If I were to allow magic-users to cast any spell they have in their spell book, useing their memorized spell number more like a spell slot, how much would that break the game? (using OSE in my case)
Posted May 9, 2023, 10:32 PM UTC
This is somewhat similar to ACKS' "repertoire" rules, where an MU gets a number of "prepared" spells equal to their slots per day, and then can use a slot to cast any prepared spell (but swapping spells in and out of repertoire is somewhat expensive and time-consuming). I feel this repertoire system works fairly well, but allowing any spell in book would give MUs potentially an awful lot of versatility. It might be a bit much.
Arguably one of the player-skill components of Vancian magic is encouraging players to do reconnaissance so they know which spells to prepare. This change would remove that layer of player-skill in favor of just accumulating as many spells known as possible.
more like a spell slot
You know, the term "spell slot" comes from the spell memorization mechanics. As in, you're slotting specific spells into your spells-per-day before the adventure. (3e was actually the first edition to use this terminology formally. And that game only spoke of "spell slots" when referring specifically to casters that memorized their spells, like wizards, clerics, and druids; not to spontaneous casters like sorcerers and bards.)
5e used the term "spell slots" because 5e's designers were trying to borrow clout and nostalgia from 3e. But what 5e calls spell slots aren't really slots at all, they're leveled spell points. That mechanic already has a more general name, because it predates 5e by decades (going at least as far back as 1987, having appeared in Final Fantasy 1): they're spell charges.
So you're asking us whether it would unbalance Classic D&D to treat the magic-user's spell slots as spell charges. And the answer is: kinda yeah, but it depends. If you limit magic-users to having no more spells in their spellbook than they have slots/charges per day (as in BX/OSE)? Then it's probably fine; go right ahead. I seriously doubt that it'll break anything. If you let magic-users have any number of spells in their spellbook (as in BECMI)? Then it would be a bad idea to implement spell charges without also having some system for preparing a subset of your known spells before an adventure, at which point you might as well just use normal spell slots and the normal rules for spell memorization.
So, 5e has spell slots at run-time, and 3e has spell slots at compile-time. Got it. :P
Thanks for the feedback.
Lol that's a good way of putting it.
I don’t think it would break the game at all. It would change it. You’d be reducing the main limitation on spells (memorization) and replacing it with another smaller limitation (written in spell book + spell slots aka. per-level-mana)
If you want to go halfway, you can say each spell in a spell book increases its metaphysical weight by 1 lb or 50 coins or something. So the spellbook gets heavier the more spells it has. This replaces memorization with the standard gear restriction of the game (weight) and means the wizard has a choice: carry stuff or spells.
A lot of spells are situational, if you don't have to prepare in advance you can assume that they will be used more without any downside.
spells like "read languages", "shield", "locate objects" or even fly or teleport will have no opportunity cost
This means that every magic-user can deal with anything every time after learning a spell, it makes not difference in the beginning but if you allow magic research the guidelines will be off (some spells are more powerful because they have a limited focus)
It will also devalue scrolls and other consumables, there is no reason to keep one of them around instead of copying it to your spell book unless it is a "duplicate" and less reasons to create them.
That’s how the groups I played D&D with in the 80s and early 90s did it. We didn’t ever run any high level stuff so it didn’t really seem broken.
At higher levels when Magic Users have a lot of spell slots and a lot of very powerful but situational spells, I can see how it could be a problem. At low levels, I think it helps get a variety of spells into play instead of sticking to safe spells like Sleep.
It will make the magic user more powerful, as you are increasing their flexibility. If the party keeps running into combat situations, nothing is stopping the magic-user from using every slot for an offensive spell or adapting to a situation calling for a solution by picking the best spell they know to resolve the situation. Memorization makes the magic user's player balance offense with utility and try to discern which utility spells are most likely to be needed for what they plan to do that day. If climbing cliffs on the overworld or giant chasms in a dungeon is the plan for the day, memorizing a fly or two. However, if the group keeps running into wandering monsters between the camp and the cliffs or chasm, that's one or two less fireballs the magic user has at the ready.