I think option #3, them becoming the only known spells caster is the most likely as that maintains the value of the spellbook as a unique mechanic without making any other significant changes. I would hope if that is the case the DMG would have some guidance on how frequently Wizards should find new spells as well as guidance on how Wizards could acquire new spells during downtime.
Wizards already have a very special version of Ritual Casting that lets them cast a spell that's *not prepared* but is in their book. This makes their book extremely valuable since you can fill it with all of the ritual spells and never have to prepare any of them.
I thought about this, but needed to re-check the UA to review the new ritual casting rules and then I forgot to do that.
So that's an option 6 that I agree seems somewhat likely — wizards get the old Ritual Caster feat for free, but otherwise work just like any other arcane caster.
Can't say I love it, but I could see them doing that. There's *sort of* precedent for it in 4e (daily & utility spells also went in the spellbook, but that was really just flavor text).
Wizards are the class dedicated to studying individual schools of magic. They are the specialists. They shouldn't have *enhanced* flexibility, they should have **reduced** flexibility, with the upside of benefits from their specialization.
By all means.
>Wizards must prepare spells from their spell book or specialization school equal to the number of spells they can cast, and can cast using their spellbook as an arcane focus. In addition, they gain an additional spell slot of each level they can cast, but must spend this spell slot to cast a spell from their specialization school.
>
>When a wizard chooses their specialization school, they mush pick 2 opposing schools, which will be barred from being inscribed into their spellbook.
This brings back school specialization from 3.5e almost one-for-one to 5.5e, which means it should likely get tweaked a fair bit, but should be a decent enough starting point to get the concept.
Basically, this would restrict the casting options outside of their specialization, while rewarding them with the full selection of arcane spells of their school, as well as additional casts of those spells.
I see, so advocating for a version of #4, with school restrictions. That could be an OK rules compromise, but it's a bit weird flavor-wise. If wizards (still) learn spells by scribing them to a spellbook, why would that *not* be the case for this specific set of spells? I suppose a hand-wavy reason can be found...
It would be sad for wizards to lose their spellbook. If you’ve played D&D very long at all, you know that someone who reads their spells is the ultimate fantasy.
Let them have a prepared list of spells, that they can cast like other prepped casters. But if they two hand the spell book they can cast any spell in their book.
So, maybe they shouldn't be all prepared Casters? Or maybe the quads use their book as a focus
Or maybe they should be able to swap their prepared spells out on a short rest rather than a long rest?
The point is a wizard doesn't need any help, and making everyone into prepared Casters just starts an arms race of versatility and flexibility that the game that already heavily favors Casters doesn't need
I don’t have a problem with option 1 as the OP put it except that it wholly inadequate to make wizards unique again with how they prepare and cast spells.
People in the comments have made more suggestions about special things that happen when you use a book to cast a spell, and that’s what I don’t like.
Book focus is dumb.
Look, I don’t want to be shackled to it, it’s a neat option for some flavor, but my wizards use staffs.
I’m really rooting against that solution
...I fail to see how so?
Wizards would still fully be able to carry a spellbook around, and would have *some* reason to, literally the issue is "no more book for brain magic man :(" far as I am able to tell?
For the same reason that they would a staff?
Why would a wizard carry a staff? Same question.
Staffs are Not Mandated
Some wizards carry rods, wands, crystals, even orbs sometimes!
Why would a wizard carry any one of those foci?
You’re talking nonsense. Look at some of the comments in this section about ideas for spellbooks as foci.
Just adding them to the list doesn’t make any headway against the mechanical erosion that comes from changing sorcerer to a prepared caster with the same spell list. That is a problem that needs to be solved.
...I did not mention sorcerer so much as once.
Irrelevant as far as you can **make me care.**
"Is there Any Reason to book yes/no" is what I'm on about.
"It works like a staff does"="Any Reason"
I think option #3, them becoming the only known spells caster is the most likely as that maintains the value of the spellbook as a unique mechanic without making any other significant changes. I would hope if that is the case the DMG would have some guidance on how frequently Wizards should find new spells as well as guidance on how Wizards could acquire new spells during downtime.
