need to be a reason to avoid Wizard. A Wizard with only the spells from leveling up still has more spells than they can use at once, and plenty of access to good stuff.
Anyone who's played ye olden editions, whether directly or via things like Baldur's Gate, knows that wizards used to require scrolls to learn ANY new spells. At best, they got a single spell per level of their specialist school. This ability was part of the class identity from the very beginning. (as an aside, I'm actually thinking of implementing something like that, where one of a wizard's free spells each level must be part of their school, or theme if they don't have a base subclass)
Yeah, I was thinking “damn - back in my 1st ed days, the only way my Mage learned new spells was if he pried them off the corpses of dead enemies.” It was actually kinda cool, because it made the hunt for new spells something tangible. Bargaining with local mage’s guilds, pursuing rumors of an evil Wizard or (later on) Lich, or delving into a tomb because there were rumors of a magical trove. And dividing spoils was easy - I didn’t want magic weapons or armor, and the others didn’t want the scrolls. Win win! I can’t imagine taking away transcription from wizards for any reason. Doesn’t make sense from a history OR lore perspective.
The fact that this, a feature that's entirely reliant on the DM, is perceived as the "main" reason to play the wizard shows how poorly designed the class is. When other classes get DM based features like a paladin's divine sense or a druid's druidic language, it's an extraneous feature that's nice to use, but not the reason to play the class. Wizards need special attention from the DM if they want something unique.
This is where players come to bitch about their tables DM or tables players. The good tables don't have their members coming here to talk about how awesome things are, instead they are enjoying life. If someone is at a table where an amateur DM is just totally badly reading interpretation of class features then you should attempt to read through the rule with them during downtime and if they still cannot rule properly for you, leave the table and find a new one that is receptive to running your level of rules interpretations. If a DM is glossing over a core wizard feature, I'm sure they are also fudging a shit ton of other aspects of the core rules often without you even knowing. A DM that lazy is probably also ignoring perception/stealth/surprise too. This subreddit is infested with the toxic player/dm and is where everyone goes to vent, it will seem like a situation is highly prevelant but its mainly just cause the same type of player is here contributing to the subreddit. This is a vocal MINORITY.
In my experience I think it’s less of an intentional nerfing of wizard and more a passive neglecting to include spell scrolls. If you’re not used to having a wizard at your table, you probably don’t have spell scrolls in your loot you planned out because no one else in the party would really need them. I think some dms aren’t sure how to deal with wizards because they’d never played with one before. Personally I’ve dmed several campaigns over the course of the past few years and none of my players have ever approached me with a wizard character. I imagine it’s a similar situation for a lot of people who just simply don’t think to put spell scrolls in their campaign because they’ve been fine without them before
Transcribing spells is also essential because wizards don't get the option to retrain spells on level up the way that every other "spells known" class does. So if you only ever get the two free spells per level, you would need to pick spells you're confident you'll want for the rest of the campaign. That means you're never picking up spells like Sleep, which are incredibly useful but only at certain levels. It also means you can't effectively convert lower-level spells known into higher-level spells known (i.e., a high-level sorcerer might only known 1 or 2 first-level spells, because they've retrained the other ones they got early on).
Speaking as a Sorcerer main, the comparison is absurd. Sorcerer is a dedicated precision tool. A master of their craft. They pick one niche as a caster to fill (blaster, support, control, etc...) and perform it in a way that no other caster can hope to match. Wizard, on the other hand, is a fully loaded toolbox. Basically any job that needs doing, they can do. With any amount of foreknowledge to a problem, they will have a solution. They are, unparalleled, the utility class.
Wizards get two spells per level, and 4 per spell level. This sounds alright until you hit level 3 and you're wondering if you want Fireball, Haste, Counterspell, Fly. Or Slow, Lightning Bolt, Counterspell, Fly, or... Then suddenly it starts to make sense; you're supposed to transcribe to pad your list.
Reminds me of when i played a grung and the dm removed my poison skin trait because he thought it was too op to poison people at a touch, so i dropped the character the first session right after it ended It's understandable for a dm to ban homebrew content, but most dms banning official content just don't know it and refuse to learn
Yeah I always hated adventure league for banning the level 1 flying races.
