What is the point of Spellbooks?

[LazarX]

Imbicatus wrote:

Most of these are the exception rather than the rule, but my point is if the rule exists, then there is a GM somewhere who is going to use it as an excuse to be a jerk to a player, and there is no mechanical reason to retain the limitation when compared to other spellcasters.

IF I'm going to be a jerk to a player as a GM, it really doesn't make a difference which rules you add or subtract from the game. Players may not like to acknowledge it but the game is build on trust of the GM. If the GM wants to hose you he will. Your recourse then is to leave him to enjoy his delusions of power at an empty table.

It goes both ways as well. Players who think that the GM is there for abuse are more than welcome to GM themselves.

I absolutely can not see players with this level of paranoia ever sitting down for a Storyteller game or Chaos Forbid, Amber Diceless.

[Claxon]

Imbicatus wrote:

Most of these are the exception rather than the rule, but my point is if the rule exists, then there is a GM somewhere who is going to use it as an excuse to be a jerk to a player, and there is no mechanical reason to retain the limitation when compared to other spellcasters.

So what I'm hearing is you want more limitations on the other spellcasters too? I can get behind that.

No? That wasn't you're intention. I think all caster should have a fatal drawback that has to be protected like the wizards spellbook, but that is more about the desparity of martials and casters. And that thread has grown wildly out of control.

I will agree however, that allowing the wizard to re-prepare the spells he had prepared the previous day (that he expended his energy in casting the spell but still remembers it) seems thematically more fitting, but I simultaneously feel as though it encroaches too closely on the heels of the sorcerer.

[EWHM]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

EWHM wrote:

In games I run, fighters fairly quickly start gaining massive bonuses to leadership, administration, and warfare, while rogues gain massive bonuses to what would be called 'human intelligence' and trade. Both gain moderately large bonuses in the other's spheres, as they're '2nd best' in those areas (most other classes are 3rd, 4th, or 5th rate). Neither system is based on feats, skills, or attributes, but rather class abilities.

Would you be willing to share these mechanics? I've long been arguing for something similar, and given the typical reaction to my "heretical" proposals, I certainly never expected to find someone else who had actually thought to put something similar down on paper.

Kirth,

I've used quite a few different sets of mechanics for this, depending on the particular setting I was going for, but here's a nice fairly simple one.

There are two spheres of abstracted, large scale social capability. Note that this is not the same as the retail level that skills like diplomacy, bluff, intimidation cover, or the midrange that bards specialize in. This is the Costco-sized capability that presently pretty much nobody rolls for but rather abstracts.

The first sphere is leadership (not the feat, which almost everyone I know bans), administration, and warfare. This is the primary sphere that makes you a good ruler and commander. Looking at the source material for our genre, fighters are the best at this. Who bleeds with me will be my brother, and all that. Rogues are second place. Aristocrats are honorary fighters. Clerics are second place ONLY when dealiing with religious matters or fanatical followers, third rate otherwise. Wizards are third rate only when dealing with magical matters, and 4th rate otherwise. Barbarians are 2nd rate unless dealing with tribes of their own, where they are 1st rate. Rangers are 2nd rate. Paladins are 2nd rate except with fanatical followers as in a crusade, where they reach 1st rate. Other classes can be slotted in as desired.
Now, 1st rate means you get your full level on this chart, 2nd rate means 3/4, 3rd rate means 1/2 and 4th rate means 1/4.

Level-1 Basic rulership. If you don't have at least this, take -25% to pretty much all actions and tax income. If you do have this, no modifier. An awful lot of places in the real world are ruled at this level of proficiency. You can command up to a platoon or so competently directly (i.e., without good sergeants). You can be a captain or so in a typical army. Most armies will recognize that you 'have potential'.
Level-3 Level 3 is sufficient to hold any rank in any military. Above average rulership +10% to rulership actions and to effective taxes collected.

Level-4 This is the level termed 'hero' in previous editions. Good generals will have this level in the real world. In terms of rulership, you gain a +25% modifier on all ruler actions and effective taxes collected (you don't actually collect more taxes, you simply get less inefficient use out of them than would a typical ruler). A few places in the real world have this level of rulership, but it's much better than the mean. This level is also the level where you start to meaningfully inspire your soldiers. Their morale is raised substantially if you're directly involved. Depending on what morale system you're using this ought to be about the equivalent of a grade in troop quality (e.g. green to regular or regular to seasoned or seasoned to elite or elite to fanatical). Guys like Rommel, Patton, and Lee fit into this category.
Level-6 This is getting to the edge of what we have real-world experience of. Think the great Captains of history and the world leaders who justifiably have 'The Great' attached to their name. +50% to rulership actions and effective taxes collected. The loyalty they inspire is very strong. Troops under their direct supervision generally gain the effect of two troop quality classes and pretty much never have to check morale (this doesn't mean they never retreat, but they do it in a controlled manner and when such is actually militarily prudent, not in a rout). In addition, leaders like this seem to create 'mighty men' out of thin air over time. Soldiers directly commanded by them actually gain XP (if in your game NPC soldiers normally do not), or 2x the normal XP if such advancement is normal in your game.
Level-10 +100% to rulership actions and effective taxes collected.
Troops fight as if 3 grades higher and as if one level higher with one bonus feat (has to be one of yours).
Level-15 +150% to rulership and effective taxes collected.
All troops fight as if elite and fanatical and 2 levels higher with 2 bonus feats (you must have these feats).
Level-20 +200% to rulership and effective taxes collected. Troops fight as if 3 levels higher, 3 bonus feats (you must have these feats).

