When I was running 3.5, I had various rules on how to handle "non-core" spells. Many times, I allowed divine characters, for example, to train for a specific specialty that might come up in the campaign (temple in a cold region . . . you can learn Frostburn spells . . . training at a temple that specializes in fighting aberrations? You can take spells from Lords of Madness).
For Arcane types, I generally adopted allowing PCs to make a Gather Information check based on the rules in the Magic Item Compendium for finding a specific item in an area that would have the item (something like 15 + 1/2 caster level needed to make the item), and if they found a scroll of that spell, they could add it to their spell list if it was legal for them to use (modified by the usual rules governing that class).
I still felt that some of this was a bit random and haphazard, and wanted a simpler way to figure out how to handle this. Some new spells are great, I just didn't want to deal with a whole set of books full of spells that had effects I couldn't remember (and thus deal with) off the top of my head.
So then I moved into one more level of complexity, that being that a divine caster would have to make a Knowledge (Religion) check equal to the DC to find the item to have heard of a spell in the first place, and an arcane caster would have to do the same with a Knowledge (Arcana) check. Characters could only make a check once, then one more time each time their Knowledge skill increased.
This never really became a problem in the campaign, but I was still never happy with how complex this whole process was, but recently it occurred to me that I could make this a lot simpler without outright banning other spell sources by just using the existing rules.
Any new spell that either an arcane or divine caster wants that isn't in the core rules, they have to pay to research. While I haven't had a chance to try this out yet, it seems like it would help to limit how many off the wall spells the PCs come up with, since a new spell would cost 1000gp/spell level, and the GM would still get final approval on a given spell being okayed.
So, with that long winded preamble, what do people think of this solution of allowing non-core spells but regulating their introduction into the campaign world?
My feeling is most of the content is fairly balanced with core but when you start mixing and matching things stuff gets broken. So I tend to let players have non-core material from a single book for free and take a feat if they want to tap into additional books. The big exception is Spell Compendium which I have some big philisophical issues with.
Or maybe 1 free book every 5 levels :)
Another possibility is to make it more difficult/ expensive for characters to acquire spells from alternate sources. My GM is making me bid on a spell in an auction.
As an aside, and not meaning anything offensive by this, I find it amusing how often people say they have issues with the spell compendium.
The spell compendium has 0% new spells. Every single one of those spells is pulled from an already-printed hardcover book, and if there are any changes made they're universally to weaken the spells.
To be sure there are some spells in there that need work (look up the level 1 bard spell improvisation sometime -- it scales insanely well for a level 1 spell; it wouldn't be out of place as a level 3 spell), but the spell compendium really only gathered all the available spells from the various source books into one source. It's like the much-asked-for Feat Compendium -- nothing new, just a book that collects all the previously released feats so you don't have to search through a dozen different books to find what you want.
Good stuff about the Spell Compendium.
Just want to add my agreement to Zurai's post. The only real reason the book looks overpowered is it allows people to see what all was available in one place, and some people refuse to learn the rules involved with certain spells, or completely ignore them.
Umm gee... is this a love fest for Spell Compendium or is anyone (else) actually going to contribute to the original discussion?
I'm more than welcome to talk about how crappy the Spell Compendium is elsewhere.
My main concern is twofold in a situation like this.
1. Divine casters, without any limiting factor, have everything on their spell list. This makes them extremely flexible and difficult for the GM to plan for. Yes, the GM should know material that is in his game, but at the same time, that's a lot to keep track of, and an increasingly large margin of error.
2. Arcane casters, while they end up taking X instead of Y, do get the option to do some things, in general, earlier than they could before, which does alter established adventures (short range teleports a few levels earlier, short range flight, etc.)
At higher level, the wizard being able to make a short jump isn't a big deal when he can already dimension door and teleport, but it can shift the entire strategy of the party when the wizard can just go "pop" to somewhere else and fix something that normally would require slogging through a dangerous encounter.
Not only that, but some damage types which are rarer in the core rules (force, sonic) become more common when the spell lists are opened up. This makes standard defenses of NPCs and monsters less effective.
In the end, I don't think any one particular spell breaks the game, but I do think you always have to look at the unlimited permutations that can result by opening up the floodgates.
In our groups we have one DM that simply doesn't allow you to have anything outside of core books that he doesn't specifically hand out to you.
The other DMs tend to blanket approve books and not worry about what comes out of it. However we have a general understanding that if you use it as a player it can be used against you as by the DM (not in an "Us vs Them" way but a "fair for the goose is fair for the gander" way).
If a player is worried about a specific item (we really try not to 'break' games) we ask someone with more understanding of the rules, or the DM's opinion on the manner and if the DM minds its use in the game.
Umm gee... is this a love fest for Spell Compendium or is anyone (else) actually going to contribute to the original discussion?
I'm more than welcome to talk about how crappy the Spell Compendium is elsewhere.
Let's assume for a moment that everything in the book is completely balanced . . . do you really want even a whole book of balanced material to drop into a campaign immediately, without a filter of some sort?
