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


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

leo1925 wrote:
Why would the scroll be the standart method of transfer? Those things cost a lot of gold.

So the other wizard isn't pawing through your spellbook, looking at your secrets and messing up the pages. If someone (a friend of a friend, but someone you don't really know) wanted to buy and copy something off your computer (assuming you had the right to give them a copy - I don't want to get into stuff about piracy and intellectual property), would you

a- give them your computer for several hours so they could burn themselves a copy (it takes 1 hour of study + 1 hour/spell level to copy).
b- make a cd/floppy/other removeable media yourself and give them that copy.

Unless you REALLY trusted them, you wouldn't want them looking at your spellbook, unless you have a special "public" spellbook specifically made so others can copy out of, but that also requires "a lot of gold".


First of all, having a public spellbook doesn't require so much money (especially when compared to scroll buying).
Also the scroll thing brings another problem to the table, a wixard can create only one scroll per day (so if you want to buy a lot of spells that means a lot of days).
In addition, what i would do i was said wizard? I would simply remove said pages from the spellbook (let him copy them) and then re-attach the pages to the spellbook.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:

@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.

Personally I use the spellcasting services as the limit of scrolls available in a town, as I find absurd that it will be possible to find with ease any scroll in a small city.

To get someone to cast or sell 9th level spells in my version of the game word you need to find the right contacts.

My players, as no one of them was a paladin, gave a holy sword to the church of Iomeade for a small sum. They got access to some very powerful people that way.

I agree with Jon Kine that building some kind of trust or friendship will be needed to convince a spellcaster to cast one of the highest levels spells for you or to sell you a specific, powerful spell or one than only them know.

On the other hand most of the common spells should be easily available in a large city or they can be reversed engineered with a good library [the cost in the core rulebook for research is a bit high when you are reverse engineering a know spell, while it is right for researching a new spell).

leo1925 wrote:
Why would the scroll be the standart method of transfer? Those things cost a lot of gold.
Valandil Ancalime wrote:


So the other wizard isn't pawing through your spellbook, looking at your secrets and messing up the pages. If someone (a friend of a friend, but someone you don't really know) wanted to buy and copy something off your computer (assuming you had the right to give them a copy - I don't want to get into stuff about piracy and intellectual property), would you
a- give them your computer for several hours so they could burn themselves a copy (it takes 1 hour of study + 1 hour/spell level to copy).
b- make a cd/floppy/other removeable media yourself and give them that copy.

Unless you REALLY trusted them, you wouldn't want them looking at your spellbook, unless you have a special "public" spellbook specifically made so others can copy out of, but that also requires "a lot of gold".

Already replied several times. You don't give away your whole spellbook.

You give the guy a 1 spell booklet. Even supposing you want to make it as sturdy as a regular spellbook the cost for the book is only 15 gp and it will last for hundred of years.

To be extra sure you can force him to copy it in your shop, selling him the inks and pens for a extra gain.


Valandil Ancalime wrote:
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?

Yes, if there ever was a situation where an npc wanted a spell from a pc, should a circumstance would be roleplayed.


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.

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...

Great minds think alike :D


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
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.

I think its an old school vs new school thing. About half of us seem to do things this way, and our players enjoy it that way, and the other half think we're all stark raving mad.


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.

The reason it has to be house ruled in the first place is because if any circumstance of campaign play removes the party from metropolitan life for a significant period of time, the wizard MT would be quite stuck. Imagine trying to play a wizard MT in Serpentskull for example.

Furthermore your fighter gear analogy quite simply doesn't hold water because gear in and of itself is a more common treasure reward earned through play then spells, and in any event gear and class abilties are two different matters entirely. To penalize the fighter equal to what this rule does to a Wizard MT, one who have to adjudicate a fighter cannot add his bonus feat from levelling until he returns to town and pays for training from a warriors guild. The absurdity and gameplay disruption of such a notion should silence this debate once and for all. Alas, I'm fairly certain it won't.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jon Kines wrote:
The reason it has to be house ruled in the first place is because if any circumstance of campaign play removes the party from metropolitan life for a significant period of time, the wizard MT would be quite stuck. Imagine trying to play a wizard MT in Serpentskull for example. . .Need I say more?

Since I have no idea what Serpentskull is, yeah, you should say more.

If you mean that the characters are away from civilization, I already said that's a bad reasoning.

If they are away from civilization, then everyone is in the same boat, nobody can upgrade.

If the melee types are getting upgrades, how is that happening if they aren't selling loot and buying upgrades? Are they getting treasure? If so, why isn't there a spellbook or scrolls in the treasure as well?

Again, it comes back to either someone house ruling or the GM not doing his job. Either way, it's not the rule, it's the fact someone is messing something up and not using the rules as intended. Don't hate the rule, hate they guy screwing it up.

In your serpent skull example, if it's a module written so that the wizard/ek/whatever can't get to town, and there are no spell books or scrolls in the treasure, then that is a failure of the idiot that wrote the module and the idiot GM who's running it who didn't fix the first idiot's screw up. It's not the fault of a rule which is in place that fits the RAI but are not being used as intended.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


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

Of course it is... if the text is not written into the core rules, it MUST be a house rule... by your own previous logic.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
mdt wrote:
Since I have no idea what Serpentskull is, yeah, you should say more.

It's a new series of official Pathfinder adventure modules where the PCs are stranded on an island with little to nothing to work with and limited to no access to resources.

The fact that Paizo wrote such a scenario AS A CAMPAIGN leads me to believe that such a thing is certainly probable in home games as well.

LazarX: Got me on that one.


mdt wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
The reason it has to be house ruled in the first place is because if any circumstance of campaign play removes the party from metropolitan life for a significant period of time, the wizard MT would be quite stuck. Imagine trying to play a wizard MT in Serpentskull for example. . .Need I say more?

Since I have no idea what Serpentskull is, yeah, you should say more.

If you mean that the characters are away from civilization, I already said that's a bad reasoning.

If they are away from civilization, then everyone is in the same boat, nobody can upgrade.

If the melee types are getting upgrades, how is that happening if they aren't selling loot and buying upgrades? Are they getting treasure? If so, why isn't there a spellbook or scrolls in the treasure as well?

