I've never had a player take this feat in any of my games.
I was just wondering if anyone out there has taken it, and if so, what kind of benefits can it really give you?
Apart from the rare occasion when the GM might deny the wizard of his spellbook, I can find no other application for this feat.
In fact, I am thinking about homebrewing the darn thing to just allow the Wizard to select a number of spells equal to his int modifier that he can spontaneously cast by expending already prepared spells.
anyone?
|
Underwater adventuring will ruin most spellbooks, thieves stealing it, bad luck on saves,....lose that one book and 99% of wizards are screwed. Spell Mastery gives one a chance to still be functional.
Spontaneous casting is a tremendous benefit and should be beyond a Feat. There's a lot of feats people just aren't going to take.
However, as a homebrew, consider instead as a very rare reward for a quest of giving a Feat such as this one (a unique tutor, ancient knowledge imparted from a secretive source, etc.) You could do the same with skill-feats (e.g. Self-sufficient) that no PC ever seems to take but NPCs may have. Just use sparingly (no more than 1x every 5 levels).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've taken this feat as a 3.5 wizard. And, yes, its main application is not needing to have your spellbook. So if you have a GM that never messes with your equipment and a wizard that always has his spellbook handy, you don't need it. It's exactly the same with Eschew Materials -- if your GM never messes with your component pouch and you always have it handy, the feat's simply not needed.
But my paranoid wizard found it to be very reassuring. He imagined that he was captured and all of his stuff removed, and he chose a set of spells that would allow him to escape and find the spellbook (I believe invisibility, knock, locate object, magic missile were on the list). And, yes, he took Eschew Materials too.
|
I always consider it.
It really depends on the DM style, though. Some DMs -- like myself -- do absolutely nothing with Spell Books. Ever.
So you'd never need that Feat in one of my games.
Of course, if a PC in one of my games got that Feat I'd find a way to include him losing his spellbook once or twice so the Feat is useful and he feels good about taking it... Feats are so many that when you pick one you want to know you're gonna have the chance to show it off.
..............................
It's funny, an issue regarding this Feat has recently come up in one of my games.
A DM I play with is running the old A Series and I'm making a Wizard for it.
Well, I know what happens at the beginning of A4 (PCs lose all their gear, including spellbooks) so I can't choose the Feat based on Player knowledge.
What we're gonna do is, I'll list a couple Feats I'm considering to one of the other Players, asking advice, and go with that Player's choice.
It looks like it'll be Spell Mastery, Sudden Silent Spell or Sudden Still Spell. Those are the 3 Feats I'm considering for my last Feat; I'll see which one the other Player recommends and go with that.
One of my previous mages also used this feat to ensure she had spells when her book was gone. She did it with (Drawmij's) Instant Summons, though; that way, she could call the book back if it was stolen from her or to call in her replacement spellbook. She kept a sapphire handy for that sort of thing.
Another mage I created had this feat for her favorite spells, but she had Spell Thematics as well. She could call up a Final Fantasy Summons effect even without her book!
The idea of giving the caster spontaneous spellcasting like previously described could be done as a feat. Use Spell Mastery as a prereq, allow the person to pick one spell they've mastered that they can now spontaneously cast. Think someone already put this in print somewhere....
|
Its a great feat if you are captured too. However, only take it at mid-high level so that you can know a spell from each level you can cast; taking it at level 1 is a waste- with 20 int, you will know 5 level 1 spells, but if you wait till 9th level, you can still know a spell for every spell level and not put magic missiles into higher level spell slots.
Spontaneous casting is a class feature, and letting a class that prepares its spells cast them spontaneously is a horrendous idea.
I have had wizards that I take it for on a regular basis. Like as many as 3~4 times by level 20. That with still spell, silent spell, eschew materials and quicken spell and just about no matter what you did he could still prepare and cast spells.
The character was frustrating for the DM in many ways since he specifically would do things to prevent spell book access at times, or inability to move, or speak and my wizard was still prepared.
All in all I consider these feats to be life savers for any wizard... and the wizard that doesn't take it at least once is just asking to die a horrible useless death without access to magic.
|
|
I am thinking about homebrewing the darn thing to just allow the Wizard to select a number of spells equal to his int modifier that he can spontaneously cast by expending already prepared spells.
The Signature Spell feat from Player's Guide to Ferune allows you to choose a single spell that you have mastered with Spell Mastery which you can spontaneously convert prepared spells into.
Edit: Ninjaed.
One feat for one spell is asinine.
considering you have to take several feats to convert one spell, is even more asininer (word/grammar?)
The cleric converts spells all the time into cure spells, does this step on anyone's toes or unbalance the game?
I for one tend to not like feats that are very situational depending on the game your in, and as one of the other posters said, i would probably never put my players in a situation that would gimp him badly enough where he would need Spell Mastery unless the player actually took the feat, and then the point is moot. To me it's like putting the fighter into a massive battle after you've taken his sword and armor and the rest of his gear, and giving him NO options for regaining a weapon.
So, basically, here's the changes that would be affected:
1. You would still need your spell book to prepare the spells.
2. With the feat, you select X spells that are in your spellbook. You can give up another prepared spell to cast this spell spontaneously.
3. if you lose your spellbook, you still can't prepare spells, so if all your spells are gone, the feat is useless. however if you really need to cast Featherfall, and it isn't prepared, but you used Swordsmasher's Spell Mastery Feat you could give up that extra copy of magic missile to save your neck.
Now, I can see the core feat having some merit. maybe change the name to Spellbook Mastery or some other cool name some game designer way above my paygrade can think of.
