Wizard Spells and Spellbooks

[ELLIOTTS22]

While it is cool to be able to copy any spell from a scroll, it feels weird allowing wizards to learn cure wounds and other cleric, druid and bard spells from scrolls.

Also, when fighting enemy spellcasters, it would be cool if they had physical spell books they dropped that you could learn new spells from. Or even having a physical book yourself so you could share spells with Gale or other PC wizards.

[Tuco]

It's one of these weird things in the game that pretty much anyone started laughing off as an "obvious bug/oversight of EA" and then Larian completely refused to address for more than two years, so now someone is starting to worry about the fact it could be an (awful) intended feature.

[RhodosGuard]

Because Wizards are the most boring Spellcasters, especially when limited to level 4.

If they could only learn Wizard spells from scrolls, a lot of people would probably not play them.

One of the main features of the dedicated school is reduced Spell-learning cost, so they want people to utilize that feature more often than not.
Since you learn spells on level up, and some spells are probably not even available as a scroll, it would be a most boring feature, if it was limited to Wizard Spells only.
Especially since you dont even gain new Spellslots for Extra spells, so people would be like "If I wanted this spell and prepare it, I'd have learned it at level up"

I dont know whether they'll remove that or not, but I think it gives Wizards a way more exciting role as a spellcaster, because they can replace aspects of other spellcasters so you can specialize those spellcasters more.
If Gale knows Guiding Bolt, then you dont neccessarily need it on SH, if you give him a healing spell you can give SH Inflict wounds. Especially since Wizards have no Bonus Actions. So a Healing Word is kinda optimal.

In total it makes Wizards more Versatile.
Gale with Flame Blade, Mage Armor, Burning Hands and Thunderwave is kinda fun to watch in Melee.

[Quillithe]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Tuco:

It's one of these weird things in the game that pretty much anyone started laughing off as an "obvious bug/oversight of EA" and then Larian completely refused to address for more than two years, so now someone is starting to worry about the fact it could be an (awful) intended feature.

Agree, not sure why this is still in game.

Same with everyone using scrolls - I'm fine with the scroll of revivify being a special exception since death in crpgs is a bit different from death in tabletop, but everything else? Nah.

[RhodosGuard]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quillithe:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Tuco:

It's one of these weird things in the game that pretty much anyone started laughing off as an "obvious bug/oversight of EA" and then Larian completely refused to address for more than two years, so now someone is starting to worry about the fact it could be an (awful) intended feature.

Agree, not sure why this is still in game.

Same with everyone using scrolls - I'm fine with the scroll of revivify being a special exception since death in crpgs is a bit different from death in tabletop, but everything else? Nah.

Because it's a core Wizard class feature.

As I already said, without this feature Wizards would feel way worse to play. Without scrolls you'd need a bit of metagaming to account for certain situations (like missing silence when fighting Gut, or missing Silence when trying to tear down the wall in the goblin camp)

They could reduce the amount of scrolls. I mean, I barely, if at all, use them. I use them to learn spells on Wizards. I use Silence Scrolls mostly. If there are Fog Cloud Scrolls, I use them for the Arcane turrets, even though Arrows of Darkness have the same effect.

I dunno what the alternative would be. To only have Scrolls drop at very specific points so they are "big rewards" for exploration? That would be a bit weird for people who dont use gale, and don't know why a "Scroll of Guiding Bolt" is the reward for exploring the map.

I just think removing all scrolls is a bit stupid.
Removing the Wizards ability to learn Spells outside of the Wizard class would be fine, it be the same as 5e then, but also removes that extra bit of Versatility that makes Wizards more exciting to play than other spellcasters.

[Quillithe]

Początkowo opublikowane przez RhodosGuard:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quillithe:

Agree, not sure why this is still in game.

Same with everyone using scrolls - I'm fine with the scroll of revivify being a special exception since death in crpgs is a bit different from death in tabletop, but everything else? Nah.

Because it's a core Wizard class feature.