Again, it comes back to either someone house ruling or the GM not doing his job. Either way, it's not the rule, it's the fact someone is messing something up and not using the rules as intended. Don't hate the rule, hate they guy screwing it up.

In your serpent skull example, if it's a module written so that the wizard/ek/whatever can't get to town, and there are no spell books or scrolls in the treasure, then that is a failure of the idiot that wrote the module and the idiot GM who's running it who didn't fix the first idiot's screw up. It's not the fault of a rule which is in place that fits the RAI but are not being used as intended.

Serpentskull is a Pathfinder AP that places the party in a jungle bereft of contact with the civilized world for the better part of 10-12 levels. Even a core wizard needed tailored loot to be viable, much less a wizard MT. The Serpentskull AP is a Paizo product, the same people who produced those RAW you seem to think should never be deviated from.

Also comparing a spell to a fighter's sword is a bad analogy, it is more akin to a bonus feat as in it is a class feature not a piece of equipment. Unless loot is 100% tailored (which incidentally I have been known to do from time to time when warranted) in general you will get more gear then new spells over the course of a given adventure. In point of fact, I cannot think of a single volume of a single Pathfinder Adventure Path (using offical campaign products as a fair basis of comparison) where more spells where accrued in the course of play than gear.

Of course, given that the treasure in the AP could be considered RAW, even if I did customize loot you'd probably just castigate my attempt to balance a design fallacy for not following RAW. . .


Jon Kines wrote:


Serpentskull is a Pathfinder AP that places the party in a jungle bereft of contact with the civilized world for the better part of 10-12 levels. Even a core wizard needed tailored loot to be viable, much less a wizard MT. The Serpentskull AP is a Paizo product, the same people who produced those RAW you seem to think should never be deviated from.

I think it was mentioned more than a few times that loot, yes, should be tailored to the PCs. And while certain modules may be more advantageous to characters than others, I think that since the wizard already has quite a few methods to add more spells to their book than the sorcerer to his list, taking their extra learned spells/level when they PrC is not the same punishment as it is for sorcerers or oracles. Yes, it saves you a bit of trouble and cash, but the prestige class should make up for that - and in the case of the MT, I'd say it does by advancing both casting types.

If you are so dead-set against it in your games, sure, go ahead. I doubt the Rule Police will break down your door in the dead of night anytime soon :) .


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jon Kines wrote:

Serpentskull is a Pathfinder AP that places the party in a jungle bereft of contact with the civilized world for the better part of 10-12 levels. Even a core wizard needed tailored loot to be viable, much less a wizard MT. The Serpentskull AP is a Paizo product, the same people who produced those RAW you seem to think should never be deviated from.

Also comparing a spell to a fighter's sword is a bad analogy, it is more akin to a bonus feat as in it is a class feature not a piece of equipment. Unless loot is 100% tailored (which incidentally I have been known to do from time to time when warranted) in general you will get more gear then new spells over the course of a given adventure. In point of fact, I cannot think of a single volume of a single Pathfinder Adventure Path (using offical campaign products as a fair basis of comparison) where more spells where accrued in the course of play than gear.

Of course, given that the treasure in the AP could be considered RAW, even if I did customize loot you'd probably just castigate my attempt to balance a design fallacy for not following RAW. . .

Please point out in any post I made where I said RAW must be slavishly followed? Please? I'll wait...

...
...

...

...

Hmmm, no where huh? Ok, good then.

I have said, several times, that the rule is just fine as is within the RAW. I never said RAW had to be followed slavishly. I said that the rule is what it is, designed to fit within RAW. I said that if you houserule something, then you have to take the effects of that into account.

Please point out your philosophical objection to that statement. I'll repeat it again so you can be 100% sure of what statement I'm talking about. Then after it, I'll put a couple of more statements I've made, all in order, so you can tell me your objection to them.

1) The rule is just fine, provided the rule is used with the RAW, and that RAW are used RAI, that the PrC has access to resources.

2) If you houserule something, then you have to take the effects of that into account.

3) If a game or AP puts the character in situations, for long periods of time, where RAW are not being used RAI (In other words, you're on a desert island an all your equipment comes from loot), then it is the AP writers job to make sure the loot is appropriate for such a setting. If the AP writer fails to do his job, it is the job of the GM to fix the AP writer's screw up.

I have house rules for my own game, every GM does. Even PFS has house rules (no Leadership feats, no crafting, nothing over level 12). But, as the GM, it's my responsibility to make sure that my house rules take into account the ramification of those house rules. As the GM, it's my responsibility to ensure that my setting does not totally screw over a player. A failure of the GM or AP writer to do his job does not make a rule stupid.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jon Kines wrote:
Also comparing a spell to a fighter's sword is a bad analogy, it is more akin to a bonus feat as in it is a class feature not a piece of equipment. Unless loot is 100% tailored (which incidentally I have been known to do from time to time when warranted) in general you will get more gear then new spells over the course of a given adventure. In point of fact, I cannot think of a single volume of a single Pathfinder Adventure Path (using offical campaign products as a fair basis of comparison) where more spells where accrued in the course of play than gear.

I'm responding to this one separately.

It is absolutely a valid analogy.

A weapon is how a melee character provides his usefulness to the group. Casting a spell is exactly how a wizard provides his usefulness to the group.

Increasing a melee character's weapon increases his effectiveness. Increasing a wizard's spell level or number of spells known increases his effectiveness.

If you put a melee character into a situation where his weapon can't damage the enemy, it's the same as putting the wizard into a situation where he has no spells to cast.

A melee person can use a new weapon if he loses his old one. A wizard can cast spells tomorrow if he uses all the ones he has today.


Jon Kines wrote:
I think its an old school vs new school thing. About half of us seem to do things this way, and our players enjoy it that way, and the other half think we're all stark raving mad.

Just out of curiosity which one is old school thinking and which one is new school thinking?

