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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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?


ElyasRavenwood wrote:


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?

Because, a sorcerers spells known is directly tied into his spellcasting ability. Increasing that spellcasting ability increases the spells known.

A wizards spells known has nothing to do with his spellcasting ability - it is dependant on another class feature, the spellbook. The spellbook is a wizard class feature. Since you are advancing your Mystic Theurge class level, not your wizard class level, you don't get the wizards class features (in this case, the free spells in your spellbook).

Look at the sorcerer class. Notice how his number of spells known falls under the Spells section? Its tied to his spellcasting. Now look at the wizard. The two free spells learned per level is not under the Spells section, but the Spellbooks section. Not tied to his spellcasting ability, but his wizard level instead.

Silver Crusade

+1
Best explaination I have heard.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Best argument for sorcerer over wizard when going MT I've heard.

Scarab Sages

Unfortunately, it also reduces your highest arcane spell level even more :(


wish i had known this 4 level's ago... guess it's time to retire my main since he's completely illegal now, that and fixing it would just kinda tick me off.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Magicdealer wrote:
Unfortunately, it also reduces your highest arcane spell level even more :(

I would hazard a guess that if you are playing a MT, you don't care about high level spells.


eldritch knight. different subset of abilities, but still the same ruling would apply.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Paladin/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight FTW.


fighter/wizard/ed. :( and now i am officially the local cheater... funny since i was usually the one who would throw the biggest hissy fit about cheating... sorry guys


Quote:

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

Well, isn't it obvious?

PFSRD wrote:

Spells

. . .
Spells Gained at a New Level: Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, he gains two spells of his choice to add to his spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels he can cast. If he has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from his specialty school.

Since they've been so busy praying, they forgot that they actually have to research and study to cast spells. :D

Really though, it's because some people want to divide up spell casting as one class feature and the spell book as another, such that an advance in spell casting doesn't necessarily mean your two given spells.

The two free spells are mentioned under the spells section as well for wizard... just saying.

Edit: ...or maybe it's because being 3 spell casting levels behind just isn't enough of a penalty. Unless you are at least 4 levels behind (sorcerer or oracle) two free spells is just too OP. :p

(I jest.)


lylerachir wrote:
wish i had known this 4 level's ago... guess it's time to retire my main since he's completely illegal now, that and fixing it would just kinda tick me off.

Four levels means we're talking about 8 spells, and since you're an MT, it's low-level spells. Just calculate the cost for scrolls and take that from your wealth. Really simple to fix.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
lylerachir wrote:
wish i had known this 4 level's ago... guess it's time to retire my main since he's completely illegal now, that and fixing it would just kinda tick me off.

What is the problem? You aren't incapable to learn new spells, simply you have to pay for them.

They are officially sold for a low price.

stringburka wrote:


Four levels means we're talking about 8 spells, and since you're an MT, it's low-level spells. Just calculate the cost for scrolls and take that from your wealth. Really simple to fix.

Why scrolls?

Page 219 Adding spell to a wizard spellbook

Quote:


Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to his book whenever he encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.

If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until he gains another rank in Spellcraft. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish.

In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells might cost significantly more.

You only have to go to a city with the appropriate level spellcasting service, chose the spell, pay and do the spellcraft skill roll.

I have added to it, so now it is longer, Sgmendez. ;-)

Lantern Lodge

Personally I think it is the fact that a sorcerer only learns spells known from gaining levels where a wizard can just spend some gold to learn new spells. I have known plenty of wizards that have just spent the appropriate amount of gold to learn every spell they can from the core book plus some from splat books (3.5e era). Really I don't see it as a problem since they still gain spells per day and spell levels. They just need to spend their gold to learn new spells which no other class can do (as part of the core class feature).

Edit: Ninjad by Diego, and with a much shorter post.


my main problem with this is that my character while having a high armor class is not a tank. i skirmish, not to mention that i have been technically cheating the entire time since i took my second level of ek.

yes i could buy all the spells i have and not have a problem. but that would require money. where all my gold is already spent. not to mention that (unless i'm mistaken) use a random wizard in town for society play, for the half cost.

i am also not going to be selling all my gear for enough gold to cover the cost, essentially my toon has been nerved and thus removing any and all reason for me to keep him. he has already slammed himself into my retiree/dead folder and will not be coming out.

i'm really not that ticked about this, it's more of the fact that it's not really that clear in the book.


lylerachir wrote:

my main problem with this is that my character while having a high armor class is not a tank. i skirmish, not to mention that i have been technically cheating the entire time since i took my second level of ek.

yes i could buy all the spells i have and not have a problem. but that would require money. where all my gold is already spent. not to mention that (unless i'm mistaken) use a random wizard in town for society play, for the half cost.

i am also not going to be selling all my gear for enough gold to cover the cost, essentially my toon has been nerved and thus removing any and all reason for me to keep him. he has already slammed himself into my retiree/dead folder and will not be coming out.

i'm really not that ticked about this, it's more of the fact that it's not really that clear in the book.

Yes it's not clear in the books, that's why it's in the FAQ.

Anyway why do you think that it's going to cost a lot of money? The inscribing costs are very low (and remember the "take a look fee" is half that) and you can always "trade" spells with other wizards and magus.
Really the gold necessary for this is very low.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No it wouldn't.
In society Play, if you don't have a wizard at your table that lets you copy out of his spell book, you are limited to scrolls to get more than your 2 free spells per class level.


lylerachir wrote:
...i am also not going to be selling all my gear for enough gold to cover the cost, essentially my toon has been nerved and thus removing any and all reason for me to keep him. he has already slammed himself into my retiree/dead folder and will not be coming out...

He won't be using the gear if he's retired/dead anyhow, may as well cast off some of the junk in order to keep him alive.

I've never been one to hang onto old chracters though, so I guess I just don't understand if you want to retire him with a trophy gear build or something like that.


Tim Statler wrote:

No it wouldn't.

In society Play, if you don't have a wizard at your table that lets you copy out of his spell book, you are limited to scrolls to get more than your 2 free spells per class level.

I am sorry, i don't know anything about Society Play.

Why is that?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thank you everyone for your responses.

Jeraa thank you for your explanation. Let me see if I understand it. The sorcerer learns new spells because that is tied to his ability score, in other words, to himself, to his blood etc. it is internal.

For the wizard his acquiring of new magical spells it is external. It is through his study of lost tomes, and through puzzling out his own arcane research. Presumably as he levels, he unlocks new secrets by going through his notes. Presumably he has and eureka moment and he figures out how a spell works, whereas he didn’t understand it before. It is external.

In terms of game mechanics, this means it falls in separate sections of the rulebook.

Let me turn this argument around.

As a cleric advances in level, he gains a deeper understanding of his faith’s mysteries, and he grows closer to his god, and his god then grants him more powerful miracles or “spells”. This process goes on has he levels. This process continues through cleric levels and mystic theurge levels. The process is the same.

As a sorcerer gains a deeper understanding of himself, his heritage and his power, he learns to use progressively more and more powerful spells. This is reflected as he levels. The process continues through sorcerer levels and mystic theurge levels. The process is the same.

A wizard is assumed to do a certain amount of research and study between his adventures. As he does so he figures out things he didn’t know before and is able to puzzle out new spells. This represents the two new spells he would get for free as he advances each level. This process would continue from level to level.

Even though Mr. Bulman’s has ruled to the contrary, there really isn’t any difference between what the wizard is doing from one wizard level to the next wizard level level, to the next mystic theurge level to the next mystic theurge level. He is studying learning, and unlocking new secrets from his notation in his spell book.

I would further add from a game balance perspective. If a sorcerer gets an increase in his “spells Known” as he advances in a prestige class like mystic theurge, then it would be fair for a wizard to also get his two “freebie” spells representing his study and research as he advances in a prestige class like Mystic Theruge. Simply put what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Besides, with the mystic theurge, he is all about the spells, that are all he gets as he advances in level. Yes I know there is the combined spells class feature, but I have yet to figure out how to put it to good use.

“The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs.” Page 9 Pathfinder core rule book

So I guess in summation, my opinion differs from Mr. Bulman’s, and in my home games, I don’t see any harm in allowing a mystic theurg, or elderich knight, who have wizard class levels, to continue adding there two “free” spells per level to their spells books as they level.

Again thank you all for your thoughts and answers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Best argument for sorcerer over wizard when going MT I've heard.

Lamest reason for choosing sorcerer over wizard. So you don't get your two free spells. Big Deal! Wizards have no set limit to acquisition of spells by other means, purchase, capture of spellbooks, the whatnot. Whenever I've run a wizard the two free per level was a SMALL part of his spellbook compared to the library he'd acquire by other means.

Sovereign Court

LazarX wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Best argument for sorcerer over wizard when going MT I've heard.
Lamest reason for choosing sorcerer over wizard. So you don't get your two free spells. Big Deal! Wizards have no set limit to acquisition of spells by other means, purchase, capture of spellbooks, the whatnot. Whenever I've run a wizard the two free per level was a SMALL part of his spellbook compared to the library he'd acquire by other means.

This is why I do not think it is much of a loss to the Wiz Class...Each level there is probably a handful of spell you want...you will get 4 free ones before you gain a new Spell Level...yet you will probably buy/find/trade/steal at least that many...and there is no limit to the # of spells you can have each spell level, many other classes have some sort of limit (spells known or a set spell list).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Every caster class loses something when they go prestige. Being a Wizard gives you tremendous advantage when going MT, because you suck slightly less than a Sorc/Anything combo (heavens forbid if you do, say Sorc/Oracle). And hey, if you consciously pick one of most sucky PrCs out there, you really shouldn't complain... :)

The Exchange

Gorbacz wrote:
Every caster class loses something when they go prestige. Being a Wizard gives you tremendous advantage when going MT, because you suck slightly less than a Sorc/Anything combo (heavens forbid if you do, say Sorc/Oracle). And hey, if you consciously pick one of most sucky PrCs out there, you really shouldn't complain... :)

I'd hardly say the MT is sucky. You just happen to suck until you reach like 8th level. I would just never do Oracle and / or Sorcerer because how crappy your spell progression is (unless you were doing a campaign where other party members could balance you out). My next PFS character is going to be a cleric / wizard / MT (although I'm going to opt out of playing him by applying a TON of GM credit towards him).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Joseph Caubo wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Every caster class loses something when they go prestige. Being a Wizard gives you tremendous advantage when going MT, because you suck slightly less than a Sorc/Anything combo (heavens forbid if you do, say Sorc/Oracle). And hey, if you consciously pick one of most sucky PrCs out there, you really shouldn't complain... :)
I'd hardly say the MT is sucky. You just happen to suck until you reach like 8th level. I would just never do Oracle and / or Sorcerer because how crappy your spell progression is (unless you were doing a campaign where other party members could balance you out). My next PFS character is going to be a cleric / wizard / MT (although I'm going to opt out of playing him by applying a TON of GM credit towards him).

Clr/Wiz/MT does have some slight merit... if you are prepared to hear "dammit, if you would play a straight caster we could just teleport away, and all you can do is cast some 3rd-level crap!" a lot.

Also, Witch renders MT pretty much obsolete.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Joseph Caubo wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Every caster class loses something when they go prestige. Being a Wizard gives you tremendous advantage when going MT, because you suck slightly less than a Sorc/Anything combo (heavens forbid if you do, say Sorc/Oracle). And hey, if you consciously pick one of most sucky PrCs out there, you really shouldn't complain... :)
I'd hardly say the MT is sucky. You just happen to suck until you reach like 8th level. I would just never do Oracle and / or Sorcerer because how crappy your spell progression is (unless you were doing a campaign where other party members could balance you out). My next PFS character is going to be a cleric / wizard / MT (although I'm going to opt out of playing him by applying a TON of GM credit towards him).

Clr/Wiz/MT does have some slight merit... if you are prepared to hear "dammit, if you would play a straight caster we could just teleport away, and all you can do is cast some 3rd-level crap!" a lot.

Also, Witch renders MT pretty much obsolete.

Not really. There are significant differences between the two, among them the breath of spells the classes have access to. A Wizard/Cleric based M/T which is the assumed default has full access to both spell lists, the Witch has access to a list that straddles the divide but does not take fully of either one. It's all a matter of choices.

The Exchange

I won't start playing the class until I hit level 8 (so that's 21 scenarios for GM credit! :) ). But I wouldn't run away anyway because it's PFS. Besides, I'm okay with not having access to 6th level spells by the end of it all, because I'd be decked out with 5th level spells! :)


lylerachir wrote:
wish i had known this 4 level's ago... guess it's time to retire my main since he's completely illegal now, that and fixing it would just kinda tick me off.

If you've been playing the character for 4 levels already without any problems or balance issues, why worry about it now? You can simply continue with the way things were (it apparently didn't make the character too powerful) or you can just continue with the RAW from this point on. I don't see how this requires you to change characters.


bob i would love to. but he is society, which means that i have to keep them exactly the way paizo rules.


lylerachir wrote:
bob i would love to. but he is society, which means that i have to keep them exactly the way paizo rules.

I missed that part. What would it take to make him playable again?

2 2nd level spells cost: 150 x 2 = 300 gold
4 3rd level spells cost: 375 x 4 = 1500 gold
2 4th level spells cost: 700 x 2 = 1400 gold
Total: 3200 gold

Or if allowed, you can just use the rule someone else quoted about scribing the spell from another wizard's spell book:

2 2nd level spells cost: 40 x 2 / 2 = 40 gold
4 3rd level spells cost: 90 x 4 / 2 = 180 gold
2 4th level spells cost: 160 x 2 / 2 = 160 gold
Total: 380 gold

I'm sure you can find 380 gold somewhere in your WBL for a 10th level character. Heck, you can just give up any single 2nd level scroll you may already have in your possession and call it even.

I don't know much about society play but I would think that this is a minor problem to overcome so you can keep playing a character you enjoy.


Jeraa wrote:
ElyasRavenwood wrote:


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?

Because, a sorcerers spells known is directly tied into his spellcasting ability. Increasing that spellcasting ability increases the spells known.

A wizards spells known has nothing to do with his spellcasting ability - it is dependant on another class feature, the spellbook. The spellbook is a wizard class feature. Since you are advancing your Mystic Theurge class level, not your wizard class level, you don't get the wizards class features (in this case, the free spells in your spellbook).

Look at the sorcerer class. Notice how his number of spells known falls under the Spells section? Its tied to his spellcasting. Now look at the wizard. The two free spells learned per level is not under the Spells section, but the Spellbooks section. Not tied to his spellcasting ability, but his wizard level instead.

It should be noted that if it is played this literally, no Wizard should multiclass ever. I'm not a fan of prestige classes in any event, but if one is going to use them, they should not be a power down because that's just insipid.


LazarX wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Best argument for sorcerer over wizard when going MT I've heard.
Lamest reason for choosing sorcerer over wizard. So you don't get your two free spells. Big Deal! Wizards have no set limit to acquisition of spells by other means, purchase, capture of spellbooks, the whatnot. Whenever I've run a wizard the two free per level was a SMALL part of his spellbook compared to the library he'd acquire by other means.

You're assuming that in every DM's world magic, or in every DM's interpretation of Golarion, magic shops are as ubiquitious as Starbucks and another wizard's spellbook is an easy thing to come by. In my campaigns at least, that is certainly nowhere near the case.


ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Thank you everyone for your responses.

Jeraa thank you for your explanation. Let me see if I understand it. The sorcerer learns new spells because that is tied to his ability score, in other words, to himself, to his blood etc. it is internal.

For the wizard his acquiring of new magical spells it is external. It is through his study of lost tomes, and through puzzling out his own arcane research. Presumably as he levels, he unlocks new secrets by going through his notes. Presumably he has and eureka moment and he figures out how a spell works, whereas he didn’t understand it before. It is external.

In terms of game mechanics, this means it falls in separate sections of the rulebook.

Let me turn this argument around.

As a cleric advances in level, he gains a deeper understanding of his faith’s mysteries, and he grows closer to his god, and his god then grants him more powerful miracles or “spells”. This process goes on has he levels. This process continues through cleric levels and mystic theurge levels. The process is the same.

As a sorcerer gains a deeper understanding of himself, his heritage and his power, he learns to use progressively more and more powerful spells. This is reflected as he levels. The process continues through sorcerer levels and mystic theurge levels. The process is the same.

A wizard is assumed to do a certain amount of research and study between his adventures. As he does so he figures out things he didn’t know before and is able to puzzle out new spells. This represents the two new spells he would get for free as he advances each level. This process would continue from level to level.

Even though Mr. Bulman’s has ruled to the contrary, there really isn’t any difference between what the wizard is doing from one wizard level to the next wizard level level, to the next mystic theurge level to the next mystic theurge level. He is studying learning, and unlocking new secrets from his notation in his spell book.

I would further add from a game balance...

I agree 100% with this. If one is to follow the spirit of this rule, then it must apply to all casters not just wizards. If a wizard who multiclasses to MT ceases to study any new arcana, a cleric ceases to learn any new prayers, the process of learning MT stifles a sorcerers inspiration etc.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jon Kines wrote:
I agree 100% with this. If one is to follow the spirit of this rule, then it must apply to all casters not just wizards. If a wizard who multiclasses to MT ceases to study any new arcana, a cleric ceases to learn any new prayers, the process of learning MT stifles a sorcerers inspiration etc.

That's ridiculous.

Clerics and Sorcerers learn new spells a different way than Wizards. So what you are saying is Clerics or Sorcerers should never gain any new spells when becoming a MT?

Because that's exactly what would happen by going what you are saying. Clerics or Sorcerers do not have the luxury to copy a spell from another book or buy more spells to get new spells, like a Wizard can.


Jon Kines wrote:
LazarX wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Best argument for sorcerer over wizard when going MT I've heard.
Lamest reason for choosing sorcerer over wizard. So you don't get your two free spells. Big Deal! Wizards have no set limit to acquisition of spells by other means, purchase, capture of spellbooks, the whatnot. Whenever I've run a wizard the two free per level was a SMALL part of his spellbook compared to the library he'd acquire by other means.
You're assuming that in every DM's world magic, or in every DM's interpretation of Golarion, magic shops are as ubiquitious as Starbucks and another wizard's spellbook is an easy thing to come by. In my campaigns at least, that is certainly nowhere near the case.

Even if in your games aren't as common as Starbucks, that doesn't mean that there are no wizards in the world other than the PC. I mean why a small city (or community) wouldn't have a wizard just like it has a figter, a ranger and a cleric? The PC can trade/buy spells from him.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Hobbun wrote:


That's ridiculous.

Clerics and Sorcerers learn new spells a different way than Wizards. So what you are saying is Clerics or Sorcerers should never gain any new spells when becoming a MT?

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.


Hobbun wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
I agree 100% with this. If one is to follow the spirit of this rule, then it must apply to all casters not just wizards. If a wizard who multiclasses to MT ceases to study any new arcana, a cleric ceases to learn any new prayers, the process of learning MT stifles a sorcerers inspiration etc.

That's ridiculous.

Clerics and Sorcerers learn new spells a different way than Wizards. So what you are saying is Clerics or Sorcerers should never gain any new spells when becoming a MT?

Because that's exactly what would happen by going what you are saying. Clerics or Sorcerers do not have the luxury to copy a spell from another book or buy more spells to get new spells, like a Wizard can.

I agree it is ridiculous, and I think the restrictions on wizards is every bit as ridiculous. 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. Fortunately, my players know a thing or two about optimization and would never seek to play a MT in the first place. But I feel sorry for any wizard who does, unless the DM is running a Monty Haul campaign where every street corner has a magic shop full of scrolls and a kindly wizard more than happy to let you copy the fruits of his labor directly from his spell book at minimal cost. For those of us who don't run Pathfinder as a munchkinfest however, this penalty would be outright debilitating.


leo1925 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
LazarX wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Best argument for sorcerer over wizard when going MT I've heard.
Lamest reason for choosing sorcerer over wizard. So you don't get your two free spells. Big Deal! Wizards have no set limit to acquisition of spells by other means, purchase, capture of spellbooks, the whatnot. Whenever I've run a wizard the two free per level was a SMALL part of his spellbook compared to the library he'd acquire by other means.
You're assuming that in every DM's world magic, or in every DM's interpretation of Golarion, magic shops are as ubiquitious as Starbucks and another wizard's spellbook is an easy thing to come by. In my campaigns at least, that is certainly nowhere near the case.
Even if in your games aren't as common as Starbucks, that doesn't mean that there are no wizards in the world other than the PC. I mean why a small city (or community) wouldn't have a wizard just like it has a figter, a ranger and a cleric? The PC can trade/buy spells from him.

