Why don't Wizards get to add two free spells to their spell books as they advance as Mystic Theurges?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

I am not saying that you shouldn't add quests/request from the city's wizards but i don't think that you can/should do that every time, i think it might get boring.
Also, i can understand the trust issue thing, but really isn't this the same with medium and major magic items (and not just weapons), so i don't really see this as a problem.
Also you are thinking about non-good wizards, i see nothing wrong with a good wizard sharing his spells to his fellow wizards, magi and alchemists. Yes i can understand that you might not expect to find many of them but still that's what elves and dwarves are there (since the majority of those races are CG and LG) and we all know how good wizards the elves make.


Jon Kines wrote:
...If adopting a prestige class infringes on a wizard's ability to research new spells as he levels, then the same logic should be applied to a cleric learning new prayers or a sorcerer learning new spells. It illustrates how very arbitrary and insipid the ruling is.

The issue here is that the Wizard is, and always has been, at a very good advantage when it comes to learning spells. It is the only core class that can learn a limitless number of spells from external sources. All other casters are limited--they CANNOT learn spells in any way other than from their deity/path/personal insight/what-have-you. They are trapped by their spells known.

There is no such problem with a Wizard. A Wizard can study on his own, or he can borrow from other Wizards. A Wizard can claim the magic scrolls left behind by enemies, she could pay a rogue to steal another Wizard's spellbook, she could delve deep into a cavern and study ancient tomes. Theoretically, a first-level Wizard with enough gold could acquire every castable Wizard spell in existence, even if they didn't understand them and couldn't cast them until they leveled up. THIS is why people play Wizards. Their spell repertoire is bottomless so long as extra books are coming out, while every other class is shackled by the numbers given in the "Spells Known" category.

That's why Wizards are treated differently with MT. It literally does not hamper a well-played Wizard at all. It simply forces you to do what you already do: hoard arcane knowledge to advance your own power. If you're relying on the 2 free spells per level to get your spellbook beefed up, you should consider playing a different casting class.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
steamboat28 wrote:


The issue here is that the Wizard is, and always has been, at a very good advantage when it comes to learning spells. It is the only core class that can learn a limitless number of spells from external sources. All other casters are limited--they CANNOT learn spells in any way other than from their deity/path/personal insight/what-have-you. They are trapped by their spells known.

There is no such problem with a Wizard. A Wizard can study on his own, or he can borrow from other Wizards. A Wizard can claim the magic scrolls left behind by enemies, she could pay a rogue to steal another Wizard's spellbook, she could delve deep into a cavern and study ancient tomes. Theoretically, a first-level Wizard with enough gold could acquire every castable Wizard spell in existence, even if they didn't understand them and couldn't cast them until they leveled up. THIS is why people play Wizards. Their spell repertoire is bottomless so long as extra books are coming out, while every other class is shackled by the numbers given in the "Spells Known" category.

That's why Wizards are treated differently with MT. It literally does not hamper a well-played Wizard at all. It simply forces you to do what you already do: hoard arcane knowledge to advance your own power. If you're relying on the 2 free spells per level to get your spellbook beefed up, you should consider playing a different casting class.

+1

This is exactly what I was getting at in my post.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

The reason why wizards trade and buy spells to/from one another is pretty simple. If they didn't, it'd be much more economical for the adventurer wizard(s) and archmages to butcher the sedentary mages to get the spells they want.

By selling the spells, you create goodwill, a feeling of intellectual community, generate money for more research, and your zombie doesn't follow the wizard out of the shop with your precious spellbook.

==Aelryinth


leo1925 wrote:

I am not saying that you shouldn't add quests/request from the city's wizards but i don't think that you can/should do that every time, i think it might get boring.

Also, i can understand the trust issue thing, but really isn't this the same with medium and major magic items (and not just weapons), so i don't really see this as a problem.
Also you are thinking about non-good wizards, i see nothing wrong with a good wizard sharing his spells to his fellow wizards, magi and alchemists. Yes i can understand that you might not expect to find many of them but still that's what elves and dwarves are there (since the majority of those races are CG and LG) and we all know how good wizards the elves make.

They don't have to quest every time for the same npc, but must do at least one task/quest to gain the trust of an npc before said npc will sell/trade spells. Once that level of trust has been obtained, that npc becomes a viable resource.


steamboat28 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
...If adopting a prestige class infringes on a wizard's ability to research new spells as he levels, then the same logic should be applied to a cleric learning new prayers or a sorcerer learning new spells. It illustrates how very arbitrary and insipid the ruling is.

The issue here is that the Wizard is, and always has been, at a very good advantage when it comes to learning spells. It is the only core class that can learn a limitless number of spells from external sources. All other casters are limited--they CANNOT learn spells in any way other than from their deity/path/personal insight/what-have-you. They are trapped by their spells known.

There is no such problem with a Wizard. A Wizard can study on his own, or he can borrow from other Wizards. A Wizard can claim the magic scrolls left behind by enemies, she could pay a rogue to steal another Wizard's spellbook, she could delve deep into a cavern and study ancient tomes. Theoretically, a first-level Wizard with enough gold could acquire every castable Wizard spell in existence, even if they didn't understand them and couldn't cast them until they leveled up. THIS is why people play Wizards. Their spell repertoire is bottomless so long as extra books are coming out, while every other class is shackled by the numbers given in the "Spells Known" category.

That's why Wizards are treated differently with MT. It literally does not hamper a well-played Wizard at all. It simply forces you to do what you already do: hoard arcane knowledge to advance your own power. If you're relying on the 2 free spells per level to get your spellbook beefed up, you should consider playing a different casting class.