Also about the serpent skull example:
I don't have played the AP yet (so please no spoilers), but i have to ask: doesn't the AP give other ways for a wizard to get spells to his spell known list? (and i don't mean scrolls because copying them requires special inks and such which requires some sort of town, i mean other spellbooks and/or torn pages from spellbooks)


mdt wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:

Serpentskull is a Pathfinder AP that places the party in a jungle bereft of contact with the civilized world for the better part of 10-12 levels. Even a core wizard needed tailored loot to be viable, much less a wizard MT. The Serpentskull AP is a Paizo product, the same people who produced those RAW you seem to think should never be deviated from.

Also comparing a spell to a fighter's sword is a bad analogy, it is more akin to a bonus feat as in it is a class feature not a piece of equipment. Unless loot is 100% tailored (which incidentally I have been known to do from time to time when warranted) in general you will get more gear then new spells over the course of a given adventure. In point of fact, I cannot think of a single volume of a single Pathfinder Adventure Path (using offical campaign products as a fair basis of comparison) where more spells where accrued in the course of play than gear.

Of course, given that the treasure in the AP could be considered RAW, even if I did customize loot you'd probably just castigate my attempt to balance a design fallacy for not following RAW. . .

Please point out in any post I made where I said RAW must be slavishly followed? Please? I'll wait...

...
...

...

...

Hmmm, no where huh? Ok, good then.

I have said, several times, that the rule is just fine as is within the RAW. I never said RAW had to be followed slavishly. I said that the rule is what it is, designed to fit within RAW. I said that if you houserule something, then you have to take the effects of that into account.

Please point out your philosophical objection to that statement. I'll repeat it again so you can be 100% sure of what statement I'm talking about. Then after it, I'll put a couple of more statements I've made, all in order, so you can tell me your objection to them.

1) The rule is just fine, provided the rule is used with the RAW, and that RAW are used RAI, that the PrC has access to resources.

2) If you houserule...

Given all of that, exactly what merit is there to the rule in the first place? There seems to be near universal consensus that allowing a wizard MT (a gimp build to begin with let's be honest) to continue the two spell per level baseline is not gamebreaking in any way, shape, or form. My point was you were earlier advocating for it, at least seemingly, solely because it was RAW.

Now that we can agree that 1) it is not overpowering even in the best of circumstances and 2) is crippling in the worst of circumstances to the point that entire campaigns must be remodulated to balance for it,
then precisely what does the rule serve to do in the first place?

I will reiterate that gear and class abilities are distinct. A Holy Avenger in the hands of Bob the Charlatan is not the same as in the hands of Dudley Dooright the Pious. It isn't the sword that makes the fighter what he is, its the dozen combat feats that define what he can do with that sword. Class abilities make the character, gear only accentuates it. Spells are class abilities not gear. Even if one insists that they are the same, it does not address the fact that short of revamping every loot distribution of every module ever released, the caster will fall behind the fighter when dependant entirely on encounter loot, without the 2 spells per level baseline.

Either you enforce this silly rule for the sake of RAW or you house rule it, realizing it creates more problems then it solves even when running adventures published by the company that formulated said rule, much less 3rd party or homebrew. You can't have it both ways.


leo1925 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
I think its an old school vs new school thing. About half of us seem to do things this way, and our players enjoy it that way, and the other half think we're all stark raving mad.

Just out of curiosity which one is old school thinking and which one is new school thinking?

Also about the serpent skull example:
I don't have played the AP yet (so please no spoilers), but i have to ask: doesn't the AP give other ways for a wizard to get spells to his spell known list? (and i don't mean scrolls because copying them requires special inks and such which requires some sort of town, i mean other spellbooks and/or torn pages from spellbooks)

By old school, I was referring to the way I and several other GM's on this thrad for that matter, run things. Such as doing a quest/task/side adventure what have you to gain an npc's trust before he will dispense magical items to you, as opposed to Magic-Mart. An approach some on this thread have apparently deemed to be draconian. Those who deem it draconian would be the new school, and this isn't intended to be so much a criticism but an observation, the game has changed quite a bit over time.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jon Kines wrote:

Given all of that, exactly what merit is there to the rule in the first place? There seems to be near universal consensus that allowing a wizard MT (a gimp build to begin with let's be honest) to continue the two spell per level baseline is not gamebreaking in any way, shape, or form. My point was you were earlier advocating for it, at least seemingly, solely because it was RAW.

Now that we can agree that 1) it is not overpowering even in the best of circumstances and 2) is crippling in the worst of circumstances to the point that entire campaigns must be remodulated to balance for it,
then precisely what does the rule serve to do in the first place?

I didn't say it was a great rule, only that it was a rule, and that it wasn't stupid. It's one of those rules that just is. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

It's like the rule that says you take both soft cover and firing into melee penalties. It's not a good rule, it's not a stupid rule, it just is.

I see no compelling reason to get rid of it, nor any compelling reason to screw anyone over with it either.

If you don't like it in your games, house rule it. I've never said anyone should not house rule it if they don't like it. I only object to the characterization of ti being a stupid rule. It's not good or bad, it just is.

Jon Kines wrote:


I will reiterate that gear and class abilities are distinct. A Holy Avenger in the hands of Bob the Charlatan is not the same as in the hands of Dudley Dooright the Pious. It isn't the sword that makes the fighter what he is, its the dozen combat feats that define what he can do with that sword. Class abilities make the character, gear only accentuates it. Spells are class abilities not gear. Even if one insists that they are the same, it does not address the fact that short of revamping every loot distribution of every module ever released, the caster will fall behind the fighter when dependant entirely on encounter loot, without the 2 spells per level baseline.

Never said gear and class abilities are the same. I said Melee fighter gear and wizard gear are the same. The wizard's gear is his spellbook and the spells in it. His class ability is spellcasting, just as the fighter's class ability is armor training. Being on the island doesn't remove the fighter's armor training, nor does it remove the wizard's spell casting. All it removes is both's access to upgraded gear to utilize those two abilities.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
mdt wrote:
I didn't say it was a great rule, only that it was a rule, and that it wasn't stupid. It's one of those rules that just is. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

Given that the rule can't do anything to help the game, but can do plenty to hurt the game, I'm going to go out on a limb in my disagreement with you and call it "a stupid rule."