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.

Liberty's Edge

Jon Kines wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
LazarX wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Best argument for sorcerer over wizard when going MT I've heard.
Lamest reason for choosing sorcerer over wizard. So you don't get your two free spells. Big Deal! Wizards have no set limit to acquisition of spells by other means, purchase, capture of spellbooks, the whatnot. Whenever I've run a wizard the two free per level was a SMALL part of his spellbook compared to the library he'd acquire by other means.
You're assuming that in every DM's world magic, or in every DM's interpretation of Golarion, magic shops are as ubiquitious as Starbucks and another wizard's spellbook is an easy thing to come by. In my campaigns at least, that is certainly nowhere near the case.
Even if in your games aren't as common as Starbucks, that doesn't mean that there are no wizards in the world other than the PC. I mean why a small city (or community) wouldn't have a wizard just like it has a figter, a ranger and a cleric? The PC can trade/buy spells from him.
I've been playing and DM'ing in some fashion for 30 years now, so perhaps I'm merely old fashioned but 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.

Or you could look at it as the reason that wizards band together into guilds and work together researching magic together and publishing their work. Or helping to arm heroes against the forces of evil. Or what ever. For every reason not to help, there's as many reasons to help. You know, there are people who do stuff like that in the real world, and they produce great products. *cough* Linux *cough*


Jon Kines wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
LazarX wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Best argument for sorcerer over wizard when going MT I've heard.
Lamest reason for choosing sorcerer over wizard. So you don't get your two free spells. Big Deal! Wizards have no set limit to acquisition of spells by other means, purchase, capture of spellbooks, the whatnot. Whenever I've run a wizard the two free per level was a SMALL part of his spellbook compared to the library he'd acquire by other means.
You're assuming that in every DM's world magic, or in every DM's interpretation of Golarion, magic shops are as ubiquitious as Starbucks and another wizard's spellbook is an easy thing to come by. In my campaigns at least, that is certainly nowhere near the case.
Even if in your games aren't as common as Starbucks, that doesn't mean that there are no wizards in the world other than the PC. I mean why a small city (or community) wouldn't have a wizard just like it has a figter, a ranger and a cleric? The PC can trade/buy spells from him.
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.

Yes i don't see why this wizard shouldn't trade/"sell" his spells, because you know in his youth he also has learned these spells from another wizard, who on his turn has gotten the spells from another wizard and......

In my mind wizards shouldn't have a problem sharing most of their spells and letting other copy them (evil spells might be an exception to that), because you are helping another fellow wizard, you earn a few gold or you get more spells for yourself and you are helping in keeping your science alive and progressing.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Hobbun wrote:


That's ridiculous.

Clerics and Sorcerers learn new spells a different way than Wizards. So what you are saying is Clerics or Sorcerers should never gain any new spells when becoming a MT?

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.

Well, people here have mostly been discussing the RAW it seems. Gaining spells as a wizard IS split from mastering spell levels to a larger degree than gaining spells as a sorcerer. By RAW, they don't get them, and actually, that's somewhat true for the sorcerer too - the sorcerer doesn't get bloodline spells for MT/EK levels AFAIK, since it's a different ability. I assume domain spells might be the same for clerics, though they'd still get the slots, but I'm not AS sure on that and won't bother to try to make sense of the RAW now in that department.

