Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Is wizard too powerful?

From playing, it seems like they could learn healing, all kind of damage spells, resurrection, etc. With unlimited camp and resting, recharge between battle isn't an issue. I'm not sure if they have addressed it yet, but it could be lore related for wizard to be this strong? I'm just wondering if it's working as intended or if it's something that will change in the final game. As a single roleplaying game, maybe balance is less important than lore.

It is DEFINITELY not how wizards work or should work, no.

I have a feeling the learning spells outside their class issue will be resolved in the next patch. It’s pretty hard to properly test the class the way it is.

At the same time, since everyone can use every scroll, the real question could become ,"why would you ever play a wizard?" if your battle-master fighter could cast all the same spells as them just as easily, from scrolls.

Right now, everyone being able to use every scroll, regardless of class, is WAI... and if that's the case, it's not unlikely that wizards being able to scribe everything is intended as well.. however, there's a been a lot of feedback on this and it's likely that one or both of these things will change to move more into line with 5e rules at some point in the development.

Playing a wizard and resting every time you empty your spell slots is no cheesier or less cheesy than playing a sneaky archer who hides, shoots, retreats and hides every turn. Sure, you can beat the game that way; but is it fun or satisfying? If it is, persist. If it isn't, desist.

I wouldn't mind seeing scroll use being restrained to classes with a spellcasting feature though I am not sure if there is a precedent for that in 5e?

The 5e rule for casting from a scroll is actually far more restrictive:
-You can only cast a spell from a scroll if it is a spell on your class's spell list (so e.g. a sorcerer could cast Daylight from a scroll, but a wizard could not)
-If the spell is on your class's spell list, but is a higher level than you can normally cast, you have to make an ability check with your spellcasting ability (DC based on the spell's level) or else the spell fizzles and the scroll is wasted.

And a wizard can only copy spells that are on the wizard spell list into their spellbook.

I would love to move to something that is much closer (or identical) to this. A wizard going to a store and buying a spell scroll to copy into their spellbook feels pretty normal and reasonable. Leaving tons of spell scrolls laying around the world and letting anyone use them takes away the things that are special about classes that can cast spells without scrolls.

this

I wonder, how does book of shadows come into this for warlock, since you can inscribe ritual spells from other lists into it? (Or I think you can, been awhile since I rolled one up with tome cause I have a bias with chain)? Something closer to the rules you mentioned might be good and help classes feel distinct though so I agree. It would be both a buff to Wizard as they will be able to take advantage of scrolls the most but also a nerf cause some of the more broken things they could do would no longer be an issue (like randomly learning healing and then outdoing shadowheart on healing).

Pact of the Tome doesn't allow you to copy spells into it by default. When you receive it, it has three cantrips from any spell list in it. The Book of Ancient Secrets invocation mimics the Ritual Caster feat, allowing you to copy ritual spells into the Book of Shadows and cast them as rituals, but I don't believe there is any other provision for copying spells into it.

The terminology that the actual game rules use is quite deliberate - any feature that gives you access to spells that aren't normally on your list generally contains the text (or text similar): "these spells count as [class] spells for you". This preserves the other general rules abut only casting spells that are on your class' spell list - the perks that grant them add those spells to your class spell list specifically for you.

Book of ancient secrets does do it a slightly differently, in that it specifically stipulates that you can cast the spells suing that feature, and also stipulates how (only as ritual). It does give you blanket ability to copy ANY ritual spell into your book and cast it as a ritual, as well as allowing you to cast any other warlock spells that have the ritual tag as rituals as well. In terms of spell versatility, it's actually a really strong pact.

To grysqrl above, in case that was directed to me - I'm aware that the 5e rules are more restricted (and for good reason), I was just noting that the current implementation in BG3 is not, unfortunately, just a bug - it was a deliberate choice. However, with the amount of feedback people have given on the matter, it stands a good chance of being changed.

EXACTLY!!!

It wasn't directed at you - CJMPinger was asking about rules precedent in 5e, so I thought it would be good to post the actual rules for casting from scrolls. They definitely botched implementing the 5e rules in a way that sucks all of the joy out of playing a specific class because they're lost a lot of their differentiation.

Thanks a lot for the rules clarification, though I just realized the BG3 doesn't really do ritual casting as far as I have experienced? Having certain spells not costing spellslots when cast outside of combat might be a thing they should test for that closer to 5e in balance?
Dunno if it would make the balance for wizard better or worse after fixing scrolls, but it might be worth testing the feature that characters that have the ritual casting as a feat or feature can cast spells with the ritual tag without a spell slot outside of combat?
Though I might be going a bit off topic.