Liberty's Edge

I've been watching the outrage on this thread with a bit of amusement. No offense intended. Player Empowerment is alive and well. :)

MT and other arcane spellcasting prestige classes provide advancement of some class features and not others. That is the same back before PF. The FAQ merely follows the rule as it is written. A wizard gets free spells because it is a feature of the class. If he multi-classes in fighter, he doesn't get free spells. If he multi-classes in cleric, he doesn't get free spells in his spellbook. If he multi-classes in MT, he doesn't get free spells in his spellbook either. Not a big deal.

If choice about entering into MT is just that, a choice. The only time it should be a problem is if the choice is made without foreknowledge, also known as the start of a new thread on the topic, "My GM is an @#$%." In many campaigns, it is merely a case of cash being spent.

As said above, the issue was there back before PF. I sent the question to WotC Customer Service back in about 2006. The answer provided was that PrCs granted free spells in spellbook. The Complete Mage Master Specialist PrC effectively has it written into the prestige class that the PrCs grant free spells (see Expanded Spellbook). So, WotC took a different PoV on this, but not necessarily due to the rule, but rather due to the marketing strategy of selling resource-bloat to the players.

If you don't like the ruling, don't use it. If the ruling is in force, include it in your decision about choosing a PrC.


mdt wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:

Given all of that, exactly what merit is there to the rule in the first place? There seems to be near universal consensus that allowing a wizard MT (a gimp build to begin with let's be honest) to continue the two spell per level baseline is not gamebreaking in any way, shape, or form. My point was you were earlier advocating for it, at least seemingly, solely because it was RAW.

Now that we can agree that 1) it is not overpowering even in the best of circumstances and 2) is crippling in the worst of circumstances to the point that entire campaigns must be remodulated to balance for it,
then precisely what does the rule serve to do in the first place?

I didn't say it was a great rule, only that it was a rule, and that it wasn't stupid. It's one of those rules that just is. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is.

It's like the rule that says you take both soft cover and firing into melee penalties. It's not a good rule, it's not a stupid rule, it just is.

I see no compelling reason to get rid of it, nor any compelling reason to screw anyone over with it either.

If you don't like it in your games, house rule it. I've never said anyone should not house rule it if they don't like it. I only object to the characterization of ti being a stupid rule. It's not good or bad, it just is.

Jon Kines wrote:


I will reiterate that gear and class abilities are distinct. A Holy Avenger in the hands of Bob the Charlatan is not the same as in the hands of Dudley Dooright the Pious. It isn't the sword that makes the fighter what he is, its the dozen combat feats that define what he can do with that sword. Class abilities make the character, gear only accentuates it. Spells are class abilities not gear. Even if one insists that they are the same, it does not address the fact that short of revamping every loot distribution of every module ever released, the caster will fall behind the fighter when dependant entirely on encounter loot, without the 2 spells per level
...

Even if a GM does attempt to customize loot and account for that insipid rule, there are scaleability differences between a weapon upgrade and a spell upgrade. A spell could very well be upgraded by an upgrade to the same spell in two levels, or a similiar spell that does the job better (even if its only a rebalanced version of the same spell to account for mob scaling), whereas magic weapons tend to last far longer and become obsolete or suboptimal far more slowly. Thus spells need to be upgraded at a more rapid pace, in point of fact the inverse of the norm, assuming the caster loses access to the 2 spell per level baseline (which I might point out is an assumption taken in the calculation of every published loot allocation which is why the aforementioned insipid ruling is fostering this very discussion to begin with). Thus not only does said published treasure need to be tweaked, but quite possibly recalculated from the ground up, to ensure fair and proper allocation of resources, and a balanced treasure level. Without the aforementioned rule, the treasure is probably fine as is.

In short, the rule causes massive rebalancing work, for an concern that wasn't even imbalanced to start with, and creates far more issues then it rectifies. I can think of no good reason NOT to houserule this ruling, and that being the case it is a BAD rule.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

leo1925 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
I think its an old school vs new school thing. About half of us seem to do things this way, and our players enjoy it that way, and the other half think we're all stark raving mad.

Just out of curiosity which one is old school thinking and which one is new school thinking?

Also about the serpent skull example:
I don't have played the AP yet (so please no spoilers), but i have to ask: doesn't the AP give other ways for a wizard to get spells to his spell known list? (and i don't mean scrolls because copying them requires special inks and such which requires some sort of town, i mean other spellbooks and/or torn pages from spellbooks)

I've been rereading teh modules, and it's interesting what you pick up when you go back through them.

Spoiler:

The City of Seven Spears specifically has a location where you can find the body of a Wiz/11 and his spellbook.

The City of Serpents has the spellbook of the wizardess serpentfolk of the Serpent fortress there.

The final adventure has a library with EVERY WIZ/SORC SPELL IN THE CORE AND APG RULES< PLUS others converted to wiz spells from any source the DM cares to insert!!!

So, yes, there are resources. And if you are making a travelling crew of adventurers, and the Wizard doesn't learn Teleport at level 9, or purchase such a scroll before setting off, he's a total idiot.

Kindly note that the resources for warriors to upgrade gear are next to non-existent. It's basically all +1 stuff or fairly useless +2 stuff (a +2 Monstrous Humanoid bane TRIDENT? Really?) throughout pretty much the whole AP.

And purchasing a 9th level spell is purchasing an asset usable at level 17, equivalent to a Melee swinging around his 200k weapon. I think you will agree that a 9th level spell or two is probably worth more to the mage then an upgrade from +9 or +10 is to the Melee, but YMMV.


===Aelryinth


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

What's wrong with a trident? It's a perfectly serviceable weapon.

Just 'cause it's not a greatsword, rapier, or falcata doesn't mean it's worthless ya' know.


Diego Rossi wrote:
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?

The way you phrased things, it sounded like you were trying to say that wizards are screwed over with this ruling and other classes end up way ahead of the curve. That clearly isn't the case. I only compared equivalent gold piece values to show that the wizard is way ahead of the fighter (or any other character that relies on a weapon) even with this ruling.