I can also see a balancing act of maybe having the spontaneous spell use up an additional prepared spell of the same level, much like a specialist would have to do to prepare a spell from his opposition school.
And doesn't the Arcane Bond to an item already allow the wizard character to spontaneously cast a spell from his spellbook?
I think ultimately, and realistically, most wizards are already going to have all of their favorite spells in Wands, Scrolls, and Staves anyway, so a feat like this isn't all that game altering. Especially considering you have to select the spells you want to be able to spontaneously cast anyway.
I would only make a minor change to Spell Mastery -- allow the wizard to re-pick the spells whenever he gains a level.
I do like having a second feat that lets the wizard spontaneously cast one spell that he has Mastered. Any more than that is very unbalanced for one feat.
|
|
And doesn't the Arcane Bond to an item already allow the wizard character to spontaneously cast a spell from his spellbook?
That's a single spell. And a good indication of the severe limits Wizards should face concerning spontaneous casting. The Faerun feat is pretty balanced.
You seem to have your mind made up and its your game, so I won't try and convince you. I think you'll find the opinion of most people here will be that allowing a Wizard spontaneous casting just makes the Sorceror look s*+#, and allows arguably the most powerful class in the game even more privileges; a Wizard is usually the most powerful, as long as he's prepared the right spells for the situations he will face. Letting him cast them spontaneously removes that AS LONG AS and makes the Sorceror pretty redundant.
Add to this, if you actually look at Vancian style spellcasting, strong spontaneous casting makes no sense. The entire point of a Wizard's spellbook is they basically contain intense formulae and rituals designed to cast the spell; the Wizard is simply finishing that spell off with a wave of his hand and a verbal component when he casts. The idea that he can just ditch that mental formula and recall the ENTIRE formula for a totally seperate spell, AND force it out in one go like a Sorceror does is just anathema to me.
It is a great feat. Not something you take at first level, but once you hit the middle to higher levels very worthwhile.
Not every adventure is going to have people steal or destroy your books, but you may get captured or have to flee your room at the Inn quickly and leave things behind. You could also be staying in a large city where you do not carry your gear around with you. When you go visit a kings or something like that you ofter have to leave gear/weapons behind. So with that in mind you can select your spells to have key uses.
Read Magic, Detect Magic, Light, Knock, Expeditious Retreat are always good choices for low level.
Teleport, Phantom Steed, Tongues, Sending, Polymorph are good mid-level choices.
True Seeing, Greater Teleport, Disjunction, Mass Charm, Timestop, Shapechange, and Mind Blank.
That feat is wholly worthwhile when put towards a worthwhile spell: it may well mean you'll never have to prepare a magic missile, fireball, or teleport ever again.
For further consideration I point out the Uncanny Forethought feat in Exemplars of Evil -- that feat was not a nice one I must say. I've played with it as a character and it really did cause us to ask the question, "With this feat, why have a sorcerer at all?"
i get your point, as far as stepping on the sorcerer toes. but as i said earlier, really, how?
I can have my wizard prepare all his spells, then scribe a whole bunch of spells onto scrolls anyway. I will have the right spell i need. granted, if i lose the scrols or what not i can't cast them, but the fact is they are there, ready for me cast.
the sorcerer doesn't spontaneously cast this way. he just doesn't prepare his spells ahead of time. he still has to have the spell components (unless he is using his free eschew materials feat), say all the same words, and make the same finger movements and/or toe wigglations (booty-shaking mage anyone?)to get the spell going. It's not like the sorcerer can say 'Okay, I don't know fireball, but I am going to give up two of my daily spell slots to cast fireball.' I would say that might be a tad unfair.
However, the same sorcerer CAN buy a bunch of Fireball scrolls, even if he doesn't know fireball, and still cast the wahoosits out of them.
I can see the merit of being able to prepare spells without a spellbook, but it is totally and completely 100% dependant on something else. unlike Weapon Focus for example. The player has some control over that, unless the GM decides 'OK, there are no more Longswords. So for all of you that have Weapon Focus in the Longsword, toughies. Even great Fortitude or Iron Will have playability a good portion of the time. Spell Mastery just doesn't live up to my feat requirements. I would take Toughness first. Would you take a feat that said 'You gain 20 hit points whenever you fight a Blue dragon with one eye?' To me, it's the same thing. It rarely happens (unless of course your GM decides to have a bunch of Gruumsh or Odin worshiping Blue dragons, in which case the feat becomes unbalanced because everyone now wants it, and when everyone wants a feat its time to nuke it.)
I'm not trying to sway anyone to my argument, or make them see things my way. I'm just stating that allowing a character to spontaneously switch out a limited number of spells is not overbalanced, an doesn't step on anyone elses toes, because there is a gazillion ways to do it.
so, to go on and on and on again, i could either take a feat and allow me to switch out a select few number of spells for other ones, OR I could carry around a few wands and scrolls that do the same thing.
unless of course carrying around a few wands and scrolls for spells you don't want to prepare or add to your spells known list is stepping on someone elses toes, in which case why bother playing the game anymore?
I mean, really, why should a paladin try to heal someone, wouldn't that be stepping on the clerics toes? Or for that matter, why should the barbarian be allowed to swing a sword at someone, isn't that the fighters forte?
I can see limited use for Spell Mastery, and I can see why some people would take it, but I personally don't feel it is a good enough feat as written. I am more of a proactive feat guy. I want my feats to do something for me now, or all the time, and not 'this might happen a week from Tuesday.'
