Yesterday evening we were discussing the “memory size” of wizards and clerics.

21 thoughts on “Yesterday evening we were discussing the “memory size” of wizards and clerics.”

1. Daniele Di Rubbo Sage LaTorra Adam Koebel Massimo Russo Andrea Stormblade Fabio Ardizzoni Michele Arcuri 

2. Hmm… We always used the rules according to the rulebook and we never had problems with the choice.

3. my opinion: You have to watch out a bit. The limited “memory size” not only makes for tough choices, but also limits the versatility of wizards and clerics somewhat.

   And since noncasters cannot match that versatility with their moves … well. Take care.

4. I was thinking of the limited options of cleric and wizard and came with the following hack. Clerics and Wizard both have magic points equal to their level +1. When they commune/prepare spells, they prepare all of their known spells and replenish their magic points.

   The 3rd option of the Cast a Spell moves becomes: “After it is cast, the spell is forgotten and you lose magic points equal to the spell level. You cannot cast the spell again until you prepare spells.”

   This way, clerics and wizard gains more versatility when confronted with unexpected things but keep the limitation toward repeating casting. Any opinion on this?

5. I’ve been quite active with my 1st level wizard yesterday night. In less than an hour gameplay I cast my Light and Prestidigitation cantrips to mislead pursuers, cast Cause Fear (racial spell) twice when they attacked us and quickly improvised a ritual to cast a sort of “noise illusion” to distract others. I still had may Magic Missile available just in case. I found my “spell diversity” very satisfying.

6. I am not saying that Cantrips are useless, far from it, and our Wizard is using them to good results, but I am talking about higher levels, when you need serious firepower as well. I don’t think that a Wizard having only one higher level spell and a couple 1st level spells is versatile. Do you?

7. I do, because the Wizard still has those spells and her rituals. Look at the proportions. The fighter doesn’t really get higher firepower at all, so I don’t think it’s necessary in DW.

8. At 6th level the Fighter can have “Merciless”, which is +1d8 damage… Quite substantially higher firepower, I’d say! 🙂

9. It’s just damage. 

10. Yes, but compare that to the fireball a wizard gets – a level 3 spell. That’s also substantially higher firepower against an area of targets, ignoring armor. And that’s only one of the spells she can pick. And that is even additional to picking an advanced move….

11. Damage is a quantity that has a quality of his own, to paraphrase Joseph Stalin.

    I am not fully convinced that we need to increase the “memory size” of casters, mind you, because I understand the dangers involved, that’s why I am trying to explore the idea.

12. Bernd Pressler what if we created an Advanced Move that expanded “memory size”? For example a 2nd-5th level move that says “you can memorize two more spell levels” and at 6th-10th “four more levels”. Would that be fair?

13. So, as an idea.. what if expanding the number of spells is just another ritual?  The Ritual of Greater Magical Recall.  What are you willing to sacrifice to get this capability? 

14. I still don’t think it is necessary, but if it works for your group, that’s fine.

    IMO you are going to make your own job harder, because you want every character to shine. If you give certain characters more versatility, you risk reducing the spotlight of others and in the end you’ll have to work harder to make up for it.

    Or maybe your group doesn’t mind. That’s the coolest thing, but then I’d ask: Why bother?

15. Actually I am the group Fighter, not the GM 🙂

16. well. Then if YOU don’t mind as a fighter, then it’s probably all cool. 😀 I’ve made quite a bit of bad experiences with “caster supremacy” in various systems, due to a combination of me not liking to always sit in the back seat, learning to play a game, the caster being played by experienced player, a DM not caring and a system which would not care about balancing power or versatility at all.

17. Bernd Pressler is completely right. If you double the Wizard’s spells, you’re doubling the Wizard’s amount of options and therefore the Wizard’s versatility. Spells in DW are already powerful enough; you’re going to end up with a 3.x playstyle where the Wizard/Cleric solve everything and everyone else gets to sit back and be cheerleaders.

18. I don’t think it’ll ever be that bad, because the other classes already have a higher core versatility. But the tentency is definitely there.

19. Making the wizard and cleric pick spells is part of how we imagine Dungeon World. Being a good cleric or wizard is about being smart enough to pick the spells that will be useful in the situations you expect. There’s a degree of skill there which we wanted.

    If your group doesn’t like that, I’d recommend minorly increasing the limit before getting rid of it all together. Maybe INT+LEVEL or INT+LEVEL+1 levels of spells?

20. This is what I had in mind, actually. I’ll discuss it a bit with the group and see how they feel about it. Alternatively, adding an Advanced Move for +2 spell levels feels like an interesting trade.

21. I checked some math and here’s two compromises to keep few spells at low level but more as the character advences in level. In both option, the caster remaines with 2 level of spells at 1st level and at level 10th he reach 14 levels of spell which is equivalent to the maximum a caster would have with level 10 + int 18 (+3) + 1

    The first option is “(Level x 1,25) +1”. Below is the equivalent gained at each level and its corresponding equivalent bonus if the formula was more like “level +1”, “level+int+1”, etc.

    1st—2—+1

    2nd—4—+2

    3rd—5—+2

    4th—6—+2

    5th—7—+2

    6th—9—+3

    7th—10—+3

    8th—11—+3

    9th—12—+3

    10th—14—+4

    The second option is “Level x 1,4” (and at 1st level only, the number of level of spells receive a +1 bonus). This gives a slower porgression at lower level but still with a maximum of 14.

    1st—2—+1

    2nd—3—+1

    3rd—4—+1

    4th—6—+2

    5th—7—+2

    6th—8—+2

    7th—10—+3

    8th—11—+3

    9th—13—+4

    10th—14—+4

Comments are closed.