As I already said, without this feature Wizards would feel way worse to play. Without scrolls you'd need a bit of metagaming to account for certain situations (like missing silence when fighting Gut, or missing Silence when trying to tear down the wall in the goblin camp)

They could reduce the amount of scrolls. I mean, I barely, if at all, use them. I use them to learn spells on Wizards. I use Silence Scrolls mostly. If there are Fog Cloud Scrolls, I use them for the Arcane turrets, even though Arrows of Darkness have the same effect.

I dunno what the alternative would be. To only have Scrolls drop at very specific points so they are "big rewards" for exploration? That would be a bit weird for people who dont use gale, and don't know why a "Scroll of Guiding Bolt" is the reward for exploring the map.

I just think removing all scrolls is a bit stupid.
Removing the Wizards ability to learn Spells outside of the Wizard class would be fine, it be the same as 5e then, but also removes that extra bit of Versatility that makes Wizards more exciting to play than other spellcasters.

I don't think I'd call a rule Larian made up for this game a 'core class feature', and plenty of people play wizards in tabletop 5E without it.

[RhodosGuard]

"A rule Larian made up"

From the Wizard Entry in PHB:

You could discover a spell recorded on a scroll in an evil wizard’s chest, for example, or in a dusty tome in an ancient library.

Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.

So the only inaccurate things are:
Learning Cantrips
Learning non-Wizard Spells

[Quillithe]

Początkowo opublikowane przez RhodosGuard:

"A rule Larian made up"

From the Wizard Entry in PHB:

You could discover a spell recorded on a scroll in an evil wizard’s chest, for example, or in a dusty tome in an ancient library.

Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.

So the only inaccurate things are:
Learning Cantrips
Learning non-Wizard Spells

Yes.

That's the topic of this thread.

Though personally, I don't really mind them learning cantrips, that's not a huge deal imo.

[RhodosGuard]

That's why I literally adressed why I like Wizards learning other class spells?

I also said it's fine if they remove it, but it would remove a lot of the versatility that actually make the class enjoyable in contrast to how bland I think Wizards are with only Wizard Spells.

I also said that this is especially obvious while they are limited to level 4, where they gain 1 feature for their school, and out of the available scholls we even get to pick, Abjuration is clearly the more appealing option, because it's 12 temp HP from casting Mage Armor every long rest. A feature that scales with level while evocation doesnt come into it's own until you get Fireball or Lightning Bolt.
So this, maybe unintended, feature spices up Wizards a bit, as to where I'd say they're almost as fun to play as Sorcerers.

I have not seen a very stable argument as to why this is bad btw.
the original post said "it feels weird" while you and the other guys just said it's "awful"

Do you think Wizards are too strong because of it? Or is it just something you disagree with because it conflicts with 5e's ruling?

The reason this doesnt come up in irl campaigns all that much is because

1. Wizard is not really a popular class
2. DMs, at least the ones I play with, do not often put scrolls out as loot. (which is highly subjective but whatevs, maybe they'd do it more if more people played wizard (haha funny, because nobody plays wizard (all jokes become more funny if you explain them)))

[Quillithe]

Początkowo opublikowane przez RhodosGuard:

That's why I literally adressed why I like Wizards learning other class spells?

I also said it's fine if they remove it, but it would remove a lot of the versatility that actually make the class enjoyable in contrast to how bland I think Wizards are with only Wizard Spells.

I also said that this is especially obvious while they are limited to level 4, where they gain 1 feature for their school, and out of the available scholls we even get to pick, Abjuration is clearly the more appealing option, because it's 12 temp HP from casting Mage Armor every long rest. A feature that scales with level while evocation doesnt come into it's own until you get Fireball or Lightning Bolt.
So this, maybe unintended, feature spices up Wizards a bit, as to where I'd say they're almost as fun to play as Sorcerers.

I have not seen a very stable argument as to why this is bad btw.
the original post said "it feels weird" while you and the other guys just said it's "awful"

Do you think Wizards are too strong because of it? Or is it just something you disagree with because it conflicts with 5e's ruling?