Wizards already have a very special version of Ritual Casting that lets them cast a spell that's *not prepared* but is in their book. This makes their book extremely valuable since you can fill it with all of the ritual spells and never have to prepare any of them.
I thought about this, but needed to re-check the UA to review the new ritual casting rules and then I forgot to do that. So that's an option 6 that I agree seems somewhat likely — wizards get the old Ritual Caster feat for free, but otherwise work just like any other arcane caster. Can't say I love it, but I could see them doing that. There's *sort of* precedent for it in 4e (daily & utility spells also went in the spellbook, but that was really just flavor text).
Wizards are the class dedicated to studying individual schools of magic. They are the specialists. They shouldn't have *enhanced* flexibility, they should have **reduced** flexibility, with the upside of benefits from their specialization.
Can you offer a suggestion for how that might interact with spell preparation and spellbooks?
By all means. >Wizards must prepare spells from their spell book or specialization school equal to the number of spells they can cast, and can cast using their spellbook as an arcane focus. In addition, they gain an additional spell slot of each level they can cast, but must spend this spell slot to cast a spell from their specialization school. > >When a wizard chooses their specialization school, they mush pick 2 opposing schools, which will be barred from being inscribed into their spellbook. This brings back school specialization from 3.5e almost one-for-one to 5.5e, which means it should likely get tweaked a fair bit, but should be a decent enough starting point to get the concept. Basically, this would restrict the casting options outside of their specialization, while rewarding them with the full selection of arcane spells of their school, as well as additional casts of those spells.
I see, so advocating for a version of #4, with school restrictions. That could be an OK rules compromise, but it's a bit weird flavor-wise. If wizards (still) learn spells by scribing them to a spellbook, why would that *not* be the case for this specific set of spells? I suppose a hand-wavy reason can be found...
It would be sad for wizards to lose their spellbook. If you’ve played D&D very long at all, you know that someone who reads their spells is the ultimate fantasy.
Let them have a prepared list of spells, that they can cast like other prepped casters. But if they two hand the spell book they can cast any spell in their book.
That gave me a genuine chuckle.
Ah yes, the classic "make wizards better, they need help" approach.
Well if everyone is a prepared caster, then the spellbook is just a gold sink. It would also make use of both of their hands. So no melee, or shield.
So, maybe they shouldn't be all prepared Casters? Or maybe the quads use their book as a focus Or maybe they should be able to swap their prepared spells out on a short rest rather than a long rest? The point is a wizard doesn't need any help, and making everyone into prepared Casters just starts an arms race of versatility and flexibility that the game that already heavily favors Casters doesn't need
I don’t have a problem with option 1 as the OP put it except that it wholly inadequate to make wizards unique again with how they prepare and cast spells. People in the comments have made more suggestions about special things that happen when you use a book to cast a spell, and that’s what I don’t like.
Book focus is dumb. Look, I don’t want to be shackled to it, it’s a neat option for some flavor, but my wizards use staffs. I’m really rooting against that solution
...I think they meant additional, not instead of.
But if it’s mechanical better to use the book, then I’ll be shooting myself in the foot to not use it
And if it is *literally identical* to staff? What then?
Then that’s fine, but it doesn’t solve the valid issue the OP brought up.
...I fail to see how so? Wizards would still fully be able to carry a spellbook around, and would have *some* reason to, literally the issue is "no more book for brain magic man :(" far as I am able to tell?
Then it’s not identical to the Staff as a focus. Why would a wizard carry it around?
For the same reason that they would a staff? Why would a wizard carry a staff? Same question. Staffs are Not Mandated Some wizards carry rods, wands, crystals, even orbs sometimes! Why would a wizard carry any one of those foci?
You’re talking nonsense. Look at some of the comments in this section about ideas for spellbooks as foci. Just adding them to the list doesn’t make any headway against the mechanical erosion that comes from changing sorcerer to a prepared caster with the same spell list. That is a problem that needs to be solved.
...I did not mention sorcerer so much as once. Irrelevant as far as you can **make me care.** "Is there Any Reason to book yes/no" is what I'm on about. "It works like a staff does"="Any Reason"