This question was closed as too broad, and I disagree with that flag. The question is quite narrow in terms of scope, nor would any answer that limits itself to the system have to be too broad. In fact, here's a list of all the things that work (AFAIK):

  • Rings of Wizardry
  • Robe of Runes
  • Amulet of Spell Cunning
  • Amulet of Spell Mastery
  • Pearls of Power
  • Echoing Spell
  • Thassilonian Specialist
  • Higher ability scores

Now the question itself is poorly written, and it would make sense if it had been closed as unclear or just downvoted to oblivion for being poorly written, however being closed as too broad is definitely not applicable as far as I can tell.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I suggest you read HeyICanChan's comment below the post. - *In a game as vast as Pathfinder, asking for any way to do something is kind of overwhelming, and in this case in particular it is doubly so. Can the question be edited to include some binds? What resources does your wizard have available to make this happen? That is, is there a gp limit? Only feats? Taking specific archetypes? Narrowing this may yield answers that help you specifically rather than it seeming like a vague design challenge (What combination of elements creates a wizard with the most number of spells per day?). * \$\endgroup\$
    – linksassin Mod
    May 7, 2019 at 5:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @linksassin If that comment were actually true in this case, I wouldn't ask this question. However, when there's only 8 ways to do so (AFAIK), it makes no sense to eliminate more. Just because a question can be more narrow, does not mean that it needs to be. For instance, the pathfinder & 3.5 comparison question, could have been made more narrow, and is broader than my linked question above is. I feel like the question was closed due to the poor wording, more than the question. \$\endgroup\$
    – willuwontu
    May 7, 2019 at 12:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ I also feel like it's also due to the user's lack of rep, as this question is just as broad, and yet remains open. \$\endgroup\$
    – willuwontu
    May 7, 2019 at 12:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ To be honest it confuses me as well. Even if there were thirty different obscure options that let a wizard somehow cast more spells per day, the fact that there are many different ways to achieve a specific mechanical effect doesn't mean that asking how to produce that effect is inherently too broad a question, especially if you'd need to already know the possible answers in order to realise how many answers there possibly are. \$\endgroup\$
    – Carcer
    May 7, 2019 at 16:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Perhaps it might give you an insight that this was how it looked like when the question was closed (note the timestamp). The question has been edited, but the community decided to leave it closed. \$\endgroup\$
    – Andrew T.
    May 7, 2019 at 16:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Carcer Note that the only answer thus far nicely illustrates the question's breadth: A subset of the question as it's currently posed is What is a character's maximum possible Intelligence score? (cf. this question). \$\endgroup\$ May 7, 2019 at 18:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan given the question, I don't think a deeper exploration of that answer is actually necessary. It seems to me that it would be an acceptable answer to this question to say "increase your intelligence score", and for that to prompt or link to other questions which explore how to increase intelligence or what the maximum intelligence you can have is. I concede that scoping the question down would probably have been more useful for the OP in this case but I don't think the question as it was originally asked was actually close-worthy. \$\endgroup\$
    – Carcer
    May 7, 2019 at 18:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Carcer But if, as a category, increase your Intelligence score can be dismissed as needing a separate question, then to what degree should other options be likewise relegated? To take this to an extreme, I don't think Pick a race, get a high Int, take the right feats, buy the right stuff, and gain levels, and you'll have all the spells per day you'll need! is a good answer. :-) \$\endgroup\$ May 7, 2019 at 18:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ @williamporter A user's rep should never have anything to do with how good their question is, or whether it gets closed. That linked question is 1) better asked and 2) far less broad. It is only asked about a specific subset of spells, not all spells in general. That would be one of the 'binds' HeyICanChan mentioned. \$\endgroup\$
    – linksassin Mod
    May 8, 2019 at 0:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @linksassin I agree, a user's rep shouldn't have anything to do with how likely the community is to vote to close it, yet it has IME (not so much on RPG.SE, but more on others). The linked question despite being better worded, is not far less broad than the main topic question. Asking about casting specific spells at a lower level, without narrowing down their class, method or anything is just as broad as asking how a specific class can cast more spells. \$\endgroup\$
    – willuwontu
    May 8, 2019 at 2:09

1 Answer 1


If you think that a question that was put on hold shouldn't have been put on hold,—if your reputation allows—vote to reopen it.

That said, my comment suggested revising the question so that some binds were included because I personally found the idea of compiling, evaluating, and summarizing all the ways a wizard could cast one or more extra spells per day overwhelming. (Also, I did not vote to put the question on hold; I thought that a still more industrious and adventuresome user than I might not find the prospect as overwhelming as I did!)

I admit that the list in the question is a good start, including as it does even one way—sin magic (né Thassilonian specialist)—that's included in the build in this answer that I'm pretty sure that the question (albeit obliquely) references.

However, I suspect that, while it's a good start, once even more archetypes are examined, spells like this one are included, templates that increase Intelligence scores are enumerated, original magic items are created in the answer using the printed guidelines, and everything else figured out that could possibly lead to the wizard casting just one more spell per day, the list will be much, much longer.

I would've kept my trap shut had the asker posed the question How can the build described in this answer cast more spells per day? or even phrased the question as a good optimization question, but, as it stands, I commented because, while I wanted to help the asker, when I was working out my possible answer in my head, I had no idea where to begin or—more importantly—where to stop.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I actually would vote to reopen it (my rep is too low to do so), and I did notice you didn't VTC. As an aside, thassilonian specialist is sin magic wizard, the name was scrubbed in the d20PFSRD context (it's also supposed to be an archetype not a school, I'd link to the AON page but I cannot access AON at work). I agree that the list could be longer, I forgot about ME and ML, however there is a reasonable limit to it. I do agree that the question itself was badly posed. \$\endgroup\$
    – willuwontu
    May 7, 2019 at 18:25
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @williamporter Fair enough. I A) didn't realize that rep was an issue here, and B) didn't realize the name was changed for product identity reasons; my apologies on both counts. :-) Sincerely, I hope that a counteranswer that supports your position is posted and folks are encouraged by it to reopen the question—I really do look forward to an answer. \$\endgroup\$ May 7, 2019 at 18:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @williamporter If you agree that the question was badly posed, then closing is exactly what we should do to give the author a chance to improve it. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    May 7, 2019 at 18:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch from my question "Now the question itself is poorly written, and it would make sense if it had been closed as unclear". My objection is it being closed for being too broad. Being closed as unclear would have made some sense, given how poorly written it is (despite the question being clear). However, there is no close flag for Poor Wording, it simply should've been downvoted in this case. We shouldn't close questions based on flags that don't apply to them. \$\endgroup\$
    – willuwontu
    May 7, 2019 at 18:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @williamporter Hmm. I wonder how many broad vs unclear votes there were. i've often seen them bundled with the majority during a closure (i think?) \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    May 7, 2019 at 18:45
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Yeah, that happens, and, if I remember correctly, the generalizing of the majority's vote-to-hold reason has been the topic of spirited debate. (Seems folks resent having text put in their mouths. Who knew? :-)) \$\endgroup\$ May 7, 2019 at 18:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ TBH I don't remember whether I voted as 'too broad' or 'unclear'. Either way the question when it was closed was both. The edits have made it less broad but even less clear. 'Has anyone come across a way for wizards to gain more spells per day?' is not a very good question. @williamporter If you want to see this reopened you could propose an edit that improves the question without conflicting the the authors intent. If you make it a good question it will get reopened. \$\endgroup\$
    – linksassin Mod
    May 8, 2019 at 0:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .