Rather than burden ONE core class with a highly destructible, very expensive and increasingly-encumbering power source, why not just stipulate that Wizard's learn spells permanently?
In short, while bards and sorcerors cast their spells spontaneously from a small list of known spells, Wizards prepare their spells from the list of spells that they master as they progress in their craft.
Mechanically, this changes nothing in the function of the class while removing a too-easily-abused restriction that no other character has to endure.
Thoughts?
Um... I like having my spellbooks... plus it would render the Spell mastery feat pointless... and sometimes as a DM I like destroying a spellbook or two along the way.
I do to (on the destroying spell books part) - but let's face it, what real game mechanical function does a spell book serve? I mean Spell Mastery eats up a LOT of feats to even attempt to keep pace with the rate of 'free' spells they learn starting at 2nd level. (Barring a truly obscene INT bonus, a Wizard cannot keep pace, even investing every feat they have into Spell Mastery...)
As a source of lore - and perhaps as a tool, but not as the method of actual knowledge, like other character's weapons and divine casters' focus.
How about introducing an Arcane Focus, as the counterpoint to the Divine Focus?
Arcane spontaneous casters have a small pool of known spells, thus they have no need for an arcane focus nor to expend feats on Spell Mastery, as they automatically do so as is.
Wizards with this variant master their spells as they learn them but require an arcane focus, much like divine spell casters require their divine focus (holy symbol), to actually cast most of their spells.
Thoughts?
Arcane focus already exists in a small way with the arcane bond for an object.
Also the spell book eats up gold. Which is part of what it is supposed to do, it's the wizardly equilvent to the magic sword and armor.
The question becomes what happens to all those spells the wizard knows? The sorcerer is specifically limited on spells known becuase there is only so much "room" for that knowledge... if the wizard can suddenly keep all those spells in his head... that throws alot of base assumptions out the window.
Also how do you limit a wizard's spell knowledge then? Does he suddenly get all the spells available on the spell list like a cleric? Probably not, but why doesn't he, and where does he keep his spell knowledge then?
Also how do you limit a wizard's spell knowledge then? Does he suddenly get all the spells available on the spell list like a cleric? Probably not, but why doesn't he, and where does he keep his spell knowledge then?
That's somewhat irrelevant... what limits a sorcerer's spells known? What limits the spells a wizard can memorize per day?
There's a distinction to be made between forcing a wizard to spend resources in order to learn spells, and tying that knowledge up within a physical object which can be destroyed.
Personally I like the flavor of spell books; it's the easiest way to rationalize the cost and method of learning new spells. But it could be neat to have a side-bar of alternatives. (The wizard tattoos them on her body, or learns to read particular patterns in the natural world.)
Rather than burden ONE core class with a highly destructible, very expensive and increasingly-encumbering power source, why not just stipulate that Wizard's learn spells permanently?
I well never do this, infact one of the biggest problems i have with 4th is the absense of a spellbook for wizards. yes yes it says they have them but you could leave yours at home, there is no cost to write the spell in there, it's just added when you gain a new spell.
A spell book is what makes a wizard a wizard you get completely rid of it and then they are sorcerers with better options.
|
A spell book is what makes a wizard a wizard you get completely rid of it and then they are sorcerers with better options.
Not really as a Sorcerer can cast the spells he knows as he needs them
so 4 x magic missle if he has 4 lvl 1 slots and knows magic missle
but a wizard would need to have brought to memory 4 magic missles taking up 4 slots for the day
As part of the game its just a thematic trapping having a spell book not really needed as you could easily explain that yes a wizard learns all spells but needs to spend time to organise them in his/her head and bring to the fore the ones he/she will expend that day.
If your wizard has a spell book he should always have a back up somewhere, that always foils pesky GMs.
Not really as a Sorcerer can cast the spells he knows as he needs them so 4 x magic missle if he has 4 lvl 1 slots and knows magic missle but a wizard would need to have brought to memory 4 magic missles taking up 4 slots for the day As part of the game its just a thematic trapping having a spell book not really needed as you could easily explain that yes a wizard learns all spells but needs to spend time to organise them in his/her head and bring to the fore the ones he/she will expend that day.
So a sorcerer, but you have to pick your spells instead of being limited to a few.
If your wizard has a spell book he should always have a back up somewhere, that always foils pesky GMs.
Very true but that takes more money, and a place to keep it!
Last time around I grabbed a couple of spell masteries for those just in case moments. A back up is always a good idea, just like a back up weapon is smart for a fighter.