Note, to get the temporary inspiration bonus levels, troops must be half your level or less before the adjustment.

[Imbicatus]

Claxon wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Most of these are the exception rather than the rule, but my point is if the rule exists, then there is a GM somewhere who is going to use it as an excuse to be a jerk to a player, and there is no mechanical reason to retain the limitation when compared to other spellcasters.

So what I'm hearing is you want more limitations on the other spellcasters too? I can get behind that.

No? That wasn't you're intention. I think all caster should have a fatal drawback that has to be protected like the wizards spellbook, but that is more about the desparity of martials and casters. And that thread has grown wildly out of control.

I want spellcasters to be in the same boat. If the wizards can have access to spellcasting limited by books, every spellcasting class should have something similar, and I don't mean just a holy symbol. If the others don't, then neither should the wizard.

[Lincoln Hills]

Well, a witch without his familiar, a cleric/paladin/inquisitor without the favor of her god, and a druid/ranger who ceases to revere nature all have issues as well. The oracle has issues of a different kind.

The sorceror? Hmmm... looks like the sorceror gets off lightly on this one. Bards too, but who cares? It's just a bard! (Famous last words...)

[Democratus]

Imbicatus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Most of these are the exception rather than the rule, but my point is if the rule exists, then there is a GM somewhere who is going to use it as an excuse to be a jerk to a player, and there is no mechanical reason to retain the limitation when compared to other spellcasters.

So what I'm hearing is you want more limitations on the other spellcasters too? I can get behind that.

No? That wasn't you're intention. I think all caster should have a fatal drawback that has to be protected like the wizards spellbook, but that is more about the desparity of martials and casters. And that thread has grown wildly out of control.

I want spellcasters to be in the same boat. If the wizards can have access to spellcasting limited by books, every spellcasting class should have something similar, and I don't mean just a holy symbol. If the others don't, then neither should the wizard.

And this is how you end up with 4th edition, where everything uses the same mechanic and all classes are equal.

[Steve Geddes]

Imbicatus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Most of these are the exception rather than the rule, but my point is if the rule exists, then there is a GM somewhere who is going to use it as an excuse to be a jerk to a player, and there is no mechanical reason to retain the limitation when compared to other spellcasters.

So what I'm hearing is you want more limitations on the other spellcasters too? I can get behind that.

No? That wasn't you're intention. I think all caster should have a fatal drawback that has to be protected like the wizards spellbook, but that is more about the desparity of martials and casters. And that thread has grown wildly out of control.

I want spellcasters to be in the same boat. If the wizards can have access to spellcasting limited by books, every spellcasting class should have something similar, and I don't mean just a holy symbol. If the others don't, then neither should the wizard.

Clerics are limited by the tenets of their faith. Druids have to be greenies.

I agree with you, to a point, but I think those other things are equivalent "flavour based" limitations to needing to spend gold on spell book maintenance/protection/repair.

[Imbicatus]

Democratus wrote:

And this is how you end up with 4th edition, where everything uses the same mechanic and all classes are equal.

I don't agree with the implementation of 4e, but I have no fault with most of the underlying design decisions. I love that a 1st level wizard in 4e NEVER runs out of a basic attack spell that scales with level.

Is it my favorite game? no. But it doesn't deserve a lot of the hate it gets.

[Thelemic_Noun]

Can't you just cast make whole on a trashed spellbook?

Besides, most wizards make two, or store theirs in a secret chest.

And if a thief opens it, the book will kill the s*** out of them with fire traps, permanent symbol spells, etc.

[Kirth Gersen]

LazarX wrote:

I'd say that there was hostility even back in the days of Gygax and Arneson, but the current generation has made it much more vocal. This generation has grown up to different expectations, among them being less willing to cede control of much of the game to the gamemaster.

As an old Grognard who grew up with AD&D, Basic, and so on, and with experience as both a player and DM under any number of different game systems (including Amber Diceless) since then, I have to say that's one very positive change the younger folks have brought to the hobby -- shifting the model more towards a "DM as referee" paradigm rather than a "DM is God" one.