That they DO have that restriction is a fact, and since this is the rules forum that's what people are saying. Whether they should have it is another question. I'm fine with the restriction personally, but it's not like it's a big deal. Note however, that wizards have the least to lose by going MT; their class abilities are pretty weak apart from spellcasting, and they can learn any amount of spells so they don't really get behind on amount of arcane spells. A sorcerer has stronger class abilities, and will lag behind in arcane spells known even for spell levels he's mastered. A witch can learn spells as well as a wizard, but has really powerful class abilities that she loses out on. Of the arcane base classes, the wizard certainly is the best option for MT, so I don't have a problem with limiting it.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
LazarX wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Best argument for sorcerer over wizard when going MT I've heard.
Lamest reason for choosing sorcerer over wizard. So you don't get your two free spells. Big Deal! Wizards have no set limit to acquisition of spells by other means, purchase, capture of spellbooks, the whatnot. Whenever I've run a wizard the two free per level was a SMALL part of his spellbook compared to the library he'd acquire by other means.
You're assuming that in every DM's world magic, or in every DM's interpretation of Golarion, magic shops are as ubiquitious as Starbucks and another wizard's spellbook is an easy thing to come by. In my campaigns at least, that is certainly nowhere near the case.
Even if in your games aren't as common as Starbucks, that doesn't mean that there are no wizards in the world other than the PC. I mean why a small city (or community) wouldn't have a wizard just like it has a figter, a ranger and a cleric? The PC can trade/buy spells from him.
I've been playing and DM'ing in some fashion for 30 years now, so perhaps I'm merely old fashioned but 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.
Or you could look at it as the reason that wizards band together into guilds and work together researching magic together and publishing their work. Or helping to arm heroes against the forces of evil. Or what ever. For every reason not to help, there's as many reasons to help. You know, there are people who do stuff like that in the real...

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 fact the only setting where I could see such working would be the uber-munchkin Forgotten Realms where you can't cross the street without tripping over one if not two epic level archmages anyway.


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.

That is your game, and pretty much my game too in practicality (though for other reasons; casters are simply too rare to count on). However, it isn't the baseline PF assumes when determining balance. It's like not following WBL guidelines or CR guidelines or magic item pricing guidelines or any of the other non-rules; it's okay to do that, and if it works in your game it's great. But it can mess with game balance and makes it into kind of a different game, so when discussing rules questions it's always best to assume a "RAW and by the guidelines/standard assumptions" position unless specifically noted otherwise.

God knows I house rule things to the unrecognizable, but when discussing on the forums, I assume RAW is in action.

EDIT: And there's no reason why magic-users can't cooperate. There isn't always rivalry, first off. I don't see why magic-users have to be so much less friendly towards each other than fighters or rogues, and god knows those know how to cooperate. Raistlin was an evil SOB so he's probably not a good example. Instead, you can take LeGuin's works, or for a more recent example, Hogwarts.

Even in a case of rivalry between high-level mages, a good way to gain the upper hand might be to start a school of magic, teaching loads of people your lower-level spells, gaining both wealth and political power in the process.


stringburka wrote:
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.

That is your game, and pretty much my game too in practicality (though for other reasons; casters are simply too rare to count on). However, it isn't the baseline PF assumes when determining balance. It's like not following WBL guidelines or CR guidelines or magic item pricing guidelines or any of the other non-rules; it's okay to do that, and if it works in your game it's great. But it can mess with game balance and makes it into kind of a different game, so when discussing rules questions it's always best to assume a "RAW and by the guidelines/standard assumptions" position unless specifically noted otherwise.

God knows I house rule things to the unrecognizable, but when discussing on the forums, I assume RAW is in action.

EDIT: And there's no reason why magic-users can't cooperate. There isn't always rivalry, first off. I don't see why magic-users have to be so much less friendly towards each other than fighters or rogues, and god knows those know how to cooperate. Raistlin was an evil SOB so he's probably not a good example. Instead, you can take LeGuin's works, or for a more recent example, Hogwarts.

Even in a case of rivalry between high-level mages, a good way to gain the upper hand might be to start a school of magic, teaching loads of people your lower-level spells, gaining both wealth and political power in the process.

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


Jon Kines wrote:
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

The dev's intended for spells to be traded, I assume, since they wrote rules and guidelines allowing it. I don't really see your point here afterwards, and blame not being a native english speaker. Could you rephrace the later parts?

Wizards having more or less access to most spells is thought of as a balancing factor compared to their low spells per day. Yes, they failed at balancing it somewhat, but it's intended, at least.


stringburka wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
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

The dev's intended for spells to be traded, I assume, since they wrote rules and guidelines allowing it. I don't really see your point here afterwards, and blame not being a native english speaker. Could you rephrace the later parts?