For the same cost as a fighter's weapon, the wizard can afford a wide variety of spells either as scrolls or simply to copy from another wizard's spell book. The difference gets worse for the fighter as we start comparing even more powerful weapons. The costs of magic weapons go up exponentially while the cost of spells goes up lineally (more or less). Things look even worse if we account for armor for the fighter. All of this is assuming that the wizard never just takes the spell book from a fallen wizard, in which case he is only paying the scribing costs. Keep in mind also (as someone else pointed out), the mystic theurge is gaining dozens of spells just from his divine side; none of which cost him any money at all.

I am not arguing whether or not I agree with the rule or even saying how I would handle it. I'm just saying that the wizard is not screwed over by any stretch.


Jon Kines wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
I think its an old school vs new school thing. About half of us seem to do things this way, and our players enjoy it that way, and the other half think we're all stark raving mad.

Just out of curiosity which one is old school thinking and which one is new school thinking?

Also about the serpent skull example:
I don't have played the AP yet (so please no spoilers), but i have to ask: doesn't the AP give other ways for a wizard to get spells to his spell known list? (and i don't mean scrolls because copying them requires special inks and such which requires some sort of town, i mean other spellbooks and/or torn pages from spellbooks)

By old school, I was referring to the way I and several other GM's on this thrad for that matter, run things. Such as doing a quest/task/side adventure what have you to gain an npc's trust before he will dispense magical items to you, as opposed to Magic-Mart. An approach some on this thread have apparently deemed to be draconian. Those who deem it draconian would be the new school, and this isn't intended to be so much a criticism but an observation, the game has changed quite a bit over time.

I'm a bit of both. I generally don't deny someone gear but I also don't use magic marts. I use the availability of items for each town and determine if the item is available somewhere. It is up to the players to figure out who has it and what they have to do to get it. I don't like the idea of magic marts but I also don't like the idea of screwing my players over just because of my dislike for magic marts. This is the solution that works for my group. I've been doing it this way for about 20 years now and it's been pretty good for us.

Shadow Lodge

Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I'm a bit of both. I generally don't deny someone gear but I also don't use magic marts. I use the availability of items for each town and determine if the item is available somewhere. It is up to the players to figure out who has it and what they have to do to get it. I don't like the idea of magic marts but I also don't like the idea of screwing my players over just because of my dislike for magic marts. This is the solution that works for my group. I've been doing it this way for about 20 years now and it's been pretty good for us.

Another strategy I've heard that I like myself is a more select form of Magic-Mart. Using the item availability to generate random items often comes up with a lot of junk the PCs don't want to use. Instead, some GMs ask their players what kind of gear they're looking for ahead of time, then shape some upcoming Ye Olde Magick Shoppe to have one or two of the desired items (or something very close to it), with the rest being the random junk (or items that the GM knows could come in useful). It makes searching the shops more interesting, and makes each desired item found more of a discovery than just a new pair of shoes. A bit like tailored loot, but as a reward for a different task. Finding craftsmen who can do commission work is also a fun part of adventuring.

That said, I'm of the new generation but still hate the idea of it being too easy. It's no fun if everything is handed to one on a silver platter.

And just as another point on the Serpent's Skull notion.

Spoiler:
The PCs aren't cut off from civilization except for the first module, and the second to a limited degree. Once they get to the lost city, they have access to the resources of whatever faction they chose and whatever factions they make treaties with, and the factions can get them pretty much anything they could want/need. There's respectable treasure available for pretty much all classes, too. Spellbooks, weapons, tools, etc. There's a minor artifact-weapon available in the third segment as a side-quest item. I don't think they really shafted the PCs there.

Contributor

Added a spoiler for a post above.


(Note this does not include scribing costs. Scribing costs would add about 2-3% to the numbers, roughly.)

If a wizard had to theoretically pay for the two scrolls every level at full price, instead of getting them for free, it would account for approximately 7.7% of their estimated wealth at 20th level. The cumulative total spent on purchasing these scrolls from 2 through 20 fluctuates between 5% (2nd Level) and peaks at 15.65% of expected wealth at 9th level. This assumes full spellcasting progression, 2nd through 20th.

In the example provided, a Pathfinder Society Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight, the Character must have progressed 1-5 as a wizard at a minimum. Combined with the necessary 1 level of fighter, and the 1st level progression delay, this would effectively mean buying spells would "kick in" at level character level 8, for 1 level of 2 3rd level scrolls, and then moving on.

This comes out to a minimum of 2.8% of expected wealth by level (at level 8), and maximizes at 8.11% of character wealth (at level 13).

I do not really find these numbers to be an overwhelming detriment to the class. First, if you find a caster to allow you to copy spells, this goes down to a maximum of 4.055% of expected wealth.

You also weren't cheating. Cheating implies knowledge of a rule and doing the opposite with intent. What you did is called "Making a mistake".

Scarab Sages

It's an interesting commentary, though I think the "old schoolers" prefer the rare magic concept and tend to stick with that over the default game settings.

As in, earlier editions of d&d presented magical items as being very rare. However, 3.x versions greatly increased the expected amount of magical gear each player would have. And, subsequently, balanced monster cr's according to that power level.

Even a thorp has 1-4 minor magic items for purchase, and that's a community of less than 20 people.

So people who are newer to the game go by the expectations given to them in the rulebook, and are confounded by the carry-over from older editions.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
I think its an old school vs new school thing. About half of us seem to do things this way, and our players enjoy it that way, and the other half think we're all stark raving mad.

Just out of curiosity which one is old school thinking and which one is new school thinking?

Also about the serpent skull example:
I don't have played the AP yet (so please no spoilers), but i have to ask: doesn't the AP give other ways for a wizard to get spells to his spell known list? (and i don't mean scrolls because copying them requires special inks and such which requires some sort of town, i mean other spellbooks and/or torn pages from spellbooks)

I've been rereading teh modules, and it's interesting what you pick up when you go back through them.

** spoiler omitted **
===Aelryinth

Also

Spoiler:
The camp rules do give you a shop and also the means of buying in fresh supplies (such as scrolls).

Supplies: A campsite can be used to resupply or to purchase items—all encampments have a base value of 2,500 gp for buying and selling items. For anything more expensive, the PCs must place orders for items, and the camp’s traders then make their way back to civilization to make the purchases. There’s a 30-day delay between placing an order and actually receiving items. The delay is reduced by a number of days equal to the result of the Supply check (minimum of 1 week). If the PCs wish to use their own resources (such as teleport spells), they can handle their own trade and sales without involving their camp.