The reason this doesnt come up in irl campaigns all that much is because

1. Wizard is not really a popular class
2. DMs, at least the ones I play with, do not often put scrolls out as loot. (which is highly subjective but whatevs, maybe they'd do it more if more people played wizard (haha funny, because nobody plays wizard (all jokes become more funny if you explain them)))

I don't think I'd call a rule Larian made up for this game a 'core class feature', and plenty of people play wizards in tabletop 5E without it.

It's one of the more popular classes, beating out Sorcerer.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/07/dd-and-the-most-popular-class-is.html

It detracts from class uniqueness, which is bad.

[RhodosGuard]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quillithe:

Początkowo opublikowane przez RhodosGuard:

That's why I literally adressed why I like Wizards learning other class spells?

I also said it's fine if they remove it, but it would remove a lot of the versatility that actually make the class enjoyable in contrast to how bland I think Wizards are with only Wizard Spells.

I also said that this is especially obvious while they are limited to level 4, where they gain 1 feature for their school, and out of the available scholls we even get to pick, Abjuration is clearly the more appealing option, because it's 12 temp HP from casting Mage Armor every long rest. A feature that scales with level while evocation doesnt come into it's own until you get Fireball or Lightning Bolt.
So this, maybe unintended, feature spices up Wizards a bit, as to where I'd say they're almost as fun to play as Sorcerers.

I have not seen a very stable argument as to why this is bad btw.
the original post said "it feels weird" while you and the other guys just said it's "awful"

Do you think Wizards are too strong because of it? Or is it just something you disagree with because it conflicts with 5e's ruling?

The reason this doesnt come up in irl campaigns all that much is because

1. Wizard is not really a popular class
2. DMs, at least the ones I play with, do not often put scrolls out as loot. (which is highly subjective but whatevs, maybe they'd do it more if more people played wizard (haha funny, because nobody plays wizard (all jokes become more funny if you explain them)))

I don't think I'd call a rule Larian made up for this game a 'core class feature', and plenty of people play wizards in tabletop 5E without it.

It's one of the more popular classes, beating out Sorcerer.

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/07/dd-and-the-most-popular-class-is.html

It detracts from class uniqueness, which is bad.

You mean the kind of uniqueness that allows only a singular class to opt into spells outside it's own class? (through a feature instead of a feat)

I think that's more of an argument to my advantage.
Classes are not entirely defined by their spells, but also by how they acquire them, how often they can change them, and how often they can change their prepared spells.

I dont think Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers (who in large part seem to share the Wizard Spell Pool btw) or Warlocks lose out in Uniqueness because a Wizard can learn a spell if a scroll of it exists, because Wizards cannot utilize these other classes features, which are way more class defining than spells.

It also seems possible to learn feats that practically do similar things.
Does taking "Metamagic Adept" take away from a Sorcerers Class uniqueness?
Or any of the "Magic Initiate" feats?

That's apart from the fact that some spells are not available as scrolls, or I havent seen them.
I also dont see the uniqueness in Spells like "Flame Blade" or why that should only be available to Druids. I think in fact they would quite well fit with Light Domain Clerics.
Or "Goodberry" it literally just summons berries.
Aren't Wizards supposed to be the "educated" Spellcasters? Who learn Spells through training? Of course that means that spells that are uniquely bound to gods, or Warlock Patrons, or Bloodlines should not be learnable, but such spells should also just not exist as scrolls.

After all, it's quite the logical process:
Wizards use their Spellbooks to cast spells.
Spells are written into the spellbook by transcribing the way they work from a scroll into the spellbook, so it makes sense, that if a spell can be transcribed and modified to be castable from a scroll, it should be transcribable into a spellbook, after all it's basically a matter of making a page within your spellbook represent a reusable scroll.

[Quillithe]

Sure, if that was how the D&D magic system worked and there wasn't a substantial difference between magic based on its source. And if that was how scrolls worked.