Wands and scrolls won't have the same caster level, save DCs, and eat up your wealth too.
The wizard being able to spontaneously switch out has two spells known for each slot at that point. In effect his "spells known" for spontaneous spells now outstrips the sorcerers, and he can instead prep spells that aren't mastered and then use them later for the other spell.
Are you also going to allow the sorcerer to have a feat that adds more spells to his spells known, like one extra spell known per point of charisma modifier?
Ah but then the fighters and rogues are going to complain that they are getting the shaft while the casters get more powerful... :P
Are you also going to allow the sorcerer to have a feat that adds more spells to his spells known, like one extra spell known per point of charisma modifier?
Exactly. At the end of the day it's simply a bad idea to expand Spell Mastery in this way.
LOL
This is a good debate, fellas.
I guess it depends on what you see as powerful. I see it more as a utility thing. Even I believe that allowing Spell mastery to switch out 1 for 1 is unfair, though the reasoning may be different.
It is my belief that wizards prepare spells by getting the necessary components ready, memorizing some spell words by reading the spellbook, etc.
If you've mastered a spell per my idear (I'm half redneck on my fathers side) for the feat, you're basically transferring energy and components from one spell into another, so that's where i digressed and said maybe you'd need to give up an additional prepare spell of the level.
but then, you have to ask yourself how powerful do you feel that a feat selection should be?
I have always believed that feat selection should be a straining process, and you should agonize over what feats to take. Which I think is why i never took Spell mastery as written, and the few times I put my pc's into a situation where they lost their gear, they usually got it back before the need to prepare spells became an issue, because I as a GM am there to show them a good time, and I feel that gimping a player in that manner is unfair.
Now, I have a sort of example towards evidence of the core Spell Mastery feat in action. If you watch legend of The Seeker, one can truly say that ol' Zeddicus has the Spell mastery feat and that Signature Spell feat for his Wizard's Fire spell. Though, according to the seekerverse canon, most wizards master wizard's fire early on, which tells me it is a lower level spell.
(as an aside, I actually think the Wizard's Fire ability should be an optional class feature, maybe instead of Arcane Bond or something.)
The purpose of this thread was to get other players insight and input on the core Spell Mastery as written because I feel it is a weak feat as written, simply because I feel it doesn't do anything for me 'in the moment.'
Do i feel there needs to be a feat that does what the core spell mastery does? Yes. I feel that in some cases there is a great need for it, however, i feel it should be written into the wizards class.
BUT: Back in the day when i was playing in a buddy's AD&D 2e game whilst stationed in Germany (before the infamous Bosnia incident which we don't need to get into here) I played an apprentice magic-user to another player's higher level magic-user, and that GM allowed us to re-prepare spells in the middle of an adventure so long as we had the time and necessary peace and quiet to do it. NOW, given that campaign option, I can see a little more use for a feat such as Spell Mastery, if you lost the book mid-adventure and really needed to reprepare something else. I believe there are several examples of this type of re-preparing throughout the Dragonlance novels.
Although, it could also see some use if the wizard was required to have his spellbook on him in order to cast a spell to begin with, such as Arcane Bond to an object does. And then Spell Mastery could allow the wizard to cast that spell without having his spellbook present. Which....
brings me to the idea that Spell mastery could also allow the wizard to cast the mastered spells without his Arcane Bonded item as normal (Without the check). I would actually consider taking this feat then. Evidence of this could be seen anytime movie Gandalf casts a spell without his staff (which is rare).
But you also have to take into consideration what other classes are sitting at your table? Most of the time in my group people dip into sorcerer for a few select spells, maybe 2 or 3 levels, then pan out with something else. So far in the Pathfinder rules the only player to play a sorcerer is my 8 yr old daughter (except for a slew of my npc's), though to be fair that's because she liked the picture. :)
My group has been together now for ~thinking...thinking...thinking...~ 18 years (OMG, did I turn 31?), and actually very few players have ever played a magic-user/wizard in any game. we've had a few as cohorts and such, but generally if a wizard is needed they either hire one or i throw one in as a tagalong.
point is that you can't step on someone elses toes if that person isn't there. How many of us haven't been shown up by that darn barbarian player that throws it all to the wind, charges in, and scores a few crits while power attacking and making your min-maxed fighter look like a twonk?
I run a feat chain that allows the Spell Mastery to gateway into spontaneously casting spells by level. Three players have wandered down the chain under 3.5, and liked it.
|
|
The trouble with spell mastery is that IF it comes up, your wizard player may just as well throw up his hand, and roll up a new character. I have had a DM who LOVED to mess with player's spellbooks and use this feat as an excuse...but honestly, it means your wizard becomes a sorcerer with access to 5 spells. Quite frankly, I got so sick of it, just made a new wizard everytime he ganked one of my spellbook. Hell I did it even if he damaged one PAGE of my spellbook because I got so sick and tired of it. Then I just played a druid and broke his game...with a pouncing uber charger chaser. Yeah it was childish...but I honestly do not like this feat because of this mentality it gives. It's like sundering ALL weapons and saying well the fighter can take improved unarmed strike so it's okay. No, no it is not.
That said, for the ocassional (or possible not ocassional if the party likes to TPK and the DM "saves" them via them getting captured instead of killed) prisoner scenerio...well it's not so bad. When using a pure wizard I generally take this feat once around level 9-13 range for just such a case.
To make it more useful...I would change it so that you can pick 3 level 1 spells and one more spell for every 2 caster level you gain beyond level 1. So that way you can pick a level 2-9 spell...well 2 level 9 spells at 19. These spells are cast at +1 CL. That way there is a use outside of losing your spell book and these spells are supoose to be ones your good at casting with a name like spell mastery right? If you feel just a flat +1 CL is too good, then you can limit it like magical knack to your HD.
|
|
My personal take: Spell Mastery is one of those rare few feats that's really much better for NPCs than PCs.
Not everything needs to be a great PC choice, I guess is what I'm saying.
Only if you as a DM like to cheat the players out of spellbooks as loot. While spellbooks as loot is quite a bit of a headache...on pretty much everyone...I don't think this is a good use of a feat.
Creative Director
|
Only if you as a DM like to cheat the players out of spellbooks as loot. While spellbooks as loot is quite a bit of a headache...on pretty much everyone...I don't think this is a good use of a feat.My personal take: Spell Mastery is one of those rare few feats that's really much better for NPCs than PCs.
Not everything needs to be a great PC choice, I guess is what I'm saying.
If you have no wizards in your party, then the need to throw spellbooks out there is lessened.
But I certainly wasn't saying "Spell Mastery a fun way to cut corners on wizards and hose your players!" More like saying that it's a good spell to give an NPC who's purpose in an adventure is to be a wizard who, for whatever reason, is separated from his spellbooks but whom you want to still be useful as an ally or an enemy to face the PCs. Such as, perhaps, a prisoner that they might rescue, or a crazy wizard castaway on a desert island.
The fact that wizards are SO dependent on a piece of equipment (their spellbook) is, and has always, been a major flaw in the class design, I think. What SHOULD be a cool bit of flavor far too often gets used by cruel GMs as a handy way to torment and punish a player.
Not to defend cruel DMs or anything, but let's not go too far in the other direction. Wizards are a powerful class, and it is the player's responsibility to protect his or her Achilles Heel, just as it is the fighter's responsibility to protect that +5 Adamantium greatsword that he or she has been lugging around.
By the time a wizard has access to 3rd to 4th level spells, there is simply no excuse for a PC not to be taking extraordinary precautions to protect his or her single most valuable possession. And it's not like there aren't several different and highly effective ways to go about it.
As for spell mastery, the only flaw I see that limits its usefulness is that you have to choose all the spells at the time you take the feat and they can never be changed. A simple fix is to allow the wizard to change one spell each level.
Again, not defending abusive DMs, but I see a lot of players who take no real precautions to protect their grimoire, yet are quick to cry foul when an opponent takes advantage of that oversight.
My personal take: Spell Mastery is one of those rare few feats that's really much better for NPCs than PCs.
Not everything needs to be a great PC choice, I guess is what I'm saying.
I do see merit in this.
NPC wizard gets captured. NPC wizard has spell mastery. Next morning, after 8 full hours of resting in the jail cell, ol NPC wizard prepares himself a tellyport, and by the time the guards come around to bring him his breakfast, he's already planning his next big thing.
Again, not defending abusive DMs, but I see a lot of players who take no real precautions to protect their grimoire, yet are quick to cry foul when an opponent takes advantage of that oversight.
Yeah, because players don't expect their GM's to take away the FUN of their game.
I don't play WOW, but imagine if there was a mechanic where a bad guy could steal something from you, and now your spellcaster cant cast spells anymore, and you have to get your group to come and help you get it back. It destroys the FUN, and that's whats important.
Even if the GM were to take away ALL of the fighters gear, said fighter could easily break a branch from a tree, or pull up a fence post, and once he's brained some mook, he can take his stuff and be viable again.
so It's ok for a fighter or melee type to have a weapon sundered or taken away but not for your wizard? I don't think so. And an improvised weapon is totally the same thing as your +5 weapon...heh yeah ok
It's the players place to make sure his book is safe and cover his own ass. It is not the GM's place to coddle the wizard playe and never, ever take a shot at his weakness.
If I am running the NPC'S and ya leave me a great big "Here come screw with me" sign, your damned right that NPC will take it and hit ya there.
so It's ok for a fighter or melee type to have a weapon sundered or taken away but not for your wizard? I don't think so. And an improvised weapon is totally the same thing as your +5 weapon...heh yeah ok
no need to get upset over a discussion about a game. please calm down.
It's the players place to make sure his book is safe and cover his own ass. It is not the GM's place to coddle the wizard playe and never, ever take a shot at his weakness.
once or twice is ok.
but over and over and over again becomes old hat, and the game loses its fun.
my DM style favors the players and their fun. I have fun when i know I am telling a good story and their faces are beaming with excitement. in the case of my brother in law, i know i'm running a good game when he starts tearing up (as in crying).
I agree it is up to the player to protect his own spellbook, but you cannot argue with me about the fact it is FAR easier for a fighter to find a new weapon than it is for a wizard to rebuild a spellbook.
I've been in too many games and too many systems where the GM feels he has too much power, or the Deus Ex Machina becomes the norm. I was in a certain bloodsucking storyteller game where the storyteller repeatedly had his more powerful storyteller characters force my wife's character into doing untold nasty late-night skin-e-max types of things that had no business to do at all with the story, and it was NOT fun. Same group ran a LARP one time, and when the storyteller and the prince starting burning their blood to force the players into pretty much removing their clothing, i knew it was time to call it quitsies. We never went back to that game again.
Gaming in general is about fun. When someone can get hosed easily like that, it takes the fun away. When the fun is gone, why play?
When a gamemaster is constantly hosing his players to make his adventure about him, or to make the situation harder for the pc's, its a sign of an idiot, a weak dm, or a power tripper. Usually its a power tripper.
Taking a fighters weapon away does not gimp the chaarcter for good. taking a wizards spellbook away pretty much gimps the character the next time he needs to prepare spells. did you ever play 1st or 2nd edition AD&D? Remember when the Magic-User got 1 1st level spell a day, and then he basically became less useful than a kender at a craft fair? It's like that. The wizard's player may as well just pack up and go home.
I built an NPC one time to actually sunder the party barbarian's weapon. This guy was a sundering machine, had all the feats, etc. these were level 13 characters. The barbarian had nothing in the way of sundering, except for maybe power attack. Anyways, the NPC hits the pc's weapon, deals damage, and breaks the sword. NOT destroyed. The barbarian decides he's going to sunder back. he gets hit tby the attack of opportunity, but successfully manages to hit the npc's weapon, rolls high for damage, and destroyed the sundering machines weapon.
so it goes to show you your plans don't always work unless you railroad the weapon into getting broken, because random damage rolls don't always work. however, there is NO mechanic in game for destroying and or causing your wizard player to lose his spellbook. it is purely up to the whims of the GM unless the player decides to throw it as a projectile or something.
And THAT is what makes the situation unfair.
Nasty cheap-shotting GMs is why my spellcasters always hide their spell component pouch/holy symbol under the total cover of robes.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I've always been of the opinion that Spell Mastery should be "built in" to the wizard class. The way I run it is that wizards may "master" any single spell of their choosing each time they gain a spell level, but the spell level must be one less than the highest they are capable of. A 1st-level wizard is considered to have "mastered" a single cantrip.
This way, a wizard without a spellbook is always denied his most powerful spells, but he will always have 1 spell per spell level available to him (except for his highest level).
So, a 9th level wizard would have 5 mastered spells available to him, none of which would be higher than 4th level. Naturally, if the wizard has any metamagic feats, he could fill his highest level slots with metamagicked versions of those lower mastered spells. So, while bereft of a spellbook, a wizard certainly loses a lot of his functionality, but at least he becomes something more than totally useless. A 9th level wizard could have wall of fire, haste, fox's cunning, grease, and touch of fatigue available to him to memorize without his spellbook. Now, granted, those are ALL THE SPELLS HE HAS in this situation, but it's something better than complete uselessness and doesn't require the player to sacrifice a feat for a situation that may or may not ever come up.
Now, of course, if he's lost his components as well as his spellbook, he's going to either want Eschew Materials or specifically choose his mastered spells as ones that don't have a material component. Once the mastered spells have been chosen, they cannot be changed.
I don't play WOW, but imagine if there was a mechanic where a bad guy could steal something from you, and now your spellcaster cant cast spells anymore, and you have to get your group to come and help you get it back. It destroys the FUN, and that's whats important.
What you describe here is not something that destroys the fun. What you have described is called a "plot hook." If the wizard in question continues to fail to protect his spellbook, using any number of reasonable strategies, then it becomes a "recurring plot hook." If the player allows it to happen enough times, it becomes either an "annoying plot hook" or an "everybody laughs when it happens again" plot hook. Eventually it almost always becomes a "Bob, we're tired of helping you get your spellbook back and if it happens again, maybe you should roll up a sorcerer" plot hook.
Writes a bunch of stuff that makes me sad for him/her but has nothing to do with what I wrote
I'm not sure what the problem is. I'm sorry for your horrible experiences and really, really bad DMs. But I specifically wrote that I was not defending bad DMs.
What I did write was that the player has a responsibility to protect his or her own gear. The more valuable the gear, the greater the protection. If he or she doesn't, then he or she shouldn't blame the DM for playing NPCs rationally.
For example: There is a thieves guild in every city. Sometimes several. It's a trope that everyone knows, and I'd bet nearly every DM adheres to. There's a thieves guild. There's always a thieves guild. Should there be? I don't know. But there is. There just is.
If a PC, wearing flowing and glowing wizard's robes, riding a unicorn, and wielding a jewel encrusted staff comes riding into town, rents a room, tosses his backpack with his spell book in it onto the bed, then goes off to fence the items he has acquired in his journeys, then I, as a DM who tries to maintain some sort of consistent and rational gaming world, not just for my own gratification, but so the players can know what kind of environment they can expect, I have to ask myself, "how does the environment react to this?"
It's the same question I ask when the PCs enter a troll warren or a tomb. How does the environment react to what the party is doing? What is a troll's likely course of action to be? Fortunately, with trolls, the answer is usually pretty simple. Grr stomp rend rollforinitiative.
For the obvious wizard who leaves a highly prized an expensive item in a relatively unsecured location, one likely answer is, "Somebody steals it. They're in the thieves guild. That's what thieves do." Now it's the players move. What is he or she going to do? This kind of back and forth is the role playing game. Everything else is just rules.
Again, I'm sorry for your bad experiences, but they have nothing to do with what I wrote or advocated. And including them in a rebuttal tends to imply that they do. How you made the connection between my saying that protecting a spell book is a player's responsibility, and your story about what can only be described as sexual humiliation at a gaming table, is totally beyond me. And I'm more than a little insulted that you tried to connect the two.
On a personal note, when the things you describe begin to happen, it's time to leave. Not at the end of the night, but right then and there.
|
I found this feat very useful in games I played as a solo player. I played a multi-class Fighter/Mage (hasnt everyone?) and used spell mastery in conjunction with another FR feat called Signiture Spell, which allowed spontaneous casting of one of the spells you chose with Spell Mastery (as long as you expended a spell of equal level or higher.)
I was captured 3 times, lost my traveling spell book to a fireball once, and had a few mini-adventures that didnt allow me to bring a spell book at all.
I really enjoyed the versatility of it for those situations, but mostly, the addition of the Signiture spell feat was what I was after.
What you describe here is not something that destroys the fun. What you have described is called a "plot hook." If the wizard in question continues to fail to protect his spellbook, using any number of reasonable strategies, then it becomes a "recurring plot hook." If the player allows it to happen enough times, it becomes either an "annoying plot hook" or an "everybody laughs when it happens again" plot hook. Eventually it almost always becomes a "Bob, we're tired of helping you get your spellbook back and if it happens again, maybe you should roll up a sorcerer" plot hook.
I don't play WOW, but imagine if there was a mechanic where a bad guy could steal something from you, and now your spellcaster cant cast spells anymore, and you have to get your group to come and help you get it back. It destroys the FUN, and that's whats important.
Sure it's a plot hook. is it a good one? Maybe sometimes. but ask yourself. if you were the wizard player, and you woke up to prepare spells, and your spellbook was gone, would you as a player have any fun at all playing the game? I wouldn't.
if you were a min/maxed fighter and every game the GM had nothing but endless scenes of talking and roleplaying and mno fighting, wouldn't you at some point say 'This sucks. I'm going home?'
As far as using the plot hook, I would at leaat make sure the spellbook was stolen at some point after the pc had prepared spells, or made sure at least that he had enough scrolls, wands, and staves to at least be there for the group, and allow the player to do something other than attack with a dagger or staff or shoot his crossbow.
And, as i stated, the PLOT HOOK is a whim of the GM. And whims of the GM can be devastating if used improperly.
The point of the bad experiences was to show that when a game is no fun it is time to go (like you said). Playing a wizard and losing your spellbook at the GM's whim is NO FUN in my book, unless done with surgical precision. So therefore, if the wizard player is having no fun, then you as a GM are falling short.
However, if the wizard was an NPC, I could see your scenario being kind of fun. 'Oh, great, you mean Dippo the lesser lost his spellbook again? And we have to go where to get it back, otherwise we can't find the stone of flatuation and save the world from the evil gas dragons? Just wonderful.'
And as far as the thieves guild analogy: if any wizard was flashy enough to do that, he is either stoopid or has some cajonicus ginormicus. Either way, the thieves guild would probably be very careful in attemtping to seal said spellbook, because as is witnessed in several dragonlance novels many spellbooks are trapped, or magically warded. while not impossible to steal, I would have any thieves guild be very wary of messing with a wizard. Especially since many of the same cities have conclaves and/or colleges dedicated to wizards and that wizard is bound to have friends, and I am sure that the thieves guild would not want to have several mages at their door step.
I'm not saying its wrong to never take away the wizards spellbook, I'm only saying that I believe it to be unfair unless certain other conditions are met first.
You keep responding with, "DMs shouldn't abuse their players!" as if somehow I'm advocating that. It's a straw man that you keep setting up and knocking down all by yourself. My argument is, and has always been, "protect your things or someone might take them." Given that PCs make a career out of taking things that don't belong to them, I fail to see what you find so objectionable about that.
As for "Min/Max Goes to the Ball (then gets mad and goes home)", that's not the DM's fault. If you build a character that is good at one thing, and one thing only, then you don't get to complain that the game isn't just about that one thing.
Not having your spells for an adventure is a challenge. Not being able to bash your way through every encounter is a challenge. Not being able to sneak past every guard, disarm every trap, and open every lock, is a challenge. Keeping people from taking the things that you took from other people is a challenge. Overcoming challenges is my idea of fun. I'm not really sure what yours is.
You keep responding with, "DMs shouldn't abuse their players!" as if somehow I'm advocating that. It's a straw man that you keep setting up and knocking down all by yourself. My argument is, and has always been, "protect your things or someone might take them." Given that PCs make a career out of taking things that don't belong to them, I fail to see what you find so objectionable about that.
As for "Min/Max Goes to the Ball (then gets mad and goes home)", that's not the DM's fault. If you build a character that is good at one thing, and one thing only, then you don't get to complain that the game isn't just about that one thing.
Not having your spells for an adventure is a challenge. Not being able to bash your way through every encounter is a challenge. Not being able to sneak past every guard, disarm every trap, and open every lock, is a challenge. Keeping people from taking the things that you took from other people is a challenge. Overcoming challenges is my idea of fun. I'm not really sure what yours is.
i will say my idea of fun is not to show up to a game of Pathfinder to play a wizard who can't cast spells.
RANT AHEAD
I just turned 31 the other day. I've been a DM/GM since I was 13. I bought all the books at a second hand shop. Good old red and blue box. Cost me 3.00 plus tax (I wish I still had them!)
Anyway, I can actually count on one hand how many times I have been a player in someone else's game.
In that time I have run Basic D&D, AD&D 1st, 2nd, 2nd revised. I ran D&D 3rd and 3.5 (and some variant,s including Conan the RPG and Wheel of Time). I have also run Star Wars (West End) 1st, 2nd, 2nd revised. Also, Star Wars (WOTC),Revised, and SAGA. I have also run MERPS (ughhh to you darned spellcasters!); I ran Hero Quest (Milton Bradley YAHH!) for a while to. I have run old school DC Heroes and Marvel heroes, I have run OSRIC, I have run d20modern (and all its variants, past, future, pokkyclyspe, etc.). I have run Vampire: The masquerade, Werewolf: The Apocalypse, Hunter: The reckoning. I have even run some of the new World of Darkness stuff. Back before I got hitched I was a manager at one of the premier gaming stores in the area i was living at the time, and I hosted all kinds of events and such, and i was able to mingle with thousands of gamers.
When i was in the military, i went around the world and visited gaming stores in several countries, having a lot fun times, drinking a few beers, and running games for players twice my age at the time (The swedish players can be so violent in character!)
I used to hang out at Neutral Ground in NYC (and i tell you THAT place gets pretty hot at night). I even still own all of the pieces of my orginal D&D Rules cyclopedia. Oh yeah, I ran d&d 4e for about a year until it got all sucky (a whole nother rant). In college and in the military i studied human psychology and human sociology (as well as the hot chick in the second row of my biology class! Go Norwich!)My current group and I have been gaming since I was 13 (so, what, 18 years now?). When I was in middle school my mom burned all of my d&d stuff, and I rebuilt most of the game from memory into a composition notebook which I secretly hid from my parents for years (as well as hand written character sheets).
My current campaign world has been running for 15 of those 18 years, and has seen hundreds of characters from the myraid of players. I have rewritten the d20 manuals at least twice over in house rules, and a big SAGA conversion my players begged me for back in the day. My current homebrew folder is 1.28 gigs worth of word processor and excel files.
I have also co written several virtual expansion sets for the series 1 highlander card game after it was cancelled a few years back (maybe you've heard of the MLE? Yeah, i was one of them guys).
I am currently married to a gamer chick, and I have four kids, two of which are gamers (my youngers are 2 yrs old and 4 months old).
So, that all being said, I feel I have a very strong leg to stand on when deciding how to define FUN in the confines of the matrix of the social gathering, especially where gamers and gaming is concerned.
Much like a doctor would know more about human anatomy than say, a gopher.
I've even been called a grognard by some upstart Yu-Gi-Oh players! lol I was more impressed they knew the word (I'm sure his big brother taught it to him!)
And in conclusion, now that I shared a good majority of my life story and gaming background, I have to get to the telly, because I am an avid follower of the adventures of this ancient time lord who flies around time and space and the universe in a blue police box with hot chicks.
God I am long winded. Maybe I should rant about that! Though my therapist does say I need more of a social outlet, heh heh.
/RANT
|
|
You keep responding with, "DMs shouldn't abuse their players!" as if somehow I'm advocating that. It's a straw man that you keep setting up and knocking down all by yourself. My argument is, and has always been, "protect your things or someone might take them." Given that PCs make a career out of taking things that don't belong to them, I fail to see what you find so objectionable about that.
As for "Min/Max Goes to the Ball (then gets mad and goes home)", that's not the DM's fault. If you build a character that is good at one thing, and one thing only, then you don't get to complain that the game isn't just about that one thing.
Not having your spells for an adventure is a challenge. Not being able to bash your way through every encounter is a challenge. Not being able to sneak past every guard, disarm every trap, and open every lock, is a challenge. Keeping people from taking the things that you took from other people is a challenge. Overcoming challenges is my idea of fun. I'm not really sure what yours is.
There is a difference between a challenge and making a character useless. The old MDJ was one of these things...hence why NOBODY who was SANE used that spell. It kills a character withpout really killing them. Removal of the wizard's spellbook does the same. Why would I as a wizard continue to adventure without my spellbook? I'm going back to the academy. Roll up a new wizard with a new spellbook. Kinda like anyone who gets MDJed (the old one).
Wow. Okay. I just want to take a minute here and make sure we're talking about the same thing.
So, If:
You get captured by slaver's who take your stuff, then...you quit?
You get shipwrecked and lose anything that isn't water proof/proofed, then...you quit.
If you have to explore a large dead magic zone, depriving you of both spells and items, then...you quit.
If you have to make your way through an occupied and hostile city where combat could bring the entire garrison down on you, then...you quit.
If your spell book gets stolen by...anyone, for any reason, then...you quit.
You don't try to get your stuff back, you don't rise to the challenge, you don't improvise, you don't hang around just to see what happens next. You don't do anything except...quit? If I've misinterpreted you, then feel free to correct me, but that's what it sounds like. And I gotta say, that's not a play style that I...have much respect for. Again, feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted something.
|
|
Wizards should have a traveling spell book AND a full spell book hidden elsewhere.
I know i had three or four spell books with my wizard, all in different places just in case.
For some reason, I thought all wizard players had atleast two spell books at all times.
It seems, after what I have read, that I was wrong in this assumption. Perhaps this is why some are not having fun if their spell books are stolen.
One thing I have noticed alot since 3.0 was released, is that hardly anyone plays wizards, and if they do, they play them like sorcerers (no second spell book, no hidden caches of items for a rainy day...)
Anyhow, I have found this coversation very revealing.
|
|
Wizards should have a traveling spell book AND a full spell book hidden elsewhere.
I know i had three or four spell books with my wizard, all in different places just in case.
For some reason, I thought all wizard players had atleast two spell books at all times.
It seems, after what I have read, that I was wrong in this assumption. Perhaps this is why some are not having fun if their spell books are stolen.
One thing I have noticed alot since 3.0 was released, is that hardly anyone plays wizards, and if they do, they play them like sorcerers (no second spell book, no hidden caches of items for a rainy day...)
Anyhow, I have found this coversation very revealing.