Ravingdork wrote:

What's wrong with a trident? It's a perfectly serviceable weapon.

Just 'cause it's not a greatsword, rapier, or falcata doesn't mean it's worthless ya' know.

Not to mention a lot of GM's will swap assigned weapon type to better suit a party member somewhere along the line.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
I think its an old school vs new school thing. About half of us seem to do things this way, and our players enjoy it that way, and the other half think we're all stark raving mad.

Just out of curiosity which one is old school thinking and which one is new school thinking?

Also about the serpent skull example:
I don't have played the AP yet (so please no spoilers), but i have to ask: doesn't the AP give other ways for a wizard to get spells to his spell known list? (and i don't mean scrolls because copying them requires special inks and such which requires some sort of town, i mean other spellbooks and/or torn pages from spellbooks)

By old school, I was referring to the way I and several other GM's on this thrad for that matter, run things. Such as doing a quest/task/side adventure what have you to gain an npc's trust before he will dispense magical items to you, as opposed to Magic-Mart. An approach some on this thread have apparently deemed to be draconian. Those who deem it draconian would be the new school, and this isn't intended to be so much a criticism but an observation, the game has changed quite a bit over time.
I'm a bit of both. I generally don't deny someone gear but I also don't use magic marts. I use the availability of items for each town and determine if the item is available somewhere. It is up to the players to figure out who has it and what they have to do to get it. I don't like the idea of magic marts but I also don't like the idea of screwing my players over just because of my dislike for magic marts. This is the solution that works for my group. I've been doing it this way for about 20 years now and it's been pretty good for us.

I don't see a memorable side plot storyline, which I often put a number of hours into fleshing out, detailing, and integrating into a larger narrative as punishment. Often these adventures will have their own dungeon with risks and rewards for the entire party. I fail to see how it is punishment to run a campaign not as a hyperlinear narrative but a dynamic world.


Magicdealer wrote:

It's an interesting commentary, though I think the "old schoolers" prefer the rare magic concept and tend to stick with that over the default game settings.

As in, earlier editions of d&d presented magical items as being very rare. However, 3.x versions greatly increased the expected amount of magical gear each player would have. And, subsequently, balanced monster cr's according to that power level.

Even a thorp has 1-4 minor magic items for purchase, and that's a community of less than 20 people.

So people who are newer to the game go by the expectations given to them in the rulebook, and are confounded by the carry-over from older editions.

My pc's are never lacking in gear to perform the tasks before them, I just prefer to assign it through gameplay then utilize an all encompassing shop. All I've done then is shortcut them out of a memorable adventure and trivialized their rewards.


jlighter wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I'm a bit of both. I generally don't deny someone gear but I also don't use magic marts. I use the availability of items for each town and determine if the item is available somewhere. It is up to the players to figure out who has it and what they have to do to get it. I don't like the idea of magic marts but I also don't like the idea of screwing my players over just because of my dislike for magic marts. This is the solution that works for my group. I've been doing it this way for about 20 years now and it's been pretty good for us.

Another strategy I've heard that I like myself is a more select form of Magic-Mart. Using the item availability to generate random items often comes up with a lot of junk the PCs don't want to use. Instead, some GMs ask their players what kind of gear they're looking for ahead of time, then shape some upcoming Ye Olde Magick Shoppe to have one or two of the desired items (or something very close to it), with the rest being the random junk (or items that the GM knows could come in useful). It makes searching the shops more interesting, and makes each desired item found more of a discovery than just a new pair of shoes. A bit like tailored loot, but as a reward for a different task. Finding craftsmen who can do commission work is also a fun part of adventuring.

That said, I'm of the new generation but still hate the idea of it being too easy. It's no fun if everything is handed to one on a silver platter.

And just as another point on the Serpent's Skull notion.

** spoiler omitted **...

I'm well aware of what my players want and it is provided through gameplay not shopping.


Weapons cost more but, for the most part, last a lot longer as well. A +3 weapon can last the career of many a fighter, whereas many spells are upgraded, scale deficiently, or obsolete past a given level range. The superior scaling on weapons negates the aforementioned cost-benefit analysis.

Scarab Sages

Jon Kines wrote:


My pc's are never lacking in gear to perform the tasks before them, I just prefer to assign it through gameplay then utilize an all encompassing shop. All I've done then is shortcut them out of a memorable adventure and trivialized their rewards.

Well that's good for you then. My pc's don't lack in gear to perform their tasks either. And by utilizing magical item shops, I can move right into forwarding the storyline without derailing the plot with a quest to locate the mystical relic of the elven, a pair of boots which can allow the wearer to move as quietly as an elf.

Even better, by passing on the paperwork to the players, I have more time to focus on the story and world. And while I might incorporate the occasional specific magical item, I don't have to constantly look for reasons for the players to hunt down yet another pair of boots or bracers.

The fact of the matter is that ANYTHING can be a memorable quest, which makes it a poor argument for doing something. But repeating the basic premise of a quest too many times will become anything but memorable. Yet another quest to locate a rare magical item just so we can keep on track with expected magical gear by level? We've done this three times in a row! Pass.


Magicdealer wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:


My pc's are never lacking in gear to perform the tasks before them, I just prefer to assign it through gameplay then utilize an all encompassing shop. All I've done then is shortcut them out of a memorable adventure and trivialized their rewards.

Well that's good for you then. My pc's don't lack in gear to perform their tasks either. And by utilizing magical item shops, I can move right into forwarding the storyline without derailing the plot with a quest to locate the mystical relic of the elven, a pair of boots which can allow the wearer to move as quietly as an elf.

Even better, by passing on the paperwork to the players, I have more time to focus on the story and world. And while I might incorporate the occasional specific magical item, I don't have to constantly look for reasons for the players to hunt down yet another pair of boots or bracers.

The fact of the matter is that ANYTHING can be a memorable quest, which makes it a poor argument for doing something. But repeating the basic premise of a quest too many times will become anything but memorable. Yet another quest to locate a rare magical item just so we can keep on track with expected magical gear by level? We've done this three times in a row! Pass.