As a player, it means impartiality and an end to a lot of the antagonism we used to face. As a DM, it's refreshing to be able to worry about running encounters and play-acting the NPCs, instead of spending all my effort babysitting and/or counteracting the players. When I DM now, I build monsters and NPCs strictly by the rules, including total # and level of subordinates for leaders; I adhere to their stats and numbers when running encounters; I try to play them as their level of Intelligence and organization would dictate; and I roll dice out in the open. My house rules go a step further, and cede large areas of (traditionally DM-restricted) narrative control to the players, through a variety of mechanics.

There is no amount of money that would convince me to go back -- for me, it's like the difference between using Excel vs. a slide rule.

[GeneticDrift]

a wizard without a spell book is still an all powerful wizard. The spells in his head are still there, the potions, wands, scrolls, and magic items are still there.

a really long time after he loses his spell book - which honestly has many ways to be protected/hid/duplicated/or worked around, he might be in trouble. The trouble would only be if he is dumb, but we already covered he is a wizard so that cant happen.

losing a spell book just means you get to have a new one. since UM came out you can even buy premade ones super cheap.

edit: and yes wizards should have a spell book - it's their fluff. If you don't like it there are ways around it and still be a wizard or just be a sorcerer or another caster.

[Kthulhu]

Imbicatus wrote:

Just to note, I find lose-lose alignment situations targeting a paladin to be just as bad for a game as targeting a wizard's spell book.

Frankly, if a supposedly lawful good god is so focused on the lawful bit that they would strip powers from one of their champions for daring to do something for the greater good, then I consider them a rather crappy and petty god that isn't worth the worship the paladin gave to them.

[Claxon]

Imbicatus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Most of these are the exception rather than the rule, but my point is if the rule exists, then there is a GM somewhere who is going to use it as an excuse to be a jerk to a player, and there is no mechanical reason to retain the limitation when compared to other spellcasters.

So what I'm hearing is you want more limitations on the other spellcasters too? I can get behind that.

No? That wasn't you're intention. I think all caster should have a fatal drawback that has to be protected like the wizards spellbook, but that is more about the desparity of martials and casters. And that thread has grown wildly out of control.

I want spellcasters to be in the same boat. If the wizards can have access to spellcasting limited by books, every spellcasting class should have something similar, and I don't mean just a holy symbol. If the others don't, then neither should the wizard.

I agree that I feel the other spellcasters should be more limited. As Lincoln Hills noted, the other spellcasters do have their restrictions, though as you noted (or implied) most aren't really the same sort of restriction. Being in line with the tenets of your god and keeping your alignment true, or revering nature aren't things that the DM can attack and forcibly remove. He can put you in crappy situations and coerce you to do things that will cause you to lose your abilities.

Spontaneous spellcasters get out ok, and that should be the case since the tradeoff seems to be potentially unlimited number of prepared spells versus spontaneous spell-casting. So the question boils down to, why not implement a spellbook (or equivalent) for all prepared casters (including divine)? Because tradition. But I'm okay with implementing a spellbook for clerics.

[Kirth Gersen]

EWHM wrote:

I've used quite a few different sets of mechanics for this, depending on the particular setting I was going for, but here's a nice fairly simple one.

Thanks! Without knowing what falls under "rulership actions" that you're gaining "+10%" on, it's not immediately usable, but it looks like a very good starting point.

[Zhayne]

Democratus wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Most of these are the exception rather than the rule, but my point is if the rule exists, then there is a GM somewhere who is going to use it as an excuse to be a jerk to a player, and there is no mechanical reason to retain the limitation when compared to other spellcasters.

So what I'm hearing is you want more limitations on the other spellcasters too? I can get behind that.

No? That wasn't you're intention. I think all caster should have a fatal drawback that has to be protected like the wizards spellbook, but that is more about the desparity of martials and casters. And that thread has grown wildly out of control.

I want spellcasters to be in the same boat. If the wizards can have access to spellcasting limited by books, every spellcasting class should have something similar, and I don't mean just a holy symbol. If the others don't, then neither should the wizard.

And this is how you end up with 4th edition, where everything uses the same mechanic and all classes are equal.

Works for me.

[TOZ]

Indeed. After all, it isn't like the d20 system has a unifying mechanic for resolving things, right?

[EWHM]

Kirth,
Rulership actions can be all sorts of stuff. Things like mobilizing armies, undertaking huge projects, fortifying borders, organizing colonization efforts, or the like. All that is specific to your campaign and particular GM. The point is that the fighter is simply better at that sort of thing. If I recall, Kingmaker has mechanics on edicts and the old Dominion rules in B/X/C/M/I and Birthright also supply inspiration.
The real killer though is the effective tax bonus. Consider a typical kingdom takes about 20%, and its religious apparatus draws another 10%. A king with a +100% bonus has a huge advantage in terms of what he can do. He could even only tax 10% while still being able to effectively spend as much as a kingdom ruled by level 1 aristocrat of comparable size and development if what he was aiming at was long term economic growth. In typical game practice, this means that such kings can maintain far larger and more effective armies without ruining their kingdoms. Think Conan (in the books where he is the King of Aquilonia). Conan even comments almost exactly to this effect about how he maintains a better, more efficient army and other governmental services while charging lower taxes than his predecessors.