Not to mention, while I don't think the book is a bad book, and I know that the book is a reprint of other spells, that doesn't mean that a few spells that can be problematic can't creep in. That, and I know that a few of the FR specific spells actually got more powerful in the conversion process . . . not so much in what the spell did, but in that some spells got shifted to being cast as a swift action, for example.
I would be interested to hear if anyone does filter this kind of material and how they do so, and if my suggestion of allowing "splat book" spells as "researched" spells seems like a viable brake to slow the flow of said spells into a campaign without telling a player that they are out of luck if they want to use them.
A researched option with a flat out chance of a DM "NO" being understood would make sense. Generally I would have them put in a request at the end of game and research it (as a DM) before the next start up of game and give an answer about feasibility then. After that if you allow the spell they can then spend the time and money in game to research the spell and try and learn it. This keeps them from wasting resources on false starts, and allows you time to see unintended results of allowing in the material.
We typically add books wholesale at the beginning of a campaign, or (in the case of switching over from beta to final) have one week where we consider the implications of the coming change and make our adjustments then.
Let's assume for a moment that everything in the book is completely balanced . . . do you really want even a whole book of balanced material to drop into a campaign immediately, without a filter of some sort?
First, I like to keep the system fairly close to the core books, and my games stick to the more traditional roles. Some folks play a lot further away from the core system and there isn't anything wrong with that. So within that context:
Here is how I see Spell Compendium. Without even talking about balance of individual spells. Spell Compendium systemically expands the scope of every single class and school of magic.
As an example. Using just core or core plus one or two other sources a conjurer or an transmuter has very little in the way of blasting/ direct damage/ type spells. Add in spell compendium and suddenly both the conjurer and the transmuter both have these sorts of spells. In the case of the conjurer the blasting spells are arguably better than the evokers blasting spells.
This is just an example. Schools of magic are nearly meaningless in Spell Compendium, suddenly a 'specialist' isn't really giving up anything because the sorts of things that were previously (nearly) exclusive to a single school is now commonly available to several. There is no point to being a generalist because there are so few things that are exclusive to any single school you are basically getting a free spell slot.
If you allow a single source (other than spell compendium) or even limit it to occasional spells the issue isn't nearly as bad. But if you just let a player open up the Spell Compendium and tear through it it changes a lot of the core assumptions of the game and overall increases the power of all the casters.
I would be interested to hear if anyone does filter this kind of material and how they do so, and if my suggestion of allowing "splat book" spells as "researched" spells seems like a viable brake to slow the flow of said spells into a campaign without telling a player that they are out of luck if they want to use them.
After posting that long winded philisophical treatise on game design I realized I didn't answer your post. Yes, I do think it will work pretty well. It generally addresses the things I think are a big issue. The specific mathematics I'm not sure of, I would almost suggest you make it lower for lower level spells as low level casters are often broke.
|
Hi, I have often considered a game mechanic filter + GM's screening of new non-core material, as follows:
One could argue that there can be an in-game limit to how many different kinds of spells a wizard could learn and put in his spell book per spell level, or how many different kinds of spells a cleric/druid is deemed worthy to have access to per spell level.
Then use a "containment" formula built upon that assumption. Say, for example, we limit the diversity of spells per spell level that a wizard has learned to:
wizard level + INT modifier per spell level.
So at 1st lvl, with an INT of 18, the wizard can have no more than 5 different kinds of 1st level spells. By 20th level his spell book is limited to 24 different spells, per spell level, unless his INT was increased while gaining class levels.
So this is a crude sytem, but that is the gist of where I would go. That way the GM can say to the player: "you already have the limit of 5th level spells; if you want x and y from the Spell Compendium, you'll have to sacrifice two that you have."
It isn't the most tidy way to do it. But I think some kind of math limit predicated partially upon the PC's abilities might be helpful before the flood gates open.
After having played Spycraft's spellcasting rules, I thought at one point in time about having a limit to how many spells a character can have, based on spellcraft or some other thing, but honestly, as I've gotten to be an older GM, and I've been gaming at the FLGS instead of with people that I've gamed with for multiple decades (and thus share some gaming sensibilities with), I've really not wanted to add too many house rule constructions into the game.
That's kind of why I like the "pay to research" approach to this, because barring reading some spell that I really just don't like (like Power Word: Pain), its an already existing rule in the game applied to handle extra material.
While I can understand the logic of creating a [Know X Spells Per Level] mechanic, I just think in practice its more off-putting, and seems more arbitrary, when you tell the players about it, especially in a FLGS situation where a given player may not be used to your style as a GM and hasn't built up the trust in your GMing that lets them easily accept your house rules.
One could argue that there can be an in-game limit to how many different kinds of spells a wizard could learn and put in his spell book per spell level,
There is. Wealth-by-level guidelines. Spellbooks cost money.
I get what you're saying though - in fact, I recall Baldur's Gate (based on 2e) having such a limit, though it was based purely on intelligence rather than on both intelligence and level, and could be removed with a high enough score.
Let me just find the table... Ah, here we go.