I don't look at it as derailing but enhancing the narrative. If the entire campaign arc is one line of story and dungeon, you have a hollow world devoid of texture, and shallow of narrative. Far better to my way of thinking, to have a dynamic world full of potential paths. However, if integrating narrative in an interesting manner is difficult for you, then a simple linear approach would be appropiate I guess. My players expect more in the way of world building however, and would pass on such an approach.


Ravingdork wrote:
(extremely hard to buy new spells when you spent your last 5 levels adventuring on adventure island and you are the only wizard there)

Then where, pray tell, are you getting them, exactly? If you don't already know them, can't cast them from memory, can't scribe them from a scroll or another spellbook, what does that leave you? Wizards don't get divine inspiration for spells; they either RESEARCH them (as in, "where have I heard tales of a spell that does X?") or CREATE them (as in, "I need a spell I've ever heard of, and I have to craft it from scratch.") There are specific rules for both methods.

Flavor-wise, the intent of those two freebie spells is to indicate all the running-around-like-a-headless-chicken you've done between adventures to increase your own power. Those are hours spent in libraries, conferring with other mages, following leads on spells you don't have handy. There is a LOT more to playing a Wizard than just strolling down to Scroll-Mart and picking up a cart-load of whatever the heck you want. Spells are powerful. VERY powerful. They aren't just the sort of thing you can pick at any 7-11 in your campaign world.

That is, truth be told, why Wizards exist as a playable class at all. A fighter may adventure for glory, a rogue for riches, but a wizard adventures to advance their craft. In those tombs and dungeons are spells you have never even dreamt existed, and you'll never get close to them in your Mage's Tower. That's why you're out there. Once you retrieve them, you can bring them back and sell your services, hoard your knowledge, or share it with others--but you CLAIMED it from the depths of obscurity, and now that power crackles violently in your skilled hands. THAT is what it is to play a Wizard.

Those two freebie spells are the lightweight side-effects of your adventuring nature. The beef of your spellbook is (hopefully) going to come from adventuring, and if it doesn't your campaign has other issues to tend to. If you're in such a magic-limited campaign that you can't find at least two new spells per level, exactly where are those freebie spells coming from? If magic is so rare, or limited, or expensive that dark sites of ancient rites and forgotten lore don't hold spells of your level, where in Oerth are you going to find them on a bookshelf?

You're not waking up one morning saying "Gee, I feel smarter somehow...Look! the Spell Fairy came!" You're doing legwork to get these spells into your most powerful weapon--that collection of pages you practically worship. If you can't FIND spells adventuring, where it makes the MOST SENSE for scrolls and ancient spellbooks to be, WHERE are you getting your freebie spells from?

That's why I say the freebies aren't such a make-or-break class feature, and can easily be discarded with MT; you don't have time to do that legwork anymore. Sorcerers are born to their spells, and Clerics receive theirs. As an MT, you're too busy praying and perfecting what you already know, and ADVENTURING to get more and more powerful spells to do research in a Mages' Library, or to have a calm chat with the Archmagus over Tandoorian Kafe.

Are the freebies handy? Yes. They do a GREAT deal to get you through those arduous first few levels as a squishy, squishy spellcaster. But, those are also the spells that you can readily find easily at any Mage's College, or in scrolls or spellbooks from masters and teachers the world over. Wizardry is a STUDY, and takes place just like any other form of book-learning. There may not be a Mage's Guild in your CS, but you had to learn to read this crap somehow, or you'd be playing a sorcerer.

Later in the game, when you're already knowingly sacrificing so much of your study in an effort to branch out to the divine, as an MT they aren't so vital. This is a choice you're making. Those two spells per level that you didn't risk your neck for are another sacrifice you're making for the path your character has chosen to follow. If they can't hack it, they shouldn't be considering walking the MT line.

And honestly, if scrolls and spellbooks are so rare in your campaign setting that you RELY on those two freebie spells per level? There is no reason you should even allow wizards in your game, because there's nowhere else for those spells to come from in a way that a wizard can process them. Allow Sorc's instead. My 2 copper.


leo1925 wrote:
First of all, having a public spellbook doesn't require so much money (especially when compared to scroll buying).

Yes, it does. You have to factor in the cost for the spellbook itself, and the cost of scribing all your spells into it. While it's not as bad as buying scrolls, it's still expensive. Especially when you consider this means you'll have to pay twice to record a new spell (once for your private book and once if you want it in the public one), and you may well need more than one public book. Also, you'll have to have volumes of them, as you'll quickly fill them if you're good at finding new spells (which Wizards should be, or Darwinism kicks in). It's not cheap.

That being said, I advocate that every Wizard keep at least three spellbooks: A grimoire at home, trapped and made of high-quality and durability materials; an arcanabula, or travel spellbook, to take with him on his journeys, which carries only necessities and leaves enough blank space for new scrolls and spells found during an adventure; and one you don't mind being captured by your enemies and used against you. This one, naturally, only has the cheap, easy, generic-brand spells.

leo1925 wrote:
...and reattach them to the spellbook...

Spellbooks have a fixed number of pages. That sort of implies they aren't re-attachable, or you could just swap them out like in a three-ring binder.


Jon Kines wrote:
There seems to be near universal consensus that allowing a wizard MT (a gimp build to begin with let's be honest)

I'll gladly give up two spells per level for the capability to cast every spell in the game. In a hearbeat.


steamboat28 wrote:


leo1925 wrote:
...and reattach them to the spellbook...
Spellbooks have a fixed number of pages. That sort of implies they aren't re-attachable, or you could just swap them out like in a three-ring binder.

Yes you are right, if only there was a cantrip that could do that....

Oh wait there is, it's called mending.

steamboat28 wrote:


Yes, it does. You have to factor in the cost for the spellbook itself, and the cost of scribing all your spells into it. While it's not as bad as buying scrolls, it's still expensive.

The cost of the spellbook? Seriously? 15gp is a lot?