[Democratus]

Zhayne wrote:

Democratus wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Most of these are the exception rather than the rule, but my point is if the rule exists, then there is a GM somewhere who is going to use it as an excuse to be a jerk to a player, and there is no mechanical reason to retain the limitation when compared to other spellcasters.

So what I'm hearing is you want more limitations on the other spellcasters too? I can get behind that.

No? That wasn't you're intention. I think all caster should have a fatal drawback that has to be protected like the wizards spellbook, but that is more about the desparity of martials and casters. And that thread has grown wildly out of control.

I want spellcasters to be in the same boat. If the wizards can have access to spellcasting limited by books, every spellcasting class should have something similar, and I don't mean just a holy symbol. If the others don't, then neither should the wizard.

And this is how you end up with 4th edition, where everything uses the same mechanic and all classes are equal.

Works for me.

Me, too. I play lots of 4th edition and enjoy it.

But I wouldn't want my Pathfinder to become the same as 4th. They each have a distinct place on the tabletop.

[master_marshmallow]

It's not like a wizard is tied only to his spellbook. Linguistics and Spellcraft checks can let any wizard use any spellbook, and eventually you can just make a whole new spellbook.

I have played with the rules that pages from a spellbook can be used as scrolls, and though I know this, I choose not to abuse that because it makes scrolls cheap as hell.

If you are complaining that a wizard can have any spell he wants in his book because he can just buy a scroll, then maybe you should work on the availability of scrolls.

Spellbooks are a flavorful item, and they give the wizard something to spend money on other than metamagic rods and a ring of sustenance.

[BillyGoat]

dunelord3001 wrote:

BillyGoat wrote:

1. Genre convention. Same reason that there are still dwarves, gnomes, and halflings.

Not sure what you mean here, you don't really see people who use spell books everyday outside of D20 games that I'm aware.

I don't have a stack of books in front of me right now (I was hoping someone else would have easy references), but I can't think of a fantasy wizard that doesn't have a pile of books in which he keeps his lore.

No one uses vancian magic anymore, so in that respect, needing a one-to-one spellbook is antiquated and relatively unique. However:

[list]

Terry Pratchett's discworld wizards study tomes of magic to learn spells.

Dresden, from Dresden Files, needs to reference books for his most powerful ritual magic, and routinely hunts down magical tomes for new means of using magic or concocting potions.

In point of fact, I challenge you to find a wizard that doesn't have a magical reference. No, it won't be a one-to-one spell-by-spell book, but that's not because they don't study magic. It's because everyone else ditched vancian magic.

dunelord3001 wrote:

BillyGoat wrote:

2. World immersion. A wizard's game utility comes from his vast repertoire of spells. A library he doesn't have instant daily access to.

How does he not have daily access too it?

You left out the rather key word: "instant". Yes, so long as he has his spellbook he can access his "spells known" daily. A sorcerer, on the other hand, always has all his "spells known" immediately on the tip of his tongue. He can't cast them if he has no slots left, but he still has knowledge of them in intimate detail. Hence, instant daily access.

dunelord3001 wrote:

BillyGoat wrote:

If it were all "in his head", he'd be a sorcerer archetype, not a class. Therefore, he needs somewhere to put his spells that's not "in his head", to make him a wizard instead of a sorcerer. (See below for direct response on this topic)

There are several dozen other differences; class features, class skills, flavor, various school powers, and various bloodlines so I don't think this holds up.

Class features and skills are of relatively minor difference. School powers and bloodlines are covered by class features, so you repeat yourself.

And spellbooks are a central part of the flavor difference. So that's moot because it's what I argued. No spellbook, the "flavor" gap shrinks. One is an "alternate class" of the other, rather than distinct classes.

dunelord3001 wrote:

BillyGoat wrote:

3. To create non-death risk for a sub-set of PCs. Actually, the whole group, since losing your wizard's spellbook is a major blow to the whole party. Assuming he only carries one (or they all get stolen).

That is my point, it isn't a risk really. If you use this you either A) have to give them another one/time to fix it or B) they aren't really a PC anymore.

See the hundred or so other points of people, on both sides of the table, disagreeing with your conclusion and detailing specific counters to your claim. Between a slimmed-down spellbook, scrolls, wands, and other magic items, you're still relevant to the group. And that's assuming you already burnt all of your spells per day when you found the book gone. Those stick with you until you burn them. Without a spellbook, you just have to be more cautious.

All that being said, it's a play-style difference issue. You don't think it's fair or appropriate to take away a wizard's spellbook. As long as your table is happy with that decision, give spellbooks plot armor. Or eliminate them from the game entirely and argue that the wizard has committed the knowledge to memory. Or scribed them into his own flesh/soul. Whatever makes your table happy.

I'll stick with putting my player characters, and any of their possessions, at risk. Because that's what's proven fun for my table over the years.