Clerics have access to virtually the entire divine spell list, without doing any of the aforementioned, making the aforementioned largely irrelevant. Furthermore, if the 2 free spells are as inconsequential as you claim, then that would seem to undercut your argument that allowing a MT to retain them is overpowered. Either it is overpowered or inconsequential, you can't have it both ways.


Aelryinth wrote:

The reason why wizards trade and buy spells to/from one another is pretty simple. If they didn't, it'd be much more economical for the adventurer wizard(s) and archmages to butcher the sedentary mages to get the spells they want.

By selling the spells, you create goodwill, a feeling of intellectual community, generate money for more research, and your zombie doesn't follow the wizard out of the shop with your precious spellbook.

==Aelryinth

They do so with peers they respect and trust, the same way academics and researchers share and collaborate with peers they respect and trust. They do NOT let any pedestrian who walks in off the street pilfer through their work and take for his own whatever he sees fit to.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

What a retarded ruling. Thankfully it is his opinion and not an official ruling (otherwise it would be in the FAQ or errata).


I always figured it was because Paizo hates multiclassing in any form, and if you decide to multiclass, they will do their best to punish you for your decision. Hence the wizard is screwed out of spell known. The sorcerer doesn't have that issue, but it's not because they want sorcerers to give sorcerers a break. No, it is because sorcerers are an extra level behind in the mystic theurge game.

That's just my opinion, of course. I could be wrong.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
What a retarded ruling. Thankfully it is his opinion and not an official ruling (otherwise it would be in the FAQ or errata).

It is in the FAQ, under official rulings. Link


jlighter wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What a retarded ruling. Thankfully it is his opinion and not an official ruling (otherwise it would be in the FAQ or errata).
It is in the FAQ, under official rulings. Link

But has effectively been house-ruled into obsolescence.

Shadow Lodge

Jon Kines wrote:
jlighter wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What a retarded ruling. Thankfully it is his opinion and not an official ruling (otherwise it would be in the FAQ or errata).
It is in the FAQ, under official rulings. Link
But has effectively been house-ruled into obsolescence.

Probably true more often than not. Still, house-rules can remove, rewrite, reinforce, etc. any rule in the book. I tend to agree that getting a Wizard to let you copy a spell, even if you're trading, should be an encounter of some sort unto itself. I seem to recall it used to be called out as a probability.

Liberty's Edge

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Does a wizard (or other character that uses a spellbook), receive bonus spells to add to his spellbook when he gains a level in a prestige class that grants an increase to spellcasting?

No. The increase to his spellcasting level does not grant any other benefits, except for spells per day, spells known (for spontaneous casters), and an increase to his overall caster level. He must spend time and gold to add new spells to his spellbook.
—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10

I STRONGLY disagree with this ruling as it unfairly punishes wizards over sorcerers. The argument being that spells known is a function of spellcasting ability on the part of the sorcerer. The same is true for wizards. A wizard isn't just going to stop their studies as soon as they reach a prestige class with spellcasting progression. I would never enforce this ruling. I would have words with any DM that tried to, they might just be looking for another player if they tried to enforce it...


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
jlighter wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What a retarded ruling. Thankfully it is his opinion and not an official ruling (otherwise it would be in the FAQ or errata).
It is in the FAQ, under official rulings. Link

That FAQ is fan made and carries no official weight whatsoever.

You can find the REAL official FAQ for the core rulebook right here on this here official Paizo web site.

Sayer_of_Nay wrote:

I always figured it was because Paizo hates multiclassing in any form, and if you decide to multiclass, they will do their best to punish you for your decision. Hence the wizard is screwed out of spell known. The sorcerer doesn't have that issue, but it's not because they want sorcerers to give sorcerers a break. No, it is because sorcerers are an extra level behind in the mystic theurge game.

That's just my opinion, of course. I could be wrong.

Sorcerers get screwed out of their bloodline bonus spells. Paizo seems to hate all forms of multiclassing pretty evenly.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
jlighter wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What a retarded ruling. Thankfully it is his opinion and not an official ruling (otherwise it would be in the FAQ or errata).
It is in the FAQ, under official rulings. Link

That FAQ is fan made and carries no official weight whatsoever.

You can find the REAL official FAQ for the core rulebook right here on this here official Paizo web site.

Before you disagree with what somebody says, take a look at it. The PFSRD has a section for "Official" FAQ answers, which are sub-links to the official FAQ. They also link source material for their "Unofficial" answers as well as citing the person stating the answer by name and the date on which the statement was made. Most of the answers in the "Unofficial" section are given by James Jacobs, Jason Bulmahn, or Sean K. Reynolds.

In this case, I'll just copy-paste the official FAQ response to this topic since you didn't check your own link or mine.

Offical Paizo FAQ wrote:

Does a wizard (or other character that uses a spellbook), receive bonus spells to add to his spellbook when he gains a level in a prestige class that grants an increase to spellcasting?

No. The increase to his spellcasting level does not grant any other benefits, except for spells per day, spells known (for spontaneous casters), and an increase to his overall caster level. He must spend time and gold to add new spells to his spellbook.

—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10

Source

-Edit-

Forgot to mention the quotation is from your link, not mine.

Scarab Sages

Jon Kines wrote:


They do so with peers they respect and trust, the same way academics and researchers share and collaborate with peers they respect and trust. They do NOT let any pedestrian who walks in off the street pilfer through their work and take for his own whatever he sees fit to.

Huh.

"Here's the list of spells you can learn."

"I want to learn these three."

"Ok, here's the cost. Plus a refundable *restocking* fee if you damage the pages. Gold first."

*passes him the gold*

*passes him the three spells, unbound from the book*

Put another way, do you make your melee fighters complete a quest when they go to purchase a greatsword or a shield? Spells are the weapons of wizards, so if you're going to penalize them, then you should share the wealth.

Also, there's totally a market for allowing folks to copy spells. It makes great sense to have a *store* copy spellbook. Not to mention most wizards carry an adventuring spellbook and another spellbook they leave in a safe place. One bad reflex save, after all... :(


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
jlighter wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
jlighter wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What a retarded ruling. Thankfully it is his opinion and not an official ruling (otherwise it would be in the FAQ or errata).
It is in the FAQ, under official rulings. Link

That FAQ is fan made and carries no official weight whatsoever.

You can find the REAL official FAQ for the core rulebook right here on this here official Paizo web site.

Before you disagree with what somebody says, take a look at it. The PFSRD has a section for "Official" FAQ answers, which are sub-links to the official FAQ. They also link source material for their "Unofficial" answers as well as citing the person stating the answer by name and the date on which the statement was made. Most of the answers in the "Unofficial" section are given by James Jacobs, Jason Bulmahn, or Sean K. Reynolds.

In this case, I'll just copy-paste the official FAQ response to this topic since you didn't check your own link or mine.

Offical Paizo FAQ wrote:

Does a wizard (or other character that uses a spellbook), receive bonus spells to add to his spellbook when he gains a level in a prestige class that grants an increase to spellcasting?

No. The increase to his spellcasting level does not grant any other benefits, except for spells per day, spells known (for spontaneous casters), and an increase to his overall caster level. He must spend time and gold to add new spells to his spellbook.

—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10

Source

Odd. I checked the official FAQ three times. Amazing what the power of disbelief can do.

Still a crap ruling as it does nothing to promote fun OR balance.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Still a crap ruling as it does nothing to promote fun OR balance.

Not gonna disagree with that point. If somebody asked, I'd probably just let them take the 2 freebies. They're already 3 levels behind anyway.


Jon Kines wrote:
Furthermore, if the 2 free spells are as inconsequential as you claim, then that would seem to undercut your argument that allowing a MT to retain them is overpowered

Okay, I have to respond to this as you've said things like this several times. You're pulling a pure straw man. I don't think anyone, and certainly neither I nor the person you're responding to, is saying that it's overpowered. We're saying, yes, that's the way it is RAW, this is why it is that way, this is why it isn't a big deal.

The two free spells per level is a minor boon of the wizard. The MT doesn't get it. It's no big deal. It won't break anyones game to give them it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:


It's effectively what people are saying about the Wizard.

"Of course you don't get any more spells from your base class, you're progressing in a prestige class."

This argument applies to all classes.

"Well, Wizards have another class feature that lets them get spells!"

"Well, Sorcerers don't have another class feature that lets them get spells!"

Neither of these is a valid reason to give spells to one and not the other.

It is very simple: the wizard lack in features. One of his unique features is the capability to add 2 spells to his spellbook for free every level.

Give that to every PrC that a wizard take and there is even less reasons to not take a PrC with a wizard as soon as it is possible.

Jon Kines wrote:


I've been playing and DM'ing in some fashion for 30 years now, so perhaps I'm merely old fashioned. However, the notion that a wizard, whom no doubt strived and struggled to master what arcane knowledge he has, is going to give the fruits of his labor to any random person who walks into his shop and thinks he'd like to know a thing or two about teleportation, or planar binding, or what have you for a minimal fee is about as logical as an R&D company voluntrily giving a competitor access to the fruits of their research to design a competing product and again is outright laughable.

While I find the price of the spells really low, on the other hand it is necessary to keep the class viable (btw, for the same reasons you give, why someone would sell a scroll?).

Make a spell cost like a magic item and the wizard is hosed big time. And he would be the only class witht hat problem.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Most every prestige class says the following, or something close to it:

When a new arcane trickster level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in a spellcasting class she belonged to before adding the prestige class. She does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained, except for additional spells per day, spells known (if she is a spontaneous spellcaster), and an increased effective level of spellcasting. If a character had more than one spellcasting class before becoming an arcane trickster, she must decide to which class she adds the new level for purposes of determining spells per day.

I suspect the bolded portion is where the developers drew their ruling. After all, by that reading it could easily be interpreted that, if you are not a spontaneous caster, you don't get spells known. (Though I believe that it was always meant to mean differently.)

However, the mystic theurge, on the other hand, says this:

When a new mystic theurge level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in any one arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class and any one divine spellcasting class he belonged to previously. He does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained. This essentially means that he adds the level of mystic theurge to the level of whatever other arcane spellcasting class and divine spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class or more than one divine spellcasting class before he became a mystic theurge, he must decide to which class he adds each level of mystic theurge for the purpose of determining spells per day.

Note that there is no mention of sorcerers or any other spontaneous casters. This leads me to believe that the ruling, at least in regards to Theurges, does NOT apply.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jon Kines wrote:

Wizards in some circumstances, and again this is highly world and setting dependant, do band together into a guild however that never implies that everyone in the guild has open access to each others work. Probably the most famous and iconic "guild" would be the Tower of High Sorcery in the Dragonlance setting. Aside from the various factions and alignment based power struggles, each wizard also had a high level of autonomy when it came to research. Furthermore, faction dependant certain spells and spell school were forbidden entirely and these differed for each faction. Raistlin and Dalamar weren't exactly trapsing up to Par-Salian and Justarius and saying "hey take a look at what we came up with!"