Scribing a 1st level spell costs 10gp, the scroll costs 25gp,
scribing a 2nd level spell costs 40gp, the scroll costs 250gp,
scribing a 3rd level spell costs 90gp, the scroll costs 375gp,
and the difference keeps getting bigger and bigger, also these prices are for spells that don't have a costly material component (because if they do the scroll costs more).

The point is that, as other have pointed out, there are way too many ways to do that thing without compromising your own spellbook.

Scarab Sages

Funny. I find that creating an endless line of *recover this item* quests does a lot more to take context out of the game than it does to add it. Focusing on the story *is* focusing on the potential paths, instead of constantly forcing the characters down the mandatory gear-up missions. I guess my players are just more interested in development than loot runs.


steamboat28 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
There seems to be near universal consensus that allowing a wizard MT (a gimp build to begin with let's be honest)
I'll gladly give up two spells per level for the capability to cast every spell in the game. In a hearbeat.

. . .and gimp yourself in the process wiz3/clr3 is an atrocious multiclass, and although it does improve once you reach MT, you actually have to survive to 7th level to make it there. From that point the build peaks at wiz3/clr3/MT10 and from that point on you're power wanes relative to other classes again. Choosing MT may be credible for roleplay or flavor but never for optimization.


Magicdealer wrote:
Funny. I find that creating an endless line of *recover this item* quests does a lot more to take context out of the game than it does to add it. Focusing on the story *is* focusing on the potential paths, instead of constantly forcing the characters down the mandatory gear-up missions. I guess my players are just more interested in development than loot runs.

Who said they were all "recover this item"? The point is to weave the items into the story and to have multiple plotlines with multiple BBEG as opposed to a linear rail. Again you're assuming linear play, from this I'll wager you cut your teeth on 3.x. . .


Jon Kines wrote:
. . .and gimp yourself in the process wiz3/clr3 is an atrocious multiclass, and although it does improve once you reach MT, you actually have to survive to 7th level to make it there. From that point the build peaks at wiz3/clr3/MT10 and from that point on you're power wanes relative to other classes again. Choosing MT may be credible for roleplay or flavor but never for optimization.

To be honest, in 3.5 I tend to go Wiz/Archivist for the challenge. The lion's share of optimization is the player, not the numbers. You'd be utterly amazed how well I can take that "atrocious multiclass" and out-perform the most seasoned min-maxers. It's far less about what you play and far more about how you play it.


steamboat28 wrote:


Spells are powerful. VERY powerful. They aren't just the sort of thing you can pick at any 7-11 in your campaign world.

+1


steamboat28 wrote:
It's far less about what you play and far more about how you play it.

Point taken, it still doesn't mean you wouldn't be more effective with a more rational build. As I said I could see MT for flavor reasons, and by all means if that's what the player wants to play then go for it. However, you are bringing less to the table, on the average, then a straight wizard or cleric build. Furthermore, both Wizard and Cleric offer a number of potential builds to challenge the veteran gamer.


Jon Kines wrote:
steamboat28 wrote:
It's far less about what you play and far more about how you play it.
Point taken, it still doesn't mean you wouldn't be more effective with a more rational build. As I said I could see MT for flavor reasons, and by all means if that's what the player wants to play then go for it. However, you are bringing less to the table, on the average, then a straight wizard or cleric build. Furthermore, both Wizard and Cleric offer a number of potential builds to challenge the veteran gamer.

Oh, no doubt. I was just stating that MT is my favorite PrC, and that every time this question comes up in houserules where I play, I voluntarily refuse the two freebie spells per level. I just chimed into this thread to give my reasoning for it.


steamboat28 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
steamboat28 wrote:
It's far less about what you play and far more about how you play it.
Point taken, it still doesn't mean you wouldn't be more effective with a more rational build. As I said I could see MT for flavor reasons, and by all means if that's what the player wants to play then go for it. However, you are bringing less to the table, on the average, then a straight wizard or cleric build. Furthermore, both Wizard and Cleric offer a number of potential builds to challenge the veteran gamer.
Oh, no doubt. I was just stating that MT is my favorite PrC, and that every time this question comes up in houserules where I play, I voluntarily refuse the two freebie spells per level. I just chimed into this thread to give my reasoning for it.

I figure if they've endured 3/3 they've earned them lol


Jon Kines wrote:
I don't see a memorable side plot storyline, which I often put a number of hours into fleshing out, detailing, and integrating into a larger narrative as punishment. Often these adventures will have their own dungeon with risks and rewards for the entire party. I fail to see how it is punishment to run a campaign not as a hyperlinear narrative but a dynamic world.

I'm not talking about taking up a ton of campaign time with this. I'm talking about the characters actually using their skills to find out where an item is available to purchase. I'm talking about using their social skills to talk to the owner of the item to see what they need to get the item. Often it's a simple matter of paying for it. This allows me to have an NPC contact for the party for whatever reason.

Let me give you an example. Let's say that the wizard wants to pick up the spell teleport. He knows that he is near a capital city and that his odds of finding one there is pretty good. The party realizes that there are some other things they want to get as well so they head off. When they get there, the party makes a Diplomacy check (for gather information). Now the wizard knows there is a wizard's guild, a library, and a retired wizard in the city. He knows that he could certainly find it at the guild but getting to know the retired could provide a lot more than just a scroll of teleport. He decides to check out the guild for the price and sees that he would pay 1200 if he's not a member, 1100 if he joins (which carries some benefits and dues). He decides to seek out the retired wizard. Using Knowledge (local), he finds where this wizard lives. With another Diplomacy check, he befriends the wizard. Sure he ends up paying 1125 gold for the scroll, but he also finds that this wizard was a famous adventurer in his time. He has other goods that are unique or hard to find. He also is a great source of information on some of the more powerful beings in the area, seeing as he was either friend or foe of them in the past.

This little side quest may have taken up an hour of game time because of the role playing. The skill checks were easy enough but may have required a little investment from the player or at least required another party member to help out. The player got the item he wanted plus a contact. Had he joined the guild, the story would have moved in a different direction. He still would have got the item, but his contacts would have been different and he may have dues or responsibilities to go along with it.

The regular adventure, which I also work very hard on, was not hindered in any way.

101 to 150 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.