[spalding]

master_marshmallow wrote:

thejeff wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Let's not forget that spellbooks make decent loot.

Alternate materials and protections are important for protecting your spellbook from the elements or water damage.

I have a Blessed Book that my character decided to write the most boring story ever into (think the Similarion Family trees) in mundane ink, and wrote all the spells over it in Arcane Mark. The idea I had was, if someone gets my spellbook, they will have to dispel the traps I put on it, and if they do, they also dispel all the spells in it and the book becomes worthless as it is an empty spellbook.

OTOH, if they take it, dispel your traps (and the spells) and then you catch them, kill them and get your book back, it's useless to you too.

Not really, Blessed Book doesn't cost anything to rewrite my spells in, and I expect that if someone else gets my book, it means I'm dead.

How do you arrive at the point that dispelling your traps dispels the spells in the book too?

[spalding]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

Well, a witch without his familiar, a cleric/paladin/inquisitor without the favor of her god, and a druid/ranger who ceases to revere nature all have issues as well. The oracle has issues of a different kind.

The sorceror? Hmmm... looks like the sorceror gets off lightly on this one. Bards too, but who cares? It's just a bard! (Famous last words...)

Yeah the one decent thing a sorcerer has going for him and even then in many cases it isn't a be all end all anyways.

[Snorter]

chaoseffect wrote:

I believe he was asking "is there a good reason for including this mechanic?" as opposed to how the mechanic worked. I'm not a fan of spell books myself. I'd like to think my guy with 22 intelligence could remember the important points of something he's been doing daily for the past few decades.

What is this 'few decades' you speak of?

I thought the D&D 3rd Edition trope was for all wizard PCs to go from Apprentice to Archmage before they learn to shave?

13 encounters to level up, 4 encounters per day....yeah, retire at level 20, two months after being given your first spellbook, and setting out from your master's tower to see the world...

[Snorter]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

Well, a witch without his familiar, a cleric/paladin/inquisitor without the favor of her god, and a druid/ranger who ceases to revere nature all have issues as well. The oracle has issues of a different kind.

Roleplay restrictions make poor balancing factors for mechanical superiority.

Rarely will a cleric PC ever be excommunicated in a typical game, since the player will have picked the cleric's deity to be a good match for the exact kind of cleric they wanted to play.

[John Kerpan]

Clerics do have a limitation, but it is much more hard to pin down. A cleric relies on his deity to give him the power to cast spells, so a cleric who has dishonored, annoyed, and ticked off his deity should lose spell-casting powers until he makes amends. This imposes a penalty as harsh as a paladin falling, and forces the player to make character-based decisions in the same way a paladin does or a wizard does, not just player-based decisions.

It must be said that the GM should never put a cleric in a position where all of his options would offend the deity, and it also must be said that enforcing adherence to a faith credence is probably less common than targeting spell-books.

[Steve Geddes]

It's not just "do this, or else". It's also the possibility of being asked to undertake tasks for the church.

This is going to be game dependant (just as the risks to spellbooks is game dependant) but I think those kinds of constraints on the other spellcasting classes potentially exist as well (if the DM chooses to utilise them).

[master_marshmallow]

Abraham spalding wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

thejeff wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Let's not forget that spellbooks make decent loot.

Alternate materials and protections are important for protecting your spellbook from the elements or water damage.

I have a Blessed Book that my character decided to write the most boring story ever into (think the Similarion Family trees) in mundane ink, and wrote all the spells over it in Arcane Mark. The idea I had was, if someone gets my spellbook, they will have to dispel the traps I put on it, and if they do, they also dispel all the spells in it and the book becomes worthless as it is an empty spellbook.

OTOH, if they take it, dispel your traps (and the spells) and then you catch them, kill them and get your book back, it's useless to you too.

Not really, Blessed Book doesn't cost anything to rewrite my spells in, and I expect that if someone else gets my book, it means I'm dead.

How do you arrive at the point that dispelling your traps dispels the spells in the book too?

Would require a Greater Dispel or a Chain Dispel/Mage's Disjunction to get rid of all of them without one of the other one's going off.

[Aberrant Templar]

Atarlost wrote:

BillyGoat wrote:

...3. To create non-death risk for a sub-set of PCs. Actually, the whole group, since losing your wizard's spellbook is a major blow to the whole party. Assuming he only carries one (or they all get stolen)...

#3 is a bug not a feature. It's a drawback that you can't use without completely trashing the character.

What self-respecting wizard only has one spellbook and no backup (or ... you know ... eight backups)?

That's like a fighter only carrying one weapon.

[Psion-Psycho]

I had a Str Wizard back in 3.5 that used the 3.5 version of Arcane Strike (+1 to hit and +1d4 per spell slot sacrificed to all melee attacks) and Improvised Weapons to 2hand my spell book across enemy's faces. Was a fun character and gave me some thing to do with the books other than read from them once a day and hope that they would not get stolen.

