Only intelligence-based casters (and alchemists) are required to physically store the spells they 'know'. It seems to me that a high intelligence score would indicate a good memory; why shouldn't wizards 'remember' their spells? What if spellbooks could be created as sort of expensive combined scroll? As long as the flavor was intact would it matter?
This is intended as a discussion (The battleground's that way...), so here are a few questions to get things started:
1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?
2 - Do you feel that the flavor and themes surrounding an INT-based caster require them to draw their power from a book or pet? Could you cite examples (books, film, etc.) as to why?
3 - What would be your response to removing spellbooks (and equivalents) as a requirement for INT-based casters? This would not mean witches would have to give up their familiars, but rather that they could prepare spells without chatting up their pet each morning. The casters would still have to pay the necessary gold to learn new spells (outside of leveling up) and prepare them each day as usual.
4 - Have you (or has your GM/DM) made any house-rules regarding this? If so, what changes were made?
1) Yes. Int casters are some of the most powerful classes in the game, and should have some limits on their power. I don't know if there is a better way of putting a limit on the number of spells they have access to, but there should be something.
2)No. While there are many examples of books and magical pets, it isn't fitting for every character concept.
3)No problem, but there should be some checks on their power. I don't think that spell books are even a very good mechanic because if they are removed, the caster is almost totally screwed.
4) Mostly just handwaving some of the costs and time required for adding spells. Running a higher level spell book and scrolls collection can be a lot of record keeping.
1. No i find to be a "Balance" factor used to balance something with no need for balance. Its like Alignment restrictions on classes to me.
2. I can see it from a flavor reason but flavor shouldn't cost me my spells if i didn't waste a feat on Spell Mastery.
3.Sounds good to me.
4. Not yet though as my groups DM am open to suggestions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard is like a chef who goes by the recipe book. They use exactly 1.5 teaspoons of sugar, 1 tablespoon of salt, a pinch of nutmeg etc. Because a brain can only hold so much info, they need to use a book/familiar/some external source to get the spell fixed in their mind.
A sorcerer or bard just wings is. A pinch of this, a dash of that, some of this... hey lets try that. It lets them fly by the seat of their pants, but its a harder way of doing things, so it takes them a little longer to get the more complicated stuff.
asked some stuff
1. as a dm, i may have burned / skinned a cat to control the power of a caster. so in that way yes
2. no, not necessarily, but int based casting has always meant to me " i am forcing the world to bend to my whim " so some sort of tool like a book makes sense to me
3. a mana pool of sorts where the spell take such a toll on your body the 8 hours of rest is to recover using almost all the same mechanics but no book, paying for tutoring instead of magic rare ink "sorry fighter if you want me to force fire to engulf our foes i need a nap"
4. no but no one has asked but i would probably use the above
1. It's flavor. Mechanically unnecessary? Hmm. When one sticks strongly to WBL and in which it's a drain on resources of some of the top classes, which some might say balances with melee characters needing to buy those expensive weapons. A caster with ALL the arcane spells on their list is too powerful compared to a Sorcerer/Bard (as levels rise and #/day difference shrinks), but in a money-light campaign, you'd have to go Sorcerer or the mechanic would have to be altered. Another mechanic, i.e. max spells known/level, could work, but that's a bit sucky, though there's precedent.
2. Yes, tons of examples. (See Ikos) Most of the character concepts that don't fit this mold would better fit Sorcerer (perhaps with a new bloodline). Wizards study. Witches contact powers through familiars. It's very prevalent, even in non-European cultures. (Alchemists...well, they're new.)
3. Bookless casters with same costs works fine. I know because...
4. I've done it. It was a low-coin campaign with g.p. based perks the characters could gain to maintain WBL combat strength without having actual gold or magic items. Wizards could put perk funds into their 'books', but didn't have books (as the perks were mechanical more than flavor (as in: the campaign was 'low-magic' on the outside, 'standard magic' mechanically), and I didn't want 'magic books' for low-level characters.) They'd have gotten killed for it. :)
JMK
mmmm on second thought my 3 sounds a lot like a sorcerer , so i probably would not do it that way. that is a good question so at this pint no clue
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?
"Necessary" for the mechanics? Eh. Having to maintain an item is overhead, expenses balance the game a bit. Having a focus is also a game balancer. If I were going to ditch them I would likely put some other limiting factor in there. It's not a HUGE limiter but it's there.
2 - Do you feel that the flavor and themes surrounding an INT-based caster require them to draw their power from a book or pet? Could you cite examples (books, film, etc.) as to why?
