I'm irritated that the costs for spellbooks have remained as absurdly high as they were in 3.5. I'm similarly annoyed that scribing a spell off a scroll renders the scroll useless. I've got a 6th level wizard going in a game at the moment that just got to spend close to half of his total wealth on buying scrolls then scribing the handful of spells into his spellbook. The double tap on it is what really gets me. Either it should cost 100gp per page with the scroll retaining it's power, or the scroll should be rendered worthless but the scribing should remain the same.
I know, this is a small issue to many people, and some view it as the balancing of the wizard, but really, at present it is just annoying and further screws the wizard if he loses his spellbook somehow. You cannot simultaneously rant about how a wizard's strength is his versatility and punish him (severely!) at lower levels for playing to it.
Anyway, that's just my two cents on the issue. Get rid of scrolls becoming worthless after scribing, or get rid of the stupid "special incredibly expensive ink" line.
Then here's what you do in character:
Walk up to that guy that's making a laughing stock out of you by selling you scrolls and ask to see his spell book for the purposes of copying spells into your own book. He should charge about 50gp per spell level for this service. You might even be able to trade him a few spells he doesn't know and you do.
or if your DM doesn't go for that try this:
Out of character:
Ask your DM for your wealth by level refund. After all you are now way below your wealth by level and need to be brought back up to it otherwise you will not be suitable able to face the challenges he presents.
All of your solutions are in some form viable for in character attempts at a fix. I'm looking for a change to the rule itself to at least get rid of the double tap on the cost of spellbooks. I understand, they should be valuable, expensive, and so forth, but the double tap on scrolls is just annoying and stupid. Lets say a party of 4 founds 3,000gp and a scroll of a 3rd level spell. Awesome. The wizard claims the scroll (worth 375gp) and an additional 450 or so gp. He then proceeds to burn 300 of that gold to scribe the scroll. He nets a spell in his spellbook that he can prepare later, and 168 or so gp, while everyone else enjoys over 800gp in goodness. That's screwed.
Regarding the game in question, no one will be joining with a wizard (everyone is quite happy playing beatsticks) and encounters with another wizard seem unlikely at best in the immediate to near future (probably for at least 2-3 levels).
Well my suggestion on the copying from another wizard's spellbook in town is suggested by the rules themselves in the magic section... the same way magic items are suggested. If the DM isn't letting you find a mentor to teach you... I would suggest something is odd with the DM.
Beyond that point out to the other party members how useful your spells are for them too. Don't buy haste yourself, have the fighter pay for it. If he doesn't you don't have the spell and can't cast it. No reason for you to finance all the parties buffing yourself.
My opinion is spells for a wizard's spell book are should be handed out just like any other magic item or reward.
|
Perhaps wizards tend to see each other as competition and so may very well be that niggardly in sharing spellbooks.Well my suggestion on the copying from another wizard's spellbook in town is suggested by the rules themselves in the magic section... the same way magic items are suggested. If the DM isn't letting you find a mentor to teach you... I would suggest something is odd with the DM.
WHOA! racist remark!!
Perhaps wizards tend to see each other as competition and so may very well be that niggardly in sharing spellbooks.WHOA! racist remark!!
There is nothing racist about the word "niggardly". See for example, these links: dictionary.reference.com or Wikipedia
In the matter of the wizards spell book. I found the earlier comment about collegiate wizard to be what I always take when I play a wizard character. It costs you a feat but in the long run it is worth it. Being able to get 4 spells 4 free per lvl is a nice way to add to the spell book but you don't have a wizard with 600+ spells running around by 10th lvl either.
HOUSE RULE ALERT!!! I had a DM say that the collegiate feat INSTEAD allowed the wizard to gain a number of free spells per INT bonus per lvl. I have a 20 something so I was getting 5/6 spells per lvl and the DM never had to take time to make a NPC spellbook. I got tired of fighting sorcerers because the DM didnt want to make up a spellbook for the bad guy and called him on it thus the house rule was born.
I hope this helps and I would really love to see it go mainstream.
Why make the wizard more powerful?
The monetary issues of spell book creation and maintenance is a balancing factor for magic items and the like. If you don't want a spell book cost, play a sorcerer, cleric, bard, or druid, none of them have that cost.
WHOA! racist remark!!Perhaps wizards tend to see each other as competition and so may very well be that niggardly in sharing spellbooks.Well my suggestion on the copying from another wizard's spellbook in town is suggested by the rules themselves in the magic section... the same way magic items are suggested. If the DM isn't letting you find a mentor to teach you... I would suggest something is odd with the DM.
Are you being serious?
Why make the wizard more powerful?
The monetary issues of spell book creation and maintenance is a balancing factor for magic items and the like. If you don't want a spell book cost, play a sorcerer, cleric, bard, or druid, none of them have that cost.