[ericthetolle]

Back in 2nd edition priests got their medium level spells from an agent of their god, and their high level spells directly from their deity. So there might be some 'splaining to do, or the deity might not like certain spells, or such.

I see whining about spellbooks to be in the same vein as the attitude of wizard entitlement that brought about the screwed up wizard rules in 3rd. edition. Back in the old days you only got one chance to learn a spell per level, there was a maximum limit to spells learned, and you didn't get free spells per level. And we LIKED it that way. We weren't soft and pampered like modern spellcasters.

But just wait- given the trend of events, 2nd edition Pathfinder will probably remove spellbooks, along with spell failure chance and anything else limiting spellcasters.

[deuxhero]

chaoseffect wrote:

and then the spell is deleted.

A blessed book removes the cost of the scribing and makes the only cost time to recopy the spell and opportunity cost of the pages, but it's still pretty bad.

[seekerofshadowlight]

ericthetolle wrote:

But just wait- given the trend of events, 2nd edition Pathfinder will probably remove spellbooks, along with spell failure chance and anything else limiting spellcasters.

To be honest, I would build all casters off the sorcer frame with spell list and abilities based off a theme.

[Calybos1]

ericthetolle wrote:

Back in the old days you only got one chance to learn a spell per level, there was a maximum limit to spells learned, and you didn't get free spells per level. And we LIKED it that way. We weren't soft and pampered like modern spellcasters.

And you had to walk five miles in the snow to your research tower, uphill, every day! NAKED! Kids today....

(Sorry. I actually agree with your point, but it was just irresistible.)

[Gnomezrule]

Spellbooks rock one of the most fun things playing a wizard for me is finding the extra spell book potentially learning new powers and so on. Its one of the things I like most.

I don't understand why people have vermisatude breaking rules like
1-You can't destroy equipment
2-You can't take spell books

I would say they are fair game. Yes I know they mess with PC effectiveness. Limiting an enemies effectiveness is what enemies do. That is why there are debuff spells, sundering, grappling and so on.

Its a Challenge instead of being a normal one it has different parameters where you must take account of diminished abilities. This is yet another symptom of the zero/sum mentality of play where anything without the highest possible bonus per level automatically sucks.

[Democratus]

Gnomezrule wrote:

Its a Challenge instead of being a normal one it has different parameters where you must take account of diminished abilities. This is yet another symptom of the zero/sum mentality of play where anything without the highest possible bonus per level automatically sucks.

Exactly!

"I liked that Illiad story. But Achilles was a stupid character. Sure he was the greatest warrior in history. But that whole vulnerable heel thing? Totally ruined his character concept."

[thejeff]

Democratus wrote:

Gnomezrule wrote:

Its a Challenge instead of being a normal one it has different parameters where you must take account of diminished abilities. This is yet another symptom of the zero/sum mentality of play where anything without the highest possible bonus per level automatically sucks.

Exactly!

"I liked that Illiad story. But Achilles was a stupid character. Sure he was the greatest warrior in history. But that whole vulnerable heel thing? Totally ruined his character concept."

A lot of people don't like playing characters much less powerful than their companions. That leads to them not wanting to be in a situation where they have to play a spellless wizard for long periods.

This isn't like Achilles. More like, if someone hits his heel, he becomes a 1st level fighter for the next 4 game sessions, but doesn't die - so you have to keep playing him.

Since you've said similar things in the past, this may be a more fundamental disconnect. If you basically don't care about playing much weaker characters, then it's easy to see why this isn't a problem for you. How do you prefer to bring in new characters after a death? Start at 1st? Same as the old character? Somewhere in between?
Not to derail into an argument about that, I'm just curious if the same preference applies.

[Zhayne]

If the character's 'heel' is such that he has to be ridiculously paranoid and go to ludicrous measures to attempt to counteract it, it probably shouldn't be.

Instead of 'overpowered character with a crippling weakness', why not 'moderately powered character with lesser weaknesses'? The Warlock from 3e was probably the best example of that. The stuff he could do, he could do all day long. Pathfinder really needs a caster class like that.

[Democratus]

thejeff wrote:

Democratus wrote:

Gnomezrule wrote:

Its a Challenge instead of being a normal one it has different parameters where you must take account of diminished abilities. This is yet another symptom of the zero/sum mentality of play where anything without the highest possible bonus per level automatically sucks.

Exactly!

"I liked that Illiad story. But Achilles was a stupid character. Sure he was the greatest warrior in history. But that whole vulnerable heel thing? Totally ruined his character concept."

A lot of people don't like playing characters much less powerful than their companions. That leads to them not wanting to be in a situation where they have to play a spellless wizard for long periods.

This isn't like Achilles. More like, if someone hits his heel, he becomes a 1st level fighter for the next 4 game sessions, but doesn't die - so you have to keep playing him.