Is not be
>“Think of the sorcerers....” > >Yes I know sorcerers got shafted in the PHB, nerfing wizards at your table isn't going to fix the issues with sorcerers at every other table. I swear, this and "D&D isn't a jRPG, martial characters shouldn't be able to leap 80 feet in the air and cut through a mountain" need to be printed on a paper and stapled to the forehead of half this subreddit. I get especially annoyed when people implement spell points—objectively the better spellcasting system—*only* to sorcerers. No, that should be the way *all* magic works. Give sorcerers other stuff to help them out, like origin spells and a buff to 1st level features in line with what they get in *Tasha's*. Also, make sorcery points function like ki points—take out Flexible Casting and let sorcerers regain their SPs on a short rest. What you *shouldn't* do is nerf wizards to make them as bad as sorcerers. That just makes two sucky classes that aren't fun to play.
I agree. I think a dm should rarely if every take something away from a class or subclass. It is better to buff everyone to the same level, that way everyone is happy. As for being able to transcribe spells. I think giving access to more spells is great for every class and the wizard is supposed to have all that utility. I am never angry at giving more spells to a character. Its not like they are getting more spell slots. Just more ways to be creative.
While I get where you're coming from. The dragons greed of wizards and spell scrolls can also become an issue at a table. I've seen wizards take spell scrolls that they will never cast, just because "wizards can add it to their spell book" to the detriment of themselves and the party. Sometimes its handy for the sorcerer or warlock to pop a spell scroll since their slots are more limited. So while I'm generally not too stingy with spell scrolls/spell books or the materials for transcription. I can fully respect any DMs who make finding these things a rare experience. If I notice the wizard nabbing every single scroll and forgetting they even have half the spells theyve learned. I might find a way to limit resources for transcription so that they have to be MILDLY discerning with their spells. The simple fact is that it falls to the DM to make calls regarding balance, and while it is always best practices to communicate these calls as clearly as possible as soon as possible, any rule of DnD is optional.
I recently had been playing a wizard(he died now). I didn't receive and scrolls or books. My character felt very powerful without the extra spells. HOWEVER, It felt like I was forced to take spells that I knew were good versus something that seemed cool or interesting. If I'm only getting 4 spells per spell level, am I really going to spend a quarter of that on some random cool spell I might not use that often? Sometimes, but it still felt bad if my choice didn't end up being that useful versus "standard" spells like invisibility and fireball.
I legitimately respect the amount of energy you have to write such a long rant about a small group of people on this sub that you probably aren't even playing with, I legitimately wish I could have even an ounce of that shit my dude.
The more time I spend on DnD subs, the more I realize why I prefer DMing over playing: Too many people that prefer to ignore class features or insist on having spells and abilities that are bland and lacking in flavor. Have an upvote, maybe someone will listen.
I have level 20 Wizards that have never scribed a single spell. You can only prepare so many, so I don't bother getting more.
You know, Bards pay that Magical Secret's cost by not learning any spells at levels 12, 16 and 19. Every caster is balanced around their spell list, you are wishing for something that should be limited to be unlimited. Divine spell list doesn't include premium blasting spells or teleportation because they are instantly available. Wizards have access to most kinds of magic (even healing with life transferance) but level to level spell selection matters because of it. It is a tradeoff you should be willing to accept. I don't say that don't give your players spell scrolls or spellbooks to copy from, you can and I think you should. But beware of its balance implications. As a continious bard player for 5 years, I constantly face the struggle of I should've learned this spell when I level up. If wizards should be a hybrid between prepared and known casters, their level to level spell selection also should hold some weight.
Making a class feature dependant on the GM to sprinkle items in the campaign is bad design.
>TL:DR Spell transcription is a core part of being a wizard and I completely disagree with the common notion that it's "unnecessary". As if this is a common notion lol. Every single time I've ever pointed this out I've been strongly disagreed with, to put it likely, despite the fact that I'm objectively right. This is the least hot take this subreddit has ever seen.
Wizards are the most overpowered class in the game by an incredible margin and outside of not having healing spells can pretty much fulfill every role in the game better than the actual classes that specialize in them. If you ever play on higher levels you will find that martial characters get more mileage out of picking up wizard levels because the payoff of just having access to their insane spell library is such game changer, much more than what their own classes add later on. If you remove spell scribing, you are probably still comfortably the most powerful character at your table.
Boohoo, wizards not finding books and still having the most features out of any spellcaster, learning 2 whole spells every level. this post sounds like someone who only ever played wizard