The cost isn't so bad in PF...but in 3.5...umm what the hell kind of wealth did your DM give that you could afford to have that many spellbooks? Especially at low levels. Even still in PF, the cost to duplicate a spellbooks is around 35k...give or take depending on the spells in it. Unless you have a bunch of blessed books...but those aren't exactly cheap until high levels either. So unless your ignoring rules, or wealth by level...no that is NOT a viable option for quite a bit of the game.
|
|
Wow. Okay. I just want to take a minute here and make sure we're talking about the same thing.
So, If:
You get captured by slaver's who take your stuff, then...you quit?
You get shipwrecked and lose anything that isn't water proof/proofed, then...you quit.
If you have to explore a large dead magic zone, depriving you of both spells and items, then...you quit.
If you have to make your way through an occupied and hostile city where combat could bring the entire garrison down on you, then...you quit.
If your spell book gets stolen by...anyone, for any reason, then...you quit.
You don't try to get your stuff back, you don't rise to the challenge, you don't improvise, you don't hang around just to see what happens next. You don't do anything except...quit? If I've misinterpreted you, then feel free to correct me, but that's what it sounds like. And I gotta say, that's not a play style that I...have much respect for. Again, feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted something.
1) No, the party is in the same boat...it's a plot hook. If I'm the only one captured...then yes. I am not playing the damsel in distress thank you very much.
2) Depends...ruined fletching and maps and stuff...yeah. Your metal armor and weapon rusts away...no. As for spellbooks, if I have an option to waterproof...then yes it's my fault for not doing it...by as it stands with core rules, that option doesn't exsist, so if your punishing a player for an option that they can't do...then yeah, new character time.
3) All the party...and in this case even the moster under the same condition. So not big deal.
4) Umm...how is this one even related.
5) Well...yeah...see one about being the DM's personally b...err damsel in distress.
and lastly I could care less what you respect. If you think your respect is worth diddly or squat to me, your sadly mistaken. If you can't understand I dislike being made into somebody's play thing...well then we're done.
|
|
Only if you as a DM like to cheat the players out of spellbooks as loot. While spellbooks as loot is quite a bit of a headache...on pretty much everyone...I don't think this is a good use of a feat.My personal take: Spell Mastery is one of those rare few feats that's really much better for NPCs than PCs.
Not everything needs to be a great PC choice, I guess is what I'm saying.
If you have no wizards in your party, then the need to throw spellbooks out there is lessened.
But I certainly wasn't saying "Spell Mastery a fun way to cut corners on wizards and hose your players!" More like saying that it's a good spell to give an NPC who's purpose in an adventure is to be a wizard who, for whatever reason, is separated from his spellbooks but whom you want to still be useful as an ally or an enemy to face the PCs. Such as, perhaps, a prisoner that they might rescue, or a crazy wizard castaway on a desert island.
The fact that wizards are SO dependent on a piece of equipment (their spellbook) is, and has always, been a major flaw in the class design, I think. What SHOULD be a cool bit of flavor far too often gets used by cruel GMs as a handy way to torment and punish a player.
Well if you feel that way, you should have built in spell mastery INTO the wizard class, as already mentioned. As for NPC use...yeah for NPC that the player finds and they are allies...yeah that's actually good. But that is a VERY limited scope of use for a feat (and it does beg the question of why they were still stranded/prisoner when they have access to spells...). As for enemies having them...having every wizard have it so they can just teleport away the next morning causes MORE issues in a game then not. I have been though that mess several time to know it doesn't end well. Because let's face it, because of how the feat works, your not taking this baby at low levels.
and lastly I could care less what you respect. If you think your respect is worth diddly or squat to me, your sadly mistaken. If you can't understand I dislike being made into somebody's play thing...well then we're done.And I gotta say, that's not a play style that I...have much respect for. Again, feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted something.
Not sure how you got from "not a play style that I have much respect for" to you being personally insulted, but, fair enough. Fortunately, I have players that don't behave like petulant children, so, I'm okay.
Good Luck with your game.
Spell mastery + Rogue/Wizard means never having to say "HOW high is the Escape Artist DC?!?!?1"
|
|
At low levels, I did not have any extra spell books. I got my first extra spell book at 6th level when I defeated another mage and got his rather limited traveling spell book, which allowed me to utilize that and hide my main spell book.
I did not buy any of the other spell books, but got my fourth book at 12th level. I can not remember what level I was when I got the third, but it was either 9th or 10th, and each of those was traveling spell books of the wizards I had killed.
I have not played a wizard in PF, but that will be rectified in Council of Thieves, which I should play in the next year or so.
Glad I could clarify. I had 1 main spell book and 3 traveling spell books.
|
|
At low levels, I did not have any extra spell books. I got my first extra spell book at 6th level when I defeated another mage and got his rather limited traveling spell book, which allowed me to utilize that and hide my main spell book.
I did not buy any of the other spell books, but got my fourth book at 12th level. I can not remember what level I was when I got the third, but it was either 9th or 10th, and each of those was traveling spell books of the wizards I had killed.
I have not played a wizard in PF, but that will be rectified in Council of Thieves, which I should play in the next year or so.
Glad I could clarify. I had 1 main spell book and 3 traveling spell books.
Course that does limit the spells you can use until your high enough levels once again. And the usefulness of the scavanged spellbooks is entirely up to DM fiat. And your probably not gonna have access to your most powerful spells via those spellbooks. So either your risking your main book and having those as back up...or your gonna be sub par for most of the adventure...at least until you get powerful enough where secret chest or teleporting on a regular basis becomes a non issue...i.e. high levels. And hiding a spellbook before access to those spells even assumes you have a base of operation to hide the book in.