Since you've said similar things in the past, this may be a more fundamental disconnect. If you basically don't care about playing much weaker characters, then it's easy to see why this isn't a problem for you. How do you prefer to bring in new characters after a death? Start at 1st? Same as the old character? Somewhere in between?
Not to derail into an argument about that, I'm just curious if the same preference applies.

Well, the comment you quoted was addressing an entirely different issue - the one made by Gnomezrule that some players can't stand having even the slightest bit of downside to a character or situation.

As to what you said. Yeah, I'm okay with having less "power" than my companions if it serves the story. But this is a very narrow definition of power.

At no point do I not have the power to role play, talk, advise, or interact with the world. I have exactly as much power as everyone else to impact the ongoing story. In fact, if I have been recently reduced in power due to a lost spellbook or familiar then I'm more the center of the story than the fighter who has lost nothing. The story, for the moment, is largely about my travails and struggles to regain what was lost.

The party is rallying around me and helping achieve this goal.

I recognize that there are players who are unhappy unless they are always able to throw down in combat as well as all the other characters. And that's their gig. This being a public forum, the phrase "In my opinion" is implied at the start of every post. So what I'm putting out there are my personal views on things.

The issue of character death is different for every campaign. I reenter the game in whatever manner best matches the story and tone.

In a slim majority of games I have played, the replacement character is roughly a peer of the party. I have also played 1st level characters in the midst of a 12th level party, taken over an NPC as a character to preserve continuity, or whatever else is needed to keep the game maximally enjoyable for everyone at the table.

I value the collective enjoyment of the players and the integrity of the story as my top priorities. I'm having fun just being at the table with friends and participating in some collective storytelling. The rest is just gravy.

[Imbicatus]

Also, in a game, character death is preferable by far to forced character incompetence for multiple game sessions. Most people don't enjoy playing without being able to contribute to party success in a meaningful way. It may be fun for an encounter to use ghost sound while stealthed to trick a search party to go in another direction. It won't be fun for four game sessions. It's much less painful as a player to let a character die, and then re-roll a replacement.

[Gnomezrule]

Well over four sessions would get old, I would not put a player in that kind of position that long.
Also if I limit a player I take that into account going into encounters.
It has nothing to to do with enjoying sub optimal characters over effective ones. It has do with creating an exciting, consistant world where the range of enemies include ones that understand the value monitarily and strategically of spellbooks.

Also give players credit for being smart enough to mitigate weaknesses. An extra spellbook is not a horrible idea nor is it all that expensive.

I have commented on the zero/sum mentality before not because I enjoy weak characters but because I dont believe that only the best possible option is the only good option. An 18 hits harder than a 16, but it is not hopless, it certainly is better than an 8, which might be hopeless.

[thejeff]

Democratus wrote:

Well, the comment you quoted was addressing an entirely different issue - the one made by Gnomezrule that some players can't stand having even the slightest bit of downside to a character or situation.

As to what you said. Yeah, I'm okay with having less "power" than my companions if it serves the story. But this is a very narrow definition of power.

At no point do I not have the power to role play, talk, advise, or interact with the world. I have exactly as much power as everyone else to impact the ongoing story. In fact, if I have been recently reduced in power due to a lost spellbook or familiar then I'm more the center of the story than the fighter who has lost nothing. The story, for the moment, is largely about my travails and struggles to regain what was lost.

The party is rallying around me and helping achieve this goal.

I recognize that there are players who are unhappy unless they are always able to throw down in combat as well as all the other characters. And that's their gig. This being a public forum, the phrase "In my opinion" is implied at the start of every post. So what I'm putting out there are my personal views on things.

The issue of character death is different for every campaign. I reenter the game in whatever manner best matches the story and tone.

In a slim majority of games I have played, the replacement character is roughly a peer of the party. I have also played 1st level characters in the midst of a 12th level party, taken over an NPC as a character to preserve continuity, or whatever else is needed to keep the game maximally enjoyable for everyone at the table.

I value the collective enjoyment of the players and the integrity of the story as my top priorities. I'm having fun just being at the table with friends and participating in some collective storytelling. The rest is just gravy.

Thanks. I didn't think it was an entirely different issue, since Gnomezrule was using it as a symptom of a larger problem.

This did shed some light. I do get that you can always roleplay and interact, regardless of the character's power level. But most games do make at least some attempt at balance between characters and they do so for a reason.

I wonder if your games tend to feature less time in combat than is common? Combat is when the power difference shows up most. And where you really have the least ability to role play, talk, advise, or interact and especially to impact the story, if you're significantly weaker than the others. You'll have less effect on the outcome of the battle. You can still shout from the sidelines, but many groups frown on too much tactical advice during a fight.
The more game time is spent in combat, the more players are unhappy if they can't contribute close to equally in combat.

There may also be another difference in gamestyle. You suggest that with the loss of a spellbook, the story shifts more to your struggle to regain it. In some cases I've seen the story can't really shift because other goals remain too urgent. Now the story becomes "Can we still accomplish our goals with a crippled wizard?", with a bit of "Can we afford the time for him to regain or rewrite his books? Which isn't quite as much fun for the player as rallying around and helping him.