Last time around I grabbed a couple of spell masteries for those just in case moments. A back up is always a good idea, just like a back up weapon is smart for a fighter.
Ah, but a fighter does not have to burn anywhere near as much of his swag to swing that back up weapon, nor does that fighter have to use multiple feats to retain that back up weapon.
And wizards are generally expected, at least in the groups I've seen, to tote along a projectile weapon and at least one melee weapon (typically a dagger or club) in addition to everything else, same as most other characters. THEN they have to cost out to learn every spell beyond the freebies - including translation costs and time when dealing with "acquired" spell books - from advancing a level.
The whole idea of the wizard is "prepare smaller #/day from a larger body of known spells" (not that they get everything like the divine casters do, just that they can increase what they do know given enough time and the proper skill checks and level advancement and what not) vs. the sorcerer's "use everything I know off the cuff as necessary". Both have their strengths - and weaknesses. Raw firepower per day? Sorcerer is better. Flexibility and adaptability in that same day? Wizard is better.
Granted, this already seems to be clearly understood. :) Pardon my rambling...
Well since we all know that the only enemies a party ever faces are wizards just grab their books for your own. Doesn't cost much of anything, and the DC's on using those books are well within the easy range (even if you don't take read magic as one of your 0th level spells).
While the beginning of that is a joke, the rest is the important part. I usually bring a weapon or two along for my wizard too, but it generally isn't anything along the lines of what the fighter's weapons are (generally +1 defensive at max... all hail greater magic weapon!).
(a bunch of good points) :) Pardon my rambling...
ah but how much of the "flaw" of wizards is the spell book, i think it's a huge part of it.
also, don't forget at will 0th level spells, and other at will effects that both sorcerers and wizards get, my last sorcerer only carried a hand crossbow (that she didn't have proficancy in) so that people would think she was something different than a sorcerer. never used it.
(a bunch of good points) :) Pardon my rambling...ah but how much of the "flaw" of wizards is the spell book, i think it's a huge part of it.
also, don't forget at will 0th level spells, and other at will effects that both sorcerers and wizards get, my last sorcerer only carried a hand crossbow (that she didn't have proficancy in) so that people would think she was something different than a sorcerer. never used it.
To look at it from another perspective:
Almost every character can be "disabled" by targeting their class items. Weapons and armor for non-casters, component pouches and foci for casters.
But, ONLY the Wizard can be disabled for the long-term by the destruction/loss of their spell book. No other caster can be so thoroughly crippled with a single shot on a single item once they exhaust their current reserve of prepared spells. Non-casters often have multiple weapons - and most medium / heavy armor includes gauntlets giving them at least that as a (crummy) back-up weapon. All other casters but the wizard can access their non-cantrips/orisons, albiet forced to use spells that do not require components and/or foci. Wizards ... cannot even refresh thier spells and select ones they know that do not require material components/foci, nor can they change the cantrips they do have prepared.
In short, would you say that a cleric/druid cannot re-prepare spells without their divine focus? If so, then by all means keep the spellbook.
But the wizard is still not completely without magic: He still has his school bonus spells since those are permenantly choosen in pathfinder.
But the wizard is still not completely without magic: He still has his school bonus spells since those are permenantly choosen in pathfinder.
But that's all the wizard has, unlike any one else.
Still, that helps (a bit) :)
stuff...... In short, would you say that a cleric/druid cannot re-prepare spells without their divine focus? If so, then by all means keep the spellbook.
for one yes i would and for two it's the balance to being able to the most powerful class at 20th
for one yes i would and for two it's the balance to being able to the most powerful class at 20thstuff...... In short, would you say that a cleric/druid cannot re-prepare spells without their divine focus? If so, then by all means keep the spellbook.
Well, if the cleric/druid can be equally as disabled (in terms of spellcasting) by the loss of a single item as any other caster then I'm happy. :)
I'd much rather say that the wizard has a travelling spellbook and a "home" spellbook like older editions, and that he gets to maintain his "home" spellbook for free, and can recopy his spells from the home spellbook into a new spellbook for only the cost of a new spellbook.
That way he could be temporarily screwed by loosing his spellbook, but not long term, unless someone was really, really vicious and went after his safely tucked away home spellbook, which usually never sees the light of day.
|
Well #1 the spellbook is the limiter to prevent wizards from knowing every spell in the list. Without the book you need to prvoide some other kind of limiter, likely spells known as the sorcerer.
#2 rarely is a wizards spellbook exposed the way a fighters weapon is and if your GM is going to destroy spellbooks what is going to prevent him from sundering? A typical spellbook is tucked away in a haversack or bag of holding and only sees the light of day when the wizard is studying.
