Talk:Prepared Spellcaster (5e Feat)
From D&D Wiki
I don't think that this feat is game breaking by any means. It requires a high intelligence in order to take meaning that the player has to be dedicated to the wizard class and likely high level in order to take this feat. Furthermore, I disagree with the concept that preparing spells is a core aspect of playing a wizard, or at least having a limit on the amount you can prepare. My party members and I have never made a big deal out of preparing spells beyond occasionally using the prepared spell limit in game, but we never actually take time to describe characters preparing spells or anything like that. We never focus on it other than simply saying that's the number of spells you can cast for the day, which brings me to the purpose of this feat. Wizards are supposed to know a lot of spells. That's what sets them apart from other spell casting classes. So I see no reason why a smart or high level wizard shouldn't be able to memorize their spell book and have access to their full list and be able to utilize all of those spells. That wouldn't make the player too strong because it's not like they have more spell slots. They can't cast more spells, they just have more options. Options that they already had in a way because they know the spell, it's in their book, so why wouldn't they know how to cast it and be able to. That's why I think this feat is fitting for the Wizard class. I think it works from a roleplaying perspective. If there's a high level, high intelligence wizard who is really smart and studies their spell book a lot or has practiced magic for a long time, then why wouldn't they have it's contents memorized and ready to cast at all times —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gafdalthegrey (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.
- It is a question of versatility. Magic and magic-users are already incredibly powerful. One of the limits on that power is that they are forced to choose what to use it for, forgoing certain options in favor of others. If you want to prevent yourself and your allies from taking fall damage, you prepare Featherfall, but having prepared Featherfall you cannot prepare, say, Magic Missile. You may do as you like at your own table, but this wiki's contents are not meant solely for your table - they are meant for all tables, and this feat disrupts the tenuous check on a caster's power that is the requirement to prepare spells. Furthermore, steep requirements for a feat do not and have never equated to balance - implying otherwise is a fallacy. I would also note that a wizard's ability to 'know a lot of spells', as you put it, is represented by the fact that they lack any sort of cap on their known spells and can freely learn them from scrolls and suchlike, and thus a feat is not necessary to represent that aspect. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2024 (MDT)
- I'm tired of this from you. You're right, this wikis contents are meant to be applicable to everyone's tables, that means not just yours too. Just because you think something is unbalanced doesn't mean other people do too. Just because you wouldn't allow it at your table doesn't mean that no other DM would. I've said before, nobody on this site is a ruling authority on what's balanced in D&D. Other people might think it's fine. That's why the content should stay on here as is so people know about it and have it as an option that they can run by their DM. You act like you're making the content on here better but you're not, you're shooting it down and making it worse and mediocre, and you're limiting potential options that players might want to use. You're ruining people's fun. Tell me how it actually affects you if players at a completely separate table use abilities you don't like. It doesn't. If you think anything on this wiki is too strong, then don't use it or create another version that you think is more balanced, but don't take away options from players who you will literally never meet or be affected by. You're not game developers, you're players, of a game that has questionable balance as a whole anyways. So just let people have cool content. It's honestly kind of a free speech thing. You can't get the best ideas if you don't let all of those ideas flow and be seen. Dungeons and Dragons is everyone's game and everyone plays it differently. That's why every aspect of all the content on here should be totally open to everybody without just a few people saying what can and can't be on here the way that it was originally put on here. Players need options. Players have more fun when they have these strong options for their characters. So i'll say again: It doesn't affect you if people use these abilities, so just let people have fun with them instead of "Balancing" them (Making them incredibly mediocre) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.16.64.85 (talk). Please sign your posts.
- Content on this wiki is governed by consensus. When multiple users have some form of conflict around whether a page is better in one state or another, the majority rule. ZarHakkar is the user who initially placed the relevant template. You removed it. I, feeling it was justified, reinstated it. That's two in favor of the template and one against it. If you feel it is unreasonable, I would advise that you reach out to another user and ask their opinion on it - or alternatively, formulate a genuine argument by which to convince me instead of laying out an accusatory rant chock full of fallacies.--Nuke The Earth (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2024 (MDT)
- I remember when I used to think like that. "Balance is a shackle, I should be able to put whatever busted thing I want on this site because a good DM could work with it." And then I actually learnt the rules of the system I was homebrewing, built a repertoire of games (both as a DM and player) I played in, and realized I wasn't quite as correct as I thought I was.
- "You aren't game developers."
- No, not necessarily, but most of us are game designers. That's literally what homebrew design is— small snippets of game design. Many of the principles are directly transferable back and forth.
- "Hosting this content doesn't affect you."
- It 100% does. DanDwiki's reputation was slowly destroyed over the course the previous decade because of the sheer amount of poorly-made, unbalanced homebrew it was hosting and the lax attitude of most users towards regulation. Players would find busted homebrew on the wiki, slip it past inexperienced or unwitting DMs, then run games into the ground while having their fun at the expense of everyone elses'.
- "We're limiting player options by policing unbalanced content."
- Actually, this is the opposite, and a principle of game design at play to boot. "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game." If you look at Prepared Spellcaster's current design, you realize that there is no good reason for a wizard to not take this feat. It's so strong, it basically invalidates every other option you might've had due to those options being so weak in comparison.
- "We're turning the content mediocre and ruining fun."
- There are a lot of ways to ruin fun. One of the ways is to make things less interesting. Let's explore the ramifications of Prepared Spellcaster's current design again. While you may initially think that allowing a wizard access to all spells in their spellbook is fun (you have more options to choose from at any given moment, right?), it actually stifles creativity and makes things less interesting. For example, let's say you were watching someone hang up a painting on a wall. You can give them one of two toolboxes to complete the job with: the first has every tool and supply you could possibly use to hang up the painting (including the contents of the second toolbox), while the second has string, chewing gum, a comically large paperclip, and a fork. Which is more effective vs. which is more entertaining and memorable?