[RhodosGuard]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quillithe:

Sure, if that was how the D&D magic system worked and there wasn't a substantial difference between magic based on its source. And if that was how scrolls worked.

I dunno what to tell you.
That BG3 is already not a 100% representation of DnD?
That it doesnt have to be?
That not everyone who will play BG3 will know DnD or play it purely because it's based on it?

In the end, a Sorcer uses a different source of power for his casting of Fireball, but in the end, it's the same Fireball a Wizard throws, that a Light Domain Cleric can throw.

You can quote as much of the ancient magic as you want, even if you were there when they were written, it doesnt mean they are immutable.

Guess you also only play RAW.

[Quillithe]

Początkowo opublikowane przez RhodosGuard:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quillithe:

Sure, if that was how the D&D magic system worked and there wasn't a substantial difference between magic based on its source. And if that was how scrolls worked.

I dunno what to tell you.
That BG3 is already not a 100% representation of DnD?
That it doesnt have to be?
That not everyone who will play BG3 will know DnD or play it purely because it's based on it?

In the end, a Sorcer uses a different source of power for his casting of Fireball, but in the end, it's the same Fireball a Wizard throws, that a Light Domain Cleric can throw.

You can quote as much of the ancient magic as you want, even if you were there when they were written, it doesnt mean they are immutable.

Guess you also only play RAW.

Why change the rules for no reason though?

Good reasons to not have wizard cast divine spells (keep divine casters useful)

No good reasons to have wizard cast divine spells.

[RhodosGuard]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quillithe:

Początkowo opublikowane przez RhodosGuard:

I dunno what to tell you.
That BG3 is already not a 100% representation of DnD?
That it doesnt have to be?
That not everyone who will play BG3 will know DnD or play it purely because it's based on it?

In the end, a Sorcer uses a different source of power for his casting of Fireball, but in the end, it's the same Fireball a Wizard throws, that a Light Domain Cleric can throw.

You can quote as much of the ancient magic as you want, even if you were there when they were written, it doesnt mean they are immutable.

Guess you also only play RAW.

Why change the rules for no reason though?

Good reasons to not have wizard cast divine spells (keep divine casters useful)

No good reasons to have wizard cast divine spells.

So a Divine Caster loses their entire worth and usefullness because of a Wizard being able to cast Healing Word or Guiding Bolt?
Maybe Inflict Wounds, but that's melee so why would you?

Also a divine caster still has their Domain stuff. Can't learn "pass without trace" or "Invoke Duplicity" or "Radiance of the Dawn"

The problem with your argument is that Divine Casters are useful or else people would replace SH with Gale, and I think there is a reason they do not.

[dolby]

Początkowo opublikowane przez RhodosGuard:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Quillithe:

Why change the rules for no reason though?

Good reasons to not have wizard cast divine spells (keep divine casters useful)

No good reasons to have wizard cast divine spells.

So a Divine Caster loses their entire worth and usefullness because of a Wizard being able to cast Healing Word or Guiding Bolt?
Maybe Inflict Wounds, but that's melee so why would you?

Also a divine caster still has their Domain stuff. Can't learn "pass without trace" or "Invoke Duplicity" or "Radiance of the Dawn"

The problem with your argument is that Divine Casters are useful or else people would replace SH with Gale, and I think there is a reason they do not.

Fine lets remove all normal spells from casters...
Here this exaggeration will show you how wrong you are.

Lets give ability to learn and use scrolls to figther only. Should be fine with your logice right, casters still have their subclasses spells and class fetures.. and we need them for those right?? lol... DUde you have no clue what you are talking about.


IF you have class system uses classes as they are simple.

If you have none fine as well, We don't have classes? no big deal it worked fine in dos 2...

But to have this hybrid mutations is just stupid and just shows that the one making this system doesn't have the balls to stand behind their design choices and believes.,

Not to mention this makes bards class features where they can learn a small number spells from other classes completely useless in comparison.

It's like no one ever played or looked at dnd at larians... i played it one time and i know about that class feature Magical Secrets and and how limited it is compared to what they did here.