#3 Wizards spellbooks cost much less then an equivalent magic weapon for an equal level fighter. So long as sunder exists, or disarm, or a variety of other mechanisms the fighter is more vulnerable and the impact is nearly as severe.
#4 A second spellbook isn't such a horrible idea or a huge burden on a wizard. Have someone else in the party carry it or if you are high enough level keep it on the nightstand along with a scroll of teleportation. Then in a pinch you could teleport home and collect it.
I do not see the problem with a wizard knowing every 'common' spell on their list any more than a druid or cleric can always prepare from their entire spell list for the day.
Part of the fun and focus of a wizard (and even the purpose for adventure and traveling) is spell research, if they knew every spell, this would be taken away.
Most higher level wizards have their spellbooks of in some dimensional hole anyway. And traveling spellbooks have the most commonly used spells,for the purpose of renewing spells per day, but the grimoire is that giant tome you could skull fracture a goblin with that is kept safe somewhere, that has every spell the wizard has ever learned.
Also if there were no spell books, how would the wizard learn new spells?
Even the sorceror technically learns his new spells from wizard research (captured spell books, scrolls etc)
If wizards didnt write down spells youd loose the whole "scrolls" feat all together.
In the end I see this idea as an encroachment on the sorcerer's area.
What the wizard need is new spells to protect her spellbook. It is strange that being something so important to a wizard hadn’t spells specifically designed for that
Another thing a wizard normally have a few spellbook, at lest 1 great spellbook that stays safe and at home and more replaceable traveling spellbooks.
Lest every wizard I ever played did
I always saw this from another angle, that divine casters had an unfair advantage in having an unlimited spell pool to pull on. I remedied this by requiring them to maintain a "prayer book" with the same general rules as a wizard's spellbook. I added a few flavor differences though, like all prayerbooks of a particular deity are recorded the same, so they can memorize spells between each other. I also assume that clergy in a temple share one large prayer tome which all the clergy memorize spells from. I figure this could be done during a group prayer led by the high priest. Traveling (ie: Adventuring) clergy still need to maintain a private book.
I always saw this from another angle, that divine casters had an unfair advantage in having an unlimited spell pool to pull on. I remedied this by requiring them to maintain a "prayer book" with the same general rules as a wizard's spellbook. I added a few flavor differences though, like all prayerbooks of a particular deity are recorded the same, so they can memorize spells between each other. I also assume that clergy in a temple share one large prayer tome which all the clergy memorize spells from. I figure this could be done during a group prayer led by the high priest. Traveling (ie: Adventuring) clergy still need to maintain a private book.
Have you ever seen a torah, bible or koran that is missing prayers in it,from God that the other printings of said book do not contain?
Likewise. The Cleric is assumed to have direct communication with his 'diety' unlike say a fighter who prays to the same diety.
IF you can talk directly to a 'god' then by default you would have the possibility of recieving the spells (any spell he can grant) you have access to.
Wizards can cast any reversible version of their spells. Good clerics cannot inflict wounds or slay living. Most evil clerics cannot "heal" although that is deity dependant.
Receiving clerical spells also depends on whether the DM WANTS the cleric to have the spell at all. I.e. The diety (read DM) could deny the cleric that spell. Or conversely if the cleric angered his 'god' or failed a task, higher level spells could be denied him.
Wizards have no such limits.
There in, is why the Cleric doesn't have an unfair advantage over the wizard.
You can not compare a restriction that the DM could do with one that is in the rules.
Two points:
Should have more magic to protect a spellbook (read magic lower levels), and there could be a magic to rebuild a lost book. Because it takes a lot of time and work to find all the spells you have learned and that is perhaps the worst part.
Suggestion:
3th Spellbook Reborn
"The power of this spell search into yours memories and subconscious in order to retrieve all the already lost knowledge of yours spells. Then it draws off that information from you and deposit on the prepared new spellbook."
Focus: New spellbook
Material Components: some stuff worth the price to write that amount of spells
Casting time: 1 hour
You can not compare a restriction that the DM could do with one that is in the rules.Two points:
Should have more magic to protect a spellbook (read magic lower levels), and there could be a magic to rebuild a lost book. Because it takes a lot of time and work to find all the spells you have learned and that is perhaps the worst part.
Suggestion:
3th Spellbook Reborn
"The power of this spell search into yours memories and subconscious in order to retrieve all the already lost knowledge of yours spells. Then it draws off that information from you and deposit on the prepared new spellbook."