In my campaigns, if a pc wizard approaches an npc wizard and asks to copy spells out of his book, that will involve more than a monetary transaction. Such an event would only occur after the pc has completed some sort of task or quest on behalf of the npc. Perhaps the npc would like to investigate the abandoned tower of an archmage who disappeared years ago, maybe he seeks information on a rival, or on an a surreptitious cult he believes has dire plans for the realm. Whatever the task may be, there will be a quest of sorts involved, upon completion of which the pc is rewarded with the spell he seeks.
Either the developers never intended for spells to be traded amongst mages like old dvd's or no thought of game balance was given to a rather short-sighted decision. In economies of scale the balance concerns of the aforementioned greatly overshadow any potential issues caused by one allowing a wizard based MT to continue to add 2 spells per level to his spellbook. If RAW produces such unintended consequences, it is incumbent upon the GM to adjudicate and alter them. After all, much of Pathfinder RAW was an adaptation of numerous house rules adopted in response to 3.0

You are mixing up two different situations:

- wizard sharing “common” spells (those in the Core rulebook)
- wizard sharing special spells that they invented.
The first is something normal in the Pathfinder game, the second isn’t.

Why I shouldn’t sell a Sleep spell when I know you can find it from thousands of spellcasters or easily reverse engineering it from available sources?

You can wish to make getting a extra spell always an adventure, but then you are treating the wizard badly.

I suppose you will do the same for the witch, right? No witch will trade his/her spells with another witch, he is a rival.

Jon Kines wrote:

It amounts to trust, is a wizard really going to let some random person that just happened to walk into his shop start thumbing through his spellbooks and copy whatever he pleases?

Why people always use that stupid example?

It is very easy to avoid that problem. People wishing to sell spells will keep a separate copy of every spell on one or more sheet of paper and only give the guy wishing to copy the spell the appropriate sheets of paper.

They guy buying the spell is the one that can have trust problems, not the seller.
He will be the one coming to my shop to study and copy the spell, so he will be the guy taking the risk.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
steamboat28 wrote:

Theoretically, a first-level Wizard with enough gold could acquire every castable Wizard spell in existence, even if they didn't understand them and couldn't cast them until they leveled up. THIS is why people play Wizards. Their spell repertoire is bottomless so long as extra books are coming out, while every other class is shackled by the numbers given in the "Spells Known" category.

A wizard can't "acquire" a spell above his level as he need to comprehend it to get it in his spellbook.

Cleric and druid get instant access to new spell every time a new book supporting the game come out (barring the DM using different rules), wizard have to learn the new spells. So the advantage isn't so great.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
steamboat28 wrote:

Theoretically, a first-level Wizard with enough gold could acquire every castable Wizard spell in existence, even if they didn't understand them and couldn't cast them until they leveled up. THIS is why people play Wizards. Their spell repertoire is bottomless so long as extra books are coming out, while every other class is shackled by the numbers given in the "Spells Known" category.

A wizard can't "acquire" a spell above his level as he need to comprehend it to get it in his spellbook.

Cleric and druid get instant access to new spell every time a new book supporting the game come out (barring the DM using different rules), wizard have to learn the new spells. So the advantage isn't so great.

I see absolutely nothing in the rules that says a wizard can't add a spell beyond his level to his spell book. He won't be able to cast it until he is of the appropriate level though.


RD is correct. You can add a spell of any level to your book, even if you can't use it.

Shadow Lodge

Since Wizards get Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat, why not adjudicate any spell-copying as purchasing a scribed scroll. Let Wizards who wish to open up a Spell Shop take advantage of having Scribe Scroll. When a Wizard wishes to copy a spell, they have to pay the cost of a Scroll instead of the (absurd) costs listed in Chapter 9. The Shopkeeper Wizard then either transcribes the scroll (gaining half the cost in profit) or hands the customer a pre-scribed copy of the scroll (keep a few copies of more useful or popular ones on hand, uncommon and rare ones on commission.

If there is no kindly Wizard with a Spell Shop around, the PC could fairly easily commission a local Wizard to craft a Scroll for her/him.

Mechanically, this makes a decent amount of sense. If the Wizards in a particular game are curmudgeonly, then they might just refuse to scribe a copy. To relate to the real-world example, though, common spells are roughly equivalent to a DIY blueprint, not a corporate trade secret. Lower-level spells (relative to available spell-casting by settlement) would probably be available.

The equivalent would be asking a joiner to copy the necessary blueprints for how to build a bed-frame, a cabinet, a dresser, or a futon. Talk to enough carpenters, eventually one will be willing to do a basic schematic for a transcription fee, no trust necessary. Knowing how the pieces fit together to make a rough piece of furniture doesn't make you a master joiner. Something needing more than just a transcription fee might be the schematics for a hide-a-bed, a technique for assembling furniture with no nails, or how to disguise secret catches and compartments.

The common tricks should be available. They are in real life. Rank spells by commonality, and judge how available they'd be for copying based on that. 1-2 (common), 3-4 (uncommon), 5-6 (rare), 7-9 (secret) for a sample.


Ravingdork wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
steamboat28 wrote:

Theoretically, a first-level Wizard with enough gold could acquire every castable Wizard spell in existence, even if they didn't understand them and couldn't cast them until they leveled up. THIS is why people play Wizards. Their spell repertoire is bottomless so long as extra books are coming out, while every other class is shackled by the numbers given in the "Spells Known" category.

A wizard can't "acquire" a spell above his level as he need to comprehend it to get it in his spellbook.

Cleric and druid get instant access to new spell every time a new book supporting the game come out (barring the DM using different rules), wizard have to learn the new spells. So the advantage isn't so great.

I see absolutely nothing in the rules that says a wizard can't add a spell beyond his level to his spell book. He won't be able to cast it until he is of the appropriate level though.

I think some rules do not actually need to be written down for most people, if the wizard spends time in between researching a spell and ends up with something that is far beyond his ability would be rather silly.

On the subject I think Jason Buhlman made a silly ruling, a MT should get spells to cast just like a wizard, it might be rules as not written, but every spellcaster in the game gets new spells when they advance, there is no gameplay reason to exclude the MT from this.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Remco Sommeling wrote:

I think some rules do not actually need to be written down for most people...

In the case of tabletop roleplaying, a rule that isn't written down isn't a rule.

Shadow Lodge

Remco Sommeling wrote:

I think some rules do not actually need to be written down for most people, if the wizard spends time in between researching a spell and ends up with something that is far beyond his ability would be rather silly.

On the subject I think Jason Buhlman made a silly ruling, a MT should get spells to cast just like a wizard, it might be rules as not written, but every spellcaster in the game gets new spells when they advance, there is no gameplay reason to exclude the MT from this.

Just as a side note, they do get new spells when they advance, but only on the Divine side. The only exclusion with regards to MT relates to Wizard and Magus, and presumably Witch since their spell-learning mechanic is near-identical. Bard, Sorcerer, and Summoner suffer no penalty to spell-learning. I'm not sure Alchemist qualifies since they don't "cast spells" per se.


ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Spells per Day

When a new mystic theurge level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in any one arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class and any one divine spellcasting class he belonged to previously. He does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained. This essentially means that he adds the level of mystic theurge to the level of whatever other arcane spellcasting class and divine spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly

Does a wizard (or other character that uses a spellbook), receive bonus spells to add to his spellbook when he gains a level in a prestige class that grants an increase to spellcasting?
No. The increase to his spellcasting level does not grant any other benefits, except for spells per day, spells known (for spontaneous casters), and an increase to his overall caster level. He must spend time and gold to add new spells to his spellbook.
—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10

If a sorcerer gains new spells known as he advances a level in a prestige class like mystic theurge, then why doesn’t a wizard get to add his two “free” spells to his spell book as he advances in level? Why is this the case? Is it a game balance issue?

I allow any class using base class wizard to add to their spellbook. There is no intelligent reason as to why it is not allowed other than some game designer making another unnecessary decision for reasons I cannot fathom.

I look at it as two different branches of spellcasting. One based on innate ability and one based on study. Both should expand their magical knowledge as they level.

Just as spontanous casters get their spells known as they advance.

So should the spellbook-based aka study spellcasters expand their spell selection. You don't stop studying spells because you became a Mystic Theurge or Eldritch Knight. It's pretty lame to not be able to add any spells to your book if you happen to be in the middle of nowhere with nowhere to go to buy materials or base spells. Like your suddently not going to bother to research new spells because you chose a different Prestige class that still allows casting, but for some reason makes the presumption you can no longer study magic.

Just house rule it and stop trying to follow a RAW that doesn't make sense.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
steamboat28 wrote:

Theoretically, a first-level Wizard with enough gold could acquire every castable Wizard spell in existence, even if they didn't understand them and couldn't cast them until they leveled up. THIS is why people play Wizards. Their spell repertoire is bottomless so long as extra books are coming out, while every other class is shackled by the numbers given in the "Spells Known" category.

A wizard can't "acquire" a spell above his level as he need to comprehend it to get it in his spellbook.

Cleric and druid get instant access to new spell every time a new book supporting the game come out (barring the DM using different rules), wizard have to learn the new spells. So the advantage isn't so great.

I see absolutely nothing in the rules that says a wizard can't add a spell beyond his level to his spell book. He won't be able to cast it until he is of the appropriate level though.

I think some rules do not actually need to be written down for most people, if the wizard spends time in between researching a spell and ends up with something that is far beyond his ability would be rather silly.

On the subject I think Jason Buhlman made a silly ruling, a MT should get spells to cast just like a wizard, it might be rules as not written, but every spellcaster in the game gets new spells when they advance, there is no gameplay reason to exclude the MT from this.

The rule was in 3.5 also. I am guessing nobody bother to make enough noise about it during the beta testing for it to matter. While it might not cause an issue in my game I don't know how it would affect another person's game, and it may give the wizard too much on average as an MT. I can't really attest to that though.


Magicdealer wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:


They do so with peers they respect and trust, the same way academics and researchers share and collaborate with peers they respect and trust. They do NOT let any pedestrian who walks in off the street pilfer through their work and take for his own whatever he sees fit to.

Put another way, do you make your melee fighters complete a quest when they go to purchase a greatsword or a shield? Spells are the weapons of wizards, so if you're going to penalize them, then you should share the wealth.

When it comes to "magic shops" I'm a minimalist all around, because I truly believe it devalues and trivializes rewards. I've already stated that after a task or quest has been performed to gain the trust of an npc caster, that opens up said npc as a viable resource. Also I'm fairly good about mixing spellbooks and scrolls in with loot as appropiate. I've never been a fan of the arcane Wal-Mart for the same reasons I despise the Forgotten Realms.


Maddigan wrote:
ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Spells per Day

When a new mystic theurge level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in any one arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class and any one divine spellcasting class he belonged to previously. He does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained. This essentially means that he adds the level of mystic theurge to the level of whatever other arcane spellcasting class and divine spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly

Does a wizard (or other character that uses a spellbook), receive bonus spells to add to his spellbook when he gains a level in a prestige class that grants an increase to spellcasting?
No. The increase to his spellcasting level does not grant any other benefits, except for spells per day, spells known (for spontaneous casters), and an increase to his overall caster level. He must spend time and gold to add new spells to his spellbook.
—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10

If a sorcerer gains new spells known as he advances a level in a prestige class like mystic theurge, then why doesn’t a wizard get to add his two “free” spells to his spell book as he advances in level? Why is this the case? Is it a game balance issue?

I allow any class using base class wizard to add to their spellbook. There is no intelligent reason as to why it is not allowed other than some game designer making another unnecessary decision for reasons I cannot fathom.

Not being able to understand something does not make it unnecessary or lacking an intelligent reason. <---This is just a general statement and I did let the MT get the wizard spells, but I run a hi-powered game most of the time.


stringburka wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
Furthermore, if the 2 free spells are as inconsequential as you claim, then that would seem to undercut your argument that allowing a MT to retain them is overpowered

Okay, I have to respond to this as you've said things like this several times. You're pulling a pure straw man. I don't think anyone, and certainly neither I nor the person you're responding to, is saying that it's overpowered. We're saying, yes, that's the way it is RAW, this is why it is that way, this is why it isn't a big deal.

The two free spells per level is a minor boon of the wizard. The MT doesn't get it. It's no big deal. It won't break anyones game to give them it.

Well if you don't agree with the ruling either, we have nothing to argue about. Although my house rules are probably 80-90% RAW, I never hesitate to throw out the nonsensical such as the aforementioned, which I guess we concur to some degree after all on.


Wraithstrike wrote:


I run a hi-powered game most of the time.

In terms of difficulty and scale I do as well. I just prefer to give loot through play then utilize magic shops and when they are utilized, I make them work to at least gain the trust of the npc before he will do any significant trading with them. (It's Ustalav too, if it was Absalom I'd probably be running it a bit more loose tbh) My table is largely RAW except for nonsense such as that ruling. Fortunately none of my players would ever be caught dead playing an underpowered MT so I ultimately have little to worry about.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
steamboat28 wrote:

Theoretically, a first-level Wizard with enough gold could acquire every castable Wizard spell in existence, even if they didn't understand them and couldn't cast them until they leveled up. THIS is why people play Wizards. Their spell repertoire is bottomless so long as extra books are coming out, while every other class is shackled by the numbers given in the "Spells Known" category.

A wizard can't "acquire" a spell above his level as he need to comprehend it to get it in his spellbook.

Cleric and druid get instant access to new spell every time a new book supporting the game come out (barring the DM using different rules), wizard have to learn the new spells. So the advantage isn't so great.

I see absolutely nothing in the rules that says a wizard can't add a spell beyond his level to his spell book. He won't be able to cast it until he is of the appropriate level though.

You are right, to copy a spell you only need to comprehend it, no to be capable of casting it.


It's seems to me like an arbitrary ruling, considering Sorcerers and Wizards are balanced to begin with, and the fact that without this change in the rules there is nothing saying they don't get the two free spells per level. The Mystic Theurge Spells per Day class feature doesn't say that it only affects the Spells class feature; in fact it says that it affects ALL abilities that determine spells per day, spells known, and caster level. After having read the wording for Sorcerer and Wizard is see virtually no difference:
Sorcerer "At each new sorcerer level, she gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table 3–15."
Wizard "At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) from his spellbook."

I see no reason why this ruling was made other than to make it slightly harder on Wizards which seem rather pointless, and since the classes were balanced to begin with why change it when you reach a prestige class.

The Exchange

I don't see what the problem is in making a wizard spend a little extra in gold to buy scrolls and put them into his spellbook when he's gaining a crapton of spells he doesn't have to pay for with his divine class counterpart. It seems like a fair trade-off, especially when sorcerers are stuck with the spells they've chosen.


Magicdealer wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:


They do so with peers they respect and trust, the same way academics and researchers share and collaborate with peers they respect and trust. They do NOT let any pedestrian who walks in off the street pilfer through their work and take for his own whatever he sees fit to.

Huh.

"Here's the list of spells you can learn."

"I want to learn these three."

"Ok, here's the cost. Plus a refundable *restocking* fee if you damage the pages. Gold first."

*passes him the gold*

*passes him the three spells, unbound from the book*

Put another way, do you make your melee fighters complete a quest when they go to purchase a greatsword or a shield? Spells are the weapons of wizards, so if you're going to penalize them, then you should share the wealth.

Also, there's totally a market for allowing folks to copy spells. It makes great sense to have a *store* copy spellbook. Not to mention most wizards carry an adventuring spellbook and another spellbook they leave in a safe place. One bad reflex save, after all... :(

Actually, I have fighters do pretty much the same thing you are describing. It's the same as heading out to the local arms and armor dealer and making a similar purchase. You may have noticed that buying spells can be much less expensive than buying weapons. A 9th level spell can run the wizard 1215 gold (the cost to learn and then scribe it himself). That's 0.3% of the wizard's wealth at the lowest level he can use the spell. A fighter would be paying about 40% of his wealth for an equivalent value weapon at the lowest level he can use it. The wizard clearly comes out on top.

I also have scrolls, weapons, and armor as treasure.

So, yes, I do have them "quest" for their gear as well.

As for damaging the spellbooks because of a failed Reflex save, the same can happen to a fighter's weapons or armor.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bob_Loblaw wrote:


Actually, I have fighters do pretty much the same thing you are describing. It's the same as heading out to the local arms and armor dealer and making a similar purchase. You may have noticed that buying spells can be much less expensive than buying weapons. A 9th level spell can run the wizard 1215 gold (the cost to learn and then scribe it himself). That's 0.3% of the wizard's wealth at the lowest level he can use the spell. A fighter would be paying about 40% of his wealth for an equivalent value weapon at the lowest level he can use it. The wizard clearly comes out on top.

I also have scrolls, weapons, and armor as treasure.

So, yes, I do have them "quest" for their gear as well.

As for damaging the spellbooks because of a failed Reflex save, the same can happen to a fighter's weapons or armor.

What comparison are you making? a 9th level spell and what? What is a equivalent level weapon?

Learning and coping a 1st level 5 (to try to learn) + 10 to copy = 15gp. 1,5% of suggested wealth at 1st level (and 21% of the typical starting wealth).
Purchasing a longsword 15 gp, 1.5% of suggested wealth at 1st level. (and 8.5% of typical starting wealth).

9th level spell? Technically you can purchase it only as a scroll as no city sell 9th level spellcasting services.
Equivalent weapon? What weapon you can use a limited number of times every day?


Diego Rossi wrote:


9th level spell? Technically you can purchase it only as a scroll as no city sell 9th level spellcasting services.

I don't quite agree with that.

First of all there might be someone with the capability to cast 9th level spell in a truly great city, but that's not what i am saying. What i am saying is that there have been wizards capable of casting 9th level spells in the past, so poeple might have found their spellbooks and copied the spells, also said wizards of the past might have found universities and/or magical academies and have 9th level spells in said schools library. I could go on but i think you understand what i am saying.
(Convincing them to let you copy them on the other hand is another story)


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Joseph Caubo wrote:
I don't see what the problem is in making a wizard spend a little extra in gold to buy scrolls and put them into his spellbook when he's gaining a crapton of spells he doesn't have to pay for with his divine class counterpart. It seems like a fair trade-off, especially when sorcerers are stuck with the spells they've chosen.

Not every game is going to let wizards buy new spells willynilly. Those two free spells are an important baseline. It ensures every wizard has SOMETHING appropriate to their level regardless of circumstances.

Read the above posts. Lots of GMs don't share spells so readily. I myself have been in several games where, though we could buy spells under normal circumstances, we couldn't because of thematic story elements (extremely hard to buy new spells when you spent your last 5 levels adventuring on adventure island and you are the only wizard there).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
I don't see what the problem is in making a wizard spend a little extra in gold to buy scrolls and put them into his spellbook when he's gaining a crapton of spells he doesn't have to pay for with his divine class counterpart. It seems like a fair trade-off, especially when sorcerers are stuck with the spells they've chosen.

Not every game is going to let wizards buy new spells willynilly. Those two free spells are an important baseline. It ensures every wizard has SOMETHING appropriate to their level regardless of circumstances.

Read the above posts. Lots of GMs don't share spells so readily. I myself have been in several games where, though we could buy spells under normal circumstances, we couldn't because of thematic story elements (extremely hard to buy new spells when you spent your last 5 levels adventuring on adventure island and you are the only wizard there).

In other words, it's only a stupid rule if the GM is breaking the system with house rules?

I can live with that. In a game where the GM is not using WBL, or is restricting the MT from getting spells from other wizards, then yes, the rule should go bye-bye.

However, you are using a house rule that is clearly against the core rules as an argument that a core rule built on the premise that core rules are in effect is stupid.

Sorry, it's not. The ruling was made based on the core rules. If you house-rule one set of core rules, then you have to house-rule the other ones that are affected by it.

That doesn't make the rule stupid. It makes the rule relevant within the base framework of the normal rules. If you break the normal rules, you're going to invalidate the assumptions the ruling was made on. That doesn't mean the ruling was bad, it means you have to adjust for the house rules you're already using.


Jon Kines wrote:

If a pc really wants a spell from an npc wizard's spellbook he may undertake a quest or peform a task for said npc pursuant to such spellbook access as the npc deems fit.

...
They don't have to quest every time for the same npc, but must do at least one task/quest to gain the trust of an npc before said npc will sell/trade spells. Once that level of trust has been obtained, that npc becomes a viable resource.

1 question, do you have npc wizards do the same thing for the pc's? Can the pc get an npc wizard to do a minor quest so the npc can copy a spell?

While I agree with the basic idea that most wizards won't trade spells with just anybody and you have to develop a relationship with them first. There are many ways that could happen;
-perform a minor quest,
-being a town hero,
-be members of the same orginization (church, wizards guild, etc...),
-making a diplomacy roll,
-having a letter of introduction from someone the wizard trusts
-etc...

There might also be the occasional mercenary wizard who will allow you to copy a spell for gold. And has been pointed out, assume the standard method of transfer would be, scribe a scroll instead of letting them paw through the spellbook.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:


9th level spell? Technically you can purchase it only as a scroll as no city sell 9th level spellcasting services.

leo1925 wrote:


I don't quite agree with that.
First of all there might be someone with the capability to cast 9th level spell in a truly great city, but that's not what i am saying. What i am saying is that there have been wizards capable of casting 9th level spells in the past, so poeple might have found their spellbooks and copied the spells, also said wizards of the past might have found universities and/or magical academies and have 9th level spells in said schools library. I could go on but i think you understand what i am saying.
(Convincing them to let you copy them on the other hand is another story)

In theory there is a 75% chance to find any scroll (even 9th level) without costly components in a small city (purchase limit of 4.000 gp), so finding spells to copy isn't hard. On the other hand copying a spell at the smaller cost require a spellcasting service and, by raw, there are no spellcasting services for 9th level spells.

if you look the post to which I was replying, the guy there was saying that a 9th level spell is the equivalent of a weapon that cost 40% of the wealth of a level 17 fighter and only cost 1215 gp.

I am curious to know what weapon cost at least 100.000 gp and has at most 4 uses every day, the number of uses for a level 9 spell that a level 17 specialist wizard with 36 intelligence get.
Note that those are 4 swing of the weapon, hit or miss.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
I don't see what the problem is in making a wizard spend a little extra in gold to buy scrolls and put them into his spellbook when he's gaining a crapton of spells he doesn't have to pay for with his divine class counterpart. It seems like a fair trade-off, especially when sorcerers are stuck with the spells they've chosen.