Ugh... not another "OMG WIZARDS ARE TEH OVERPOWERZ#!" person... please... If I have to derail another poorly thought out train of light on that topic I might strangle someone, or a puppy, or both. It's the position of ignorance. The fact is the wizard isn't so powerful that a slight chance to the cost of spells to scribe is going to overpower it.
With regard to your paragraph, what a lovely answer. That's kind of like "If you don't like everything about this country move somewhere else (though as a side note there are certain parts of the country you do have to accept or move away from such as the capitalist society and structure)", except even more lame brained. I enjoy the wizard class, I really do. This is a minor issue that needs to be resolved to make it a more fun class overall. To stop turning every scroll found into another possible spell to prepare, instead of a combat asset.
While your raising the issue however, the Cleric and Druid have no spellbook, can prepare any spell on their list as they please, and have at least half a dozen other advantages on arcane classes in general. With that in mind reducing the cost of the few spells a wizard might have access to isn't unreasonable in my mind.
Ugh... not another "OMG WIZARDS ARE TEH OVERPOWERZ#!" person... please... If I have to derail another poorly thought out train of light on that topic I might strangle someone, or a puppy, or both. It's the position of ignorance. The fact is the wizard isn't so powerful that a slight chance to the cost of spells to scribe is going to overpower it.
With regard to your paragraph, what a lovely answer. That's kind of like "If you don't like everything about this country move somewhere else (though as a side note there are certain parts of the country you do have to accept or move away from such as the capitalist society and structure)", except even more lame brained. I enjoy the wizard class, I really do. This is a minor issue that needs to be resolved to make it a more fun class overall. To stop turning every scroll found into another possible spell to prepare, instead of a combat asset.
While your raising the issue however, the Cleric and Druid have no spellbook, can prepare any spell on their list as they please, and have at least half a dozen other advantages on arcane classes in general. With that in mind reducing the cost of the few spells a wizard might have access to isn't unreasonable in my mind.
So where do you get off in saying that I said wizards are overpowered, especially in such a condescending way. I actually think wizard is one of the weaker classes because of their limited spells per day.
You are an arse and a reactionary one at that.
Your last paragraph is the only one that is even the slightest bit conducive towards the actual discussion.
So, you want to remove a balancing factor for one class. I'm asking you why and all I'm hearing you say, "OMG ITS TEH PAIN IN BUTT!!!1!!!" and "BAWWWWWW CLERIC ARE TEH PWN!!111!"
Neither of which are good reasons to drop it.
Then here's what you do in character:
Walk up to that guy that's making a laughing stock out of you by selling you scrolls and ask to see his spell book for the purposes of copying spells into your own book. He should charge about 50gp per spell level for this service. You might even be able to trade him a few spells he doesn't know and you do.
Yes, and by the rules after paying the wizard 50gp per spell level for the service the wizard STILL must spend an additional 100gp per spell level scribing the spells into his spellbook.
So where do you get off in saying that I said wizards are overpowered, especially in such a condescending way. I actually think wizard is one of the weaker classes because of their limited spells per day.
When you start complaining about how this removes a balancing feature of the class and how it will make wizards more powerful you imply you think the class is powerful enough. Most people of that school tend to think the wizard class is overpowered.
You are an arse and a reactionary one at that.
Where as you are someone who failed to communicate his point or views accurately and offered a completely useless (and somewhat rude) answer.
Your last paragraph is the only one that is even the slightest bit conducive towards the actual discussion.
Yes, because most of your post was conductive towards the actual discussion, like telling someone to go play a different class if they dislike anything about their current one. Glass houses and stones ring a bell?
So, you want to remove a balancing factor for one class. I'm asking you why and all I'm hearing you say, "OMG ITS TEH PAIN IN BUTT!!!1!!!" and "BAWWWWWW CLERIC ARE TEH PWN!!111!"
I'm asking that part of a balancing feature that doubletaps wizards on costs for a spellbook, especially in games that spend long periods of time away from civilization where a wizards only means of adding additional spells to his spellbook is through scrolls (like for instance the Sea Wyvern's Wake and and it's following adventures in the Savage Tide Adventure Path), be removed. The wizard is still limited by the spells they know, find, and buy, but they aren't double penalized for buying spells. I think the penalty is excessive and needless. Wizards at low-mid levels, which is where this is meaningful (at higher levels the odds of spending even a single level, much less several away from civilization with access to Teleport and the like are slim) are already penalized enough by the 100gp a page super ink needed to scribe a spell into a spellbook.
I don't think the penalty is necessary, and in my experience it is simply annoying.
You brought up the cleric class. I wasn't relating the issue to that class until you did so. The point however is meaningful, as divine casters across the board get a much better deal on spells. When they have many of the same spells as the wizard, and often more of them each day along with a better HD, BAB, saves, and class features I have my doubts that the cost of the spellbook is especially necessary to balance the wizard class, much less the doubletap cost of the spellbook using scrolls.
Neither of which are good reasons to drop it.
You're right, the straw men you present are crappy reasons. I could similarly misrepresent your position to make it look just as absurd.