Focus: New spellbook
Material Components: some stuff worth the price to write that amount of spells
Casting time: 1 hour
actually in 1e it was in the original rules, just something WotC go lzy with and didnt copy and paste.
actually in 1e it was in the original rules, just something WotC go lzy with and didnt copy and paste.
So that's another flaw of WOTC. :P
But what about the spell???
actually in 1e it was in the original rules, just something WotC go lzy with and didnt copy and paste.
So that's another flaw of WOTC. :P
But what about the spell???
too easy, too low of a spell level.
Recalling ALL the magical knowledge?? I think it'd be a 5th level spell.
I picture something like an uber version of rary's pnemonic enahncer, which allows you to recall one spell already cast.
Now what you are trying to do is recall ALL spells you have ever learned, not just the recently memorizes ones and not just a single spell but ALL of them, for the prupose of retranscribing them in said lost/stolen/destroyed spell book.
which is a 4th level spell.
What you are effectively doing stashing all this knowledge in a part of your brain not normally acessible straight away and recalling it when necessary. ITs at least a 5th level spell if not a 6th.
Complete Arcane had options for making better spellbooks too (yes I know, not OGL) and there is still the Blessed Book, which saves a good chunk of change.
too easy, too low of a spell level.
Recalling ALL the magical knowledge?? I think it'd be a 5th level spell.I picture something like an uber version of rary's pnemonic enahncer, which allows you to recall one spell already cast.
Now what you are trying to do is recall ALL spells you have ever learned, not just the recently memorizes ones and not just a single spell but ALL of them, for the prupose of retranscribing them in said lost/stolen/destroyed spell book.
which is a 4th level spell.
What you are effectively doing stashing all this knowledge in a part of your brain not normally acessible straight away and recalling it when necessary. ITs at least a 5th level spell if not a 6th.
I think it would be a 5th level spell so. It's a fair level half way in the class progression.
Interesting thought.
The removal of the spellbook from daily prep would be a balancing act.
I like the idea of spellbooks though. What if you could cast extra spells from the spellbook, it would just say, take longer, say a full-round per spell-level to cast.
That's the problem in removing this: I relly like the concept of spellbooks and spell research. However I think it's an unbalanced major flaw because no other spellcaster have this limitation. I think it would be great if the spellbook adds something to the wizard. Have you read the "101 Spellbooks, Tomes Of Knowledge, And Forbidden Grimoires"?
It has several books with special features and bonus.
Another thing a wizard normally have a few spellbook, at lest 1 great spellbook that stays safe and at home and more replaceable traveling spellbooks.
And what about a spell to copy a present spellbook (or a part) to another?
But the cost to copy must be less expensive though.
Rather than burden ONE core class with a highly destructible, very expensive and increasingly-encumbering power source, why not just stipulate that Wizard's learn spells permanently?
In short, while bards and sorcerors cast their spells spontaneously from a small list of known spells, Wizards prepare their spells from the list of spells that they master as they progress in their craft.
Mechanically, this changes nothing in the function of the class while removing a too-easily-abused restriction that no other character has to endure.
Thoughts?
I think you made a good point on how the wizard, alone among other spellcasters, is handicapped by its reliance on his spellbook. More over, the process is expansive and time consuming; time and money are not necessarily at hand when adventuring.
However, I must say that I am in favor of keeping the spellbook for many reasons (most of which have already been stated in this post).
- Flavour-wise, the spellbook is a great concept. It adds to the academic feel that is unique (and somewhat canon) to D&D wizards since earlier editions.
- While other arcane spellcasters have a set number of spells known, the wizard enjoy a wider spell selection. Yet, it shouldn't be as wide of a selection as divine spellcasters; as this is their priviledge. The spellbook brings a dynamics that moderates wizards from easily learning every spell.
- Spellbooks are precious - they are the wizard's main weapon (indirectly). Gaining a spellbook through adventuring can be a valuable treasure. True, wizard players can loose their spellbook, but they would be foolish to own only one copy. Its like being a fighter with no back-up weapons.
Basically, even if it does not come to be a totally fair trade-off for the wizard, I believe that the game would loose more than we would gain by eliminating the wizard's spellbook.
That being said, the transcription of spells into a wizard's spellbook is expansive and time consuming. I can do with the "expansive" part, but maybe the 1 full day per spell to inscribe a new spell into one's spellbook is over the top, as discussed under this tread
'findel
never toss the spellbook
it's wath defines the Wizard form the sorcerer