Not every game is going to let wizards buy new spells willynilly. Those two free spells are an important baseline. It ensures every wizard has SOMETHING appropriate to their level regardless of circumstances.

Read the above posts. Lots of GMs don't share spells so readily. I myself have been in several games where, though we could buy spells under normal circumstances, we couldn't because of thematic story elements (extremely hard to buy new spells when you spent your last 5 levels adventuring on adventure island and you are the only wizard there).

mdt wrote:


In other words, it's only a stupid rule if the GM is breaking the system with house rules?

I can live with that. In a game where the GM is not using WBL, or is restricting the MT from getting spells from other wizards, then yes, the rule should go bye-bye.

However, you are using a house rule that is clearly against the core rules as an argument that a core rule built on the premise that core rules are in effect is stupid.

Sorry, it's not. The ruling was made based on the core rules. If you house-rule one set of core rules, then you have to house-rule the other ones that are affected by it.

That doesn't make the rule stupid. It makes the rule relevant within the base framework of the normal rules. If you break the normal rules, you're going to invalidate the assumptions the ruling was made on. That doesn't mean the ruling was bad, it means you have to adjust for the house rules you're already using.

The normal rules include the possibility to spend months away from civilisation.

Or more simply to get several levels while you are:
1) pressed for time, so much that spending time to buy scrolls and copy them can be problematic;
2) sufficiently distant from the nearest city that getting there and back will require a teleport, so a 5th level spell slot that you can't always spare.

That said I am in favour of the limitation as the wizard has already too little that make it more interesting that a PrC.

Note that, as Ravingdork was saying the wording for the mystic theurge (and the loremaster in 3.5) is different and apparently that class will continue to add 2 wizard spells every level of MT.
It is possible it is meant to be, as a prestige class is fairly weak.

Edit:
Now I know why the forum had problems accepting my post. Raving and I were posting at the same time.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
mdt wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
I don't see what the problem is in making a wizard spend a little extra in gold to buy scrolls and put them into his spellbook when he's gaining a crapton of spells he doesn't have to pay for with his divine class counterpart. It seems like a fair trade-off, especially when sorcerers are stuck with the spells they've chosen.

Not every game is going to let wizards buy new spells willynilly. Those two free spells are an important baseline. It ensures every wizard has SOMETHING appropriate to their level regardless of circumstances.

Read the above posts. Lots of GMs don't share spells so readily. I myself have been in several games where, though we could buy spells under normal circumstances, we couldn't because of thematic story elements (extremely hard to buy new spells when you spent your last 5 levels adventuring on adventure island and you are the only wizard there).

In other words, it's only a stupid rule if the GM is breaking the system with house rules?

I can live with that. In a game where the GM is not using WBL, or is restricting the MT from getting spells from other wizards, then yes, the rule should go bye-bye.

However, you are using a house rule that is clearly against the core rules as an argument that a core rule built on the premise that core rules are in effect is stupid.

Sorry, it's not. The ruling was made based on the core rules. If you house-rule one set of core rules, then you have to house-rule the other ones that are affected by it.

That doesn't make the rule stupid. It makes the rule relevant within the base framework of the normal rules. If you break the normal rules, you're going to invalidate the assumptions the ruling was made on. That doesn't mean the ruling was bad, it means you have to adjust for the house rules you're already using.

It's not a house rule to say a wizard can't buy magic scrolls on a desert island. That's common sense.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If you're out in the wilderness and can't get to town (or on the desert island), then EVERYONE is penalized. The melee classes can't upgrade their equipment either. So that's a very weak argument. Sorry, it is. Why should the prestige class get a benefit that the fighter doesn't (upgrading his equipment). Remember, even if you don't have a 4th level spell in your spell book, but you do have a 3rd level spell, you can prepare a lower level spell in that higher level slot (unless that changed in PF).


Ravingdork wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
I don't see what the problem is in making a wizard spend a little extra in gold to buy scrolls and put them into his spellbook when he's gaining a crapton of spells he doesn't have to pay for with his divine class counterpart. It seems like a fair trade-off, especially when sorcerers are stuck with the spells they've chosen.

Not every game is going to let wizards buy new spells willynilly. Those two free spells are an important baseline. It ensures every wizard has SOMETHING appropriate to their level regardless of circumstances.

Read the above posts. Lots of GMs don't share spells so readily. I myself have been in several games where, though we could buy spells under normal circumstances, we couldn't because of thematic story elements (extremely hard to buy new spells when you spent your last 5 levels adventuring on adventure island and you are the only wizard there).

If the PC wizard is in such a position then i think that the DM should either let those PrC levels let him gain spells in his spellbook or include some spellbook pages (or even scrolls but that might not help in a time pressed game) in the treasure found.


@Diego Rossi
First of all, i am in your side on the weapon argument.
Now about the 9th level spells, yes i know the rule about availble equipement based on the wealth of the city and the 9th level spellcasting service available, but i think that we entering the part that the rules doesn't make a lot of sense in game, sure i have 75% chance to find nearly any 9th level spell i want as a scroll but there is no-one wizard in the world capable of casting those spells (who makes those scrolls?) and i can't find those spells in the biggest libraries of the world, wtf?
Anyway i am on your side, i just think that there are ways to make it more believable in game.

Valandil Ancalime wrote:


There might also be the occasional mercenary wizard who will allow you to copy a spell for gold. And has been pointed out, assume the standard method of transfer would be, scribe a scroll instead of letting them paw through the spellbook.

Why would the scroll be the standart method of transfer? Those things cost a lot of gold.

51 to 100 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Why don't Wizards get to add two free spells to their spell books as they advance as Mystic Theurges? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.