Wizards having more or less access to most spells is thought of as a balancing factor compared to their low spells per day. Yes, they failed at balancing it somewhat, but it's intended, at least.

My point is that if one assumes spells are so freely traded among magic-users, and runs a campaign accordingly, the resulting balance problems would be far greater than anything caused by allowing a Wizard/Mystic Theurge to continue to gain 2 spells per level. Disallowing one for the sake of the other is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.


Why do you think that trading spells brings up balancing issues? I don't get it. This is how wizards are supposed to get the majority of their spells.
Also the rules and costs for trading/buying spells has been around since 3.5 core (i am not sure if it was around in 3.0), why do you think that this is a bad thing?


leo1925 wrote:

Why do you think that trading spells brings up balancing issues? I don't get it. This is how wizards are supposed to get the majority of their spells.

Also the rules and costs for trading/buying spells has been around since 3.5 core (i am not sure if it was around in 3.0), why do you think that this is a bad thing?

On the whole it results in magic and spell access being entirely too ubiquitous. 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.

The ironic thing is the same people who are saying it's overpowered for a wizard with a prC to continue to add 2 spells to his repertoire every time he levels are arguing it's perfectly fine for spellbooks to be every bit as accessible as trail rations. . .


Jon Kines wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

Why do you think that trading spells brings up balancing issues? I don't get it. This is how wizards are supposed to get the majority of their spells.

Also the rules and costs for trading/buying spells has been around since 3.5 core (i am not sure if it was around in 3.0), why do you think that this is a bad thing?

On the whole it results in magic and spell access being entirely too ubiquitous. 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.

The ironic thing is the same people who are saying it's overpowered for a wizard with a prC to continue to add 2 spells to his repertoire every time he levels are arguing it's perfectly fine for spellbooks to be every bit as accessible as trail rations. . .

First of all i didn't that it's overpowered if wizards get their 2 free spells when gaining a level in a PrC, in fact i personally don't like the fact that they don't have that. But i don't think that it's anything to cry over or really think about.

Now, ok i might understand that the wizards in your homebrew world might not be as forthcoming about selling access to their spellbooks (although that results to wizards having very few spells in your setting) for gold, what i don't understand is why they don't like the idea of trading spells.


leo1925 wrote:
Jon Kines wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

Why do you think that trading spells brings up balancing issues? I don't get it. This is how wizards are supposed to get the majority of their spells.

Also the rules and costs for trading/buying spells has been around since 3.5 core (i am not sure if it was around in 3.0), why do you think that this is a bad thing?

On the whole it results in magic and spell access being entirely too ubiquitous. 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.

The ironic thing is the same people who are saying it's overpowered for a wizard with a prC to continue to add 2 spells to his repertoire every time he levels are arguing it's perfectly fine for spellbooks to be every bit as accessible as trail rations. . .

First of all i didn't that it's overpowered if wizards get their 2 free spells when gaining a level in a PrC, in fact i personally don't like the fact that they don't have that. But i don't think that it's anything to cry over or really think about.

Now, ok i might understand that the wizards in your homebrew world might not be as forthcoming about selling access to their spellbooks (although that results to wizards having very few spells in your setting) for gold, what i don't understand is why they don't like the idea of trading spells.

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? At least if the pc performs some sort of quest or task on his behalf, a degree of trust is built and such an exchange becomes more understandable. Furthermore, once such a relationship has been established the possibility for future spell trading opens up between the two. Such a system has the added benefit of built-in sideplots and side adventures for the party as well, and the pc appreciates the spell(s) obtained more due to the effort it took to earn them. Such a system makes a lot more sense to me then randomwizard175 walking into a magic shop and saying "Hi! I wanna learn how to summon and bind demons, here's some gold, now where's your spellbook?!"

As a side note, we play in Golarion actually, it's an Ustalav based campaign. Given the suspicious and distrustful, if not outright cynical, nature of Ustalavians due in no small part to their history, such an aquisition system makes a lot of sense to my way of thinking.

1 to 50 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.