[TOZ]

Zhayne wrote:

Instead of 'overpowered character with a crippling weakness', why not 'moderately powered character with lesser weaknesses'? The Warlock from 3e was probably the best example of that. The stuff he could do, he could do all day long. Pathfinder really needs a caster class like that.

That would be the Witch.

[Imbicatus]

TOZ wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Instead of 'overpowered character with a crippling weakness', why not 'moderately powered character with lesser weaknesses'? The Warlock from 3e was probably the best example of that. The stuff he could do, he could do all day long. Pathfinder really needs a caster class like that.

That would be the Witch.

Not really. They are full casters, Hexes are very limited, they suck at blasting which was the warlocks specialty, and they don't have access to 24 hour self buffs.

[TriOmegaZero]

He didn't say 'Pathfinder needs a 24-hour blaster'.

[LazarX]

Zhayne wrote:

If the character's 'heel' is such that he has to be ridiculously paranoid and go to ludicrous measures to attempt to counteract it, it probably shouldn't be.

Instead of 'overpowered character with a crippling weakness', why not 'moderately powered character with lesser weaknesses'? The Warlock from 3e was probably the best example of that. The stuff he could do, he could do all day long. Pathfinder really needs a caster class like that.

It's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. While spellbooks are very important, it's only in extreme situations, extremely careless wizards, or extremely dickey GM's that spellbooks get lost before the wizard himself does. The average adventuring scenario means that the wizard is keeping his book safe in his packs, so you still have to get through the wizard (and his party allies) before you can get to his books.

Spellbooks aren't particularly vulnerable to theft or destruction unless the wizard himself MAKES them vulnerable by doing some form of stupid. (It's one of the reasons I don't carry a bunch of empty spell slots while infiltrating an active stronghold)

[Democratus]

thejeff wrote:

Thanks. I didn't think it was an entirely different issue, since Gnomezrule was using it as a symptom of a larger problem.

This did shed some light. I do get that you can always roleplay and interact, regardless of the character's power level. But most games do make at least some attempt at balance between characters and they do so for a reason.

I wonder if your games tend to feature less time in combat than is common? Combat is when the power difference shows up most. And where you really have the least ability to role play, talk, advise, or interact and especially to impact the story, if you're significantly weaker than the others. You'll have less effect on the outcome of the battle. You can still shout from the sidelines, but many groups frown on too much tactical advice during a fight.
The more game time is spent in combat, the more players are unhappy if they can't contribute close to equally in combat.

There may also be another difference in gamestyle. You suggest that with the loss of a spellbook, the story shifts more to your struggle to regain it. In some cases I've seen the story can't really shift because other goals remain too urgent. Now the story becomes "Can we still accomplish our goals with a crippled wizard?", with a bit of "Can we afford the time for him to regain or rewrite his books? Which isn't quite as much fun for the player as rallying around and helping him.

Just so. My games are about 2/3 RP and 1/3 combat. The players often do a lot of scheming and planning. Usually they will also try to build up relationships with various NPCs (individuals and organizations) in order to have the maximum leverage when bad stuff goes down.

We prefer a lot of "Name of the Rose" type stuff in addition to heavy combat stuff. Campaigns tend to be more combat-y at early levels where they are in the early 'Kobold Kicking' phases. As they level up they become more important and powerful and spend much more time setting up pins before knocking them down.

Massively urgent goals that preclude any distractions are rare as it is a slippery slope to railroading. If such a thing does happen, then the resolution will be reached quickly enough that our hypothetical wizard will not be gimped for a lot of sessions.

As a DM it's my job to make sure the party has tough choices - and to reward whichever decision they do make. By reward I don't mean treasure and victory (though that often happens), I mean the story gets another level deeper and the players feel that much more empowered once a decision plays out.

If everyone puts their heads together in the middle of a world-endangering crisis and says, "We help the wizard. If we don't look out for each other - what are we saving the world for?" I will likely not have the planet explode as they rush off on this errand. Instead I will make the road that much tougher for them because of the delay. Whatever the final outcome, the heroes have made their stand on their terms.

[Imbicatus]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

He didn't say 'Pathfinder needs a 24-hour blaster'.

No, but he was saying that the witch is a caster class like the 3.5 warlock. It isn't.

[TriOmegaZero]

Imbicatus wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

He didn't say 'Pathfinder needs a 24-hour blaster'.

No, but he was saying that the witch is a caster class like the 3.5 warlock. It isn't.

When I said he I was referring to Zhayne. As in, 'Zhayne didn't say Pathfinder needs a 24-hour blaster'.

[John Kerpan]

As in: the witch is a caster who has the abilities to use less abilities all day long without running out, like a warlock. Not "has all day blasting capabilities" like a warlock :)

[TOZ]

Thanks John.