Clear and Concise:
Your opinion on the matter is wrong and you should feel bad about it.
Wizards have two limiting spell factors, spells per day and spellbook cost.
Sorceress have staggered casting, limited spells known, increased metamagic time.
So I say to you, go find a different way to make wizards stronger because the spell book cost is fine as it is.
Good enough?
If not see first statement as a response to anything else you say.
Clear and Concise:
Your opinion on the matter is wrong and you should feel bad about it.
Wizards have two limiting spell factors, spells per day and spellbook cost.
Sorceress have staggered casting, limited spells known, increased metamagic time.So I say to you, go find a different way to make wizards stronger because the spell book cost is fine as it is.
Good enough?
If not see first statement as a response to anything else you say.
So your entire argument amounts to nothing. You have nothing to base you point on and are forced to resort to blanket statements about how others are wrong, you are right, and nothing changes that. You would like a wonderful DM to play under. Very rational and objective.
The primary limiting factors of the wizard are it's need for a spellbook, limited spells per day, need to prepare spells ahead of time, and low hit die. The cost of the spellbook is an additional limiting mechanic - and in many ways a good one - but it is hardly the major one. What I'm proposing doesn't remove the cost of a spellbook, it simply removes the doubletap on scrolls and turns scrolls into actual treasure, instead of just an access to a spell.
If you think the sorcerer's staggered casting or increased metamagic casting time is an effective balancing mechanic I suppose I can understand why you feel as you do about the spellbook costs.
I completely disagree with you on that subject as well.
|
|
Perhaps wizards tend to see each other as competition and so may very well be that niggardly in sharing spellbooks.WHOA! racist remark!!There is nothing racist about the word "niggardly". See for example, these links: dictionary.reference.com or Wikipedia
Wow, OK I stand corrected, that was my ignorance...my apologies.
I think the costs are fine as they are, insofar as (according to me anyway) wizardry should be an expensive trade.
That being said, we can imagine that those costs come in exotic ingredients for scribing tools, inks and dusts etc. Then again, we assume that the wizard is buying it all, but what if he/she already has some of it. Adventure locales, creatures vanquished and out-of-game social interaction could come with opportunities to "harvest" some of those ingredients. Dust from a tomb , feather of a Vrock, dried blood of a harpy, a handful of leaves from bicentennial elven tree etc. Chances are that these elements will be of limited use for the wizard, but could be traded for something more useful or appropriate back at the "Mage's Emporium of fine Wizardries, (open since -1076)" when the adventurers are back in town.
The issue would be to quantify this "harvesting" in a way that:
1) Wizards don't start up a scavenging business out of every adventure,
2) Is significant enough without being overwhelmingly profitable,
3) Doesn't significantly slow down the pace of the game.
My suggestion would be to either include it in Craft-bookmaking (which costs yet another skill to develop) or make a profession-like use of Knowledge-Arcana where the wizard collects X gp worth of ingredients that he can exchange at the market for gp toward the inscription of new spells in his grimoire. Actually, the same could go for the creation of every magic items.
this fits better as a house rule, but otherwise, I thing the high costs of scribing are representative of the high standards that wizards and other scholars require.
'findel
|
Out of character:Ask your DM for your wealth by level refund. After all you are now way below your wealth by level and need to be brought back up to it otherwise you will not be suitable able to face the challenges he presents.
Actually, as I DM I include the spellbook in character wealth, as it has a set value. I would not include spells gained through levelling.
I don't mind that at all, however I imagine as a DM you allow opportunities for you player's with wizards to gain more spells to their spellbooks. It's all part of the way it goes, and is what I'm advocating here. A full set of normal spellbooks with every spell in them should eat up about 1/4 of the wizard's wealth by 20th level. I don't see anything wrong with that. Especially when they can turn around and make most of the other items they are going to want.
When I say what I did I was simply pointing out that the cost of a scroll is higher than the cost of a spell in your spellbook, therefore your "wealth" has dropped because the scroll has been used, and the value of what you got in return is less than you spent.
|
|
When I say what I did I was simply pointing out that the cost of a scroll is higher than the cost of a spell in your spellbook, therefore your "wealth" has dropped because the scroll has been used, and the value of what you got in return is less than you spent.
Fair enough. I also don't count previously consumed items towards character wealth, which I think is paraphrasing you.
|
My group got around the spellbook problems by having the cost be 10gp per page. Trust me, this is still expensive in the long run, but not nearly as ridiculous as the current 100gp per page that is listed in the book.
Between spellbook prices and crafting items, our spellcasters are still short on cash at times.
|
Our group has similarly house ruled this... we use:
20gp x spl lvl^2
this is a simpler version of an idea posted elsewhere
this works great - cantrips free (eveyone knows them...), 1st level very inexpensive, at 5th level it is the same, and at very high levels spells actually cost slightly more
try it it works and speaking as a GM it makes spellbooks a more frequent treasure item (otherwise they are just toooo valuable)