9 int gives 6 spells/level
10-12 int gives 7 spells/level
13-14 int gives 9 spells/level
15-16 int gives 11 spells/level
17 int gives 14 spells/level
18 int gives 18 spells/level
19+ int has no limit
You could fiddle these numbers around a bit. Extend the progression through higher intelligence scores, and such.
|
|
After having played Spycraft's spellcasting rules, I thought at one point in time about having a limit to how many spells a character can have, based on spellcraft or some other thing, but honestly, as I've gotten to be an older GM, and I've been gaming at the FLGS instead of with people that I've gamed with for multiple decades (and thus share some gaming sensibilities with), I've really not wanted to add too many house rule constructions into the game.
That's kind of why I like the "pay to research" approach to this, because barring reading some spell that I really just don't like (like Power Word: Pain), its an already existing rule in the game applied to handle extra material.
While I can understand the logic of creating a [Know X Spells Per Level] mechanic, I just think in practice its more off-putting, and seems more arbitrary, when you tell the players about it, especially in a FLGS situation where a given player may not be used to your style as a GM and hasn't built up the trust in your GMing that lets them easily accept your house rules.
I can see that, especially with players who don't know you well. In that case, just using research rules for spells beyond core could be your least contentious option while still trying to manage your game. I've seen this done by another GM I know a few years ago and it seemed to work for him.
|
|
One could argue that there can be an in-game limit to how many different kinds of spells a wizard could learn and put in his spell book per spell level,There is. Wealth-by-level guidelines. Spellbooks cost money.
I get what you're saying though - in fact, I recall Baldur's Gate (based on 2e) having such a limit, though it was based purely on intelligence rather than on both intelligence and level, and could be removed with a high enough score.
Let me just find the table... Ah, here we go.
9 int gives 6 spells/level
10-12 int gives 7 spells/level
13-14 int gives 9 spells/level
15-16 int gives 11 spells/level
17 int gives 14 spells/level
18 int gives 18 spells/level
19+ int has no limitYou could fiddle these numbers around a bit. Extend the progression through higher intelligence scores, and such.
Say, I seem to recall that too waaay back! lol
But what about divine casters? (I'm not seeing wealth-by-level guidelines effectively limiting their choices on spells beyond core.) However, I suppose the 2E derived table above could work as an alternate to research efforts if one was looking for a "formula" of some kind... Something that says, "Thy god has deemed limits upon thee due to thy imperfect, mortal peity..." lol (Ok tad over the top, but the GM has some freedom here, :-D)
Let me just find the table... Ah, here we go.9 int gives 6 spells/level
10-12 int gives 7 spells/level
13-14 int gives 9 spells/level
15-16 int gives 11 spells/level
17 int gives 14 spells/level
18 int gives 18 spells/level
19+ int has no limitYou could fiddle these numbers around a bit. Extend the progression through higher intelligence scores, and such.
Ah, the 1E/2E limits on spells known-glad they're gone! But a possible way to limit the casters might be simply to use their ability modifier for every level. Anything outside core counts against it, but these other spells are strange, rare, and unusual-hard to find, created by aboleths or dragons or worse, esoteric, etc.
An additional limit for divine casters: their deity won't permit them to pick up spells too far from the beaten path and the deity's known interests. "No, my child, I am a god of peace. You may not learn magic that permits you to obliterate people." For those with a philosophy, say that too many unusual spells result in massive headaches and a strange hollow feeling as they reach to the edges of their power. Try for too many spells and their power fails to bring the new spell into being.
To me you have access to anything in the core book easy. anything from splat books or anything else well they are not common spells. Wizards need to find them or invent them clerics and druids need to find if someone in there faith knows of them or if there god even allows them.
Just because a spell is on a list in a book somewhere does not mean you auto know it. You most learn of it, then the rituals to cast it/prayers or what have you. Not every god allows every spell. even if your god does allow it maybe only a small sect knows it or maybe an it's hidden away in some ancient tomb of religious rites
You can ban spells outright[I do with some} but limiting is very easily done in game. If a pc really wants it, and your ok with allowing it make them work for it in game, hunt it down , make the rights, travel to high priest in the holy temple of Hiss boom bah or somthing
Things can swiftly get absurd if you allow every spell, especially if you allow every cleric and druid to automatically ordered off the expanded menu every time a new splat book comes out.
I go with the basic concept that all the spells in the main book are the spells the characters know about, which means the menu for the clerics and druids and the spells in the library for wizards or that they can spontaneously manifest for sorcerers and bards. Everything else is something to be found in a treasure hoard or lost temple or somesuch, and there will be kudos from their religious order or wizards school, and various scholars hunting them down (in a good way) in the case of sorcerers and bards who've somehow come up with a new spell.
It keeps everything much neater that way.
I've seen the "1 spell from non-core source per level" approach taken many times. It brought enough "exotic" spells in the game to make the spellcaster feel unique/specialized, but the bulk still comes from the PHB.
In my group a dm always sets a book range be it completely open, or down to just core at the start of a campain. Usually if a player wanted a spell outside of those sources it would go in the DM wishlist with other requests for things like magic items. The dm would then decide as he does with all rewards if he wants the player to have that spell as a reward, and where to place it in the adventure. Eventually if the dm okays it, it shows up somewhere as a scroll in encounter loot, or a shop, or from a mentor or what have you. At that point the player can learn the spell so long as he has the scroll.