There are gobs of films/ whatever where wizards are scouring through books looking for spells, recording spells, formula, whatever. See Dresden Files for an example, though it's a bit circular since Butcher is a gamer...
There are plenty of counter examples where books are NOT essential to wizards. Belgariad is a great counter example.
3 - What would be your response to removing spellbooks (and equivalents) as a requirement for INT-based casters? This would not mean witches would have to give up their familiars, but rather that they could prepare spells without chatting up their pet each morning. The casters would still have to pay the necessary gold to learn new spells (outside of leveling up) and prepare them each day as usual.
It's hard to say... I would definitely pull something. Maybe Arcane Bond from wizards and the witches familiars from them.
4 - Have you (or has your GM/DM) made any house-rules regarding this? If so, what changes were made?
no
Belgariad: Sorcerers
2)No. While there are many examples of books and magical pets, it isn't fitting for every character concept.
3)No problem, but there should be some checks on their power. I don't think that spell books are even a very good mechanic because if they are removed, the caster is almost totally screwed.
I could not agree more with this statement and I'm surprised that alternatives were not offered in Ultimate Magic. And thanks for answering each question.
I not interested in many of the other issues raised by your post, but if you’re looking to where the book/bonded pet as a source of power comes from, it is historical in nature.
Learned magic, practiced usually by the elite, centered on grimores almost exclusively. Magic, derived from forbidden knowledge, could be found in books - the historical examples are exhaustive in scope. Allegedly, magic worked properly only with careful study and replicating the said rituals to the letter of law.
Likewise, English with trials focused on familiar's, from which a practitioner gained their usually diabolic powers. This was particularly the case with the Hopkins witch trials in the mid-17th century.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
The "why" in either case is a bit more complicated and is difficult to generalize, really not concerning our needs as gamers.
The 'why' matters more than anything to me; I can alter mechanics in a few seconds, as can any GM/DM, but to learn why something has such an established tradition among gamers can only be resolved by discussion and the sharing of ideas.
1. No i find to be a "Balance" factor used to balance something with no need for balance. Its like Alignment restrictions on classes to me.
2. I can see it from a flavor reason but flavor shouldn't cost me my spells if i didn't waste a feat on Spell Mastery.
3.Sounds good to me.
4. Not yet though as my groups DM am open to suggestions.
1 - I like the comparison.
2 - This has always been routinely brought up by my players and why we use such an extensive list of house-rules.
Thanks for posting.
A regularly touted ability of wizards (and claimed to make it the most powerful class in the book) is it's ability to add a nearly unlimited list of arcane spells (other int based casters have the same feature).
What counters this is it's spell book.
If you got rid of the classes' ability to learn a nearly unlimited list of arcane spells, then you could get rid of the spell book (and, in fact, the rule in RAW for doing this is spell mastery)
A wizard (also magus and alchemist), as written, will be juggling a dozen books by the time level fifteen rolls around, whereas the witch still has just one black cat. Not to mention that the cat can also run away from potential thieves.
If I were to remove the spellbook from the Wizard, I'd just replace the Wizard with the Sage Sorcerer.
Specialist wizards are excluded though, so this wouldn't be an even trade.
A wizard is like a chef who goes by the recipe book. They use exactly 1.5 teaspoons of sugar, 1 tablespoon of salt, a pinch of nutmeg etc. Because a brain can only hold so much info, they need to use a book/familiar/some external source to get the spell fixed in their mind.
A sorcerer or bard just wings is. A pinch of this, a dash of that, some of this... hey lets try that. It lets them fly by the seat of their pants, but its a harder way of doing things, so it takes them a little longer to get the more complicated stuff.
If a chocolate pie saved my life, I would remember the recipe. Most recipes involve several established oven settings (whether 'until browns', 350º, etc.) so once you've learned a few recipes you notice a pattern. Do things enough, they become almost instinctive.
1. as a dm, i may have burned / skinned a cat to control the power of a caster. so in that way yes
2. no, not necessarily, but int based casting has always meant to me " i am forcing the world to bend to my whim " so some sort of tool like a book makes sense to me
3. a mana pool of sorts where the spell take such a toll on your body the 8 hours of rest is to recover using almost all the same mechanics but no book, paying for tutoring instead of magic rare ink "sorry fighter if you want me to force fire to engulf our foes i need a nap"
4. no but no one has asked but i would probably use the above
Poor cat. Thanks for posting.
1. It's flavor. Mechanically unnecessary? Hmm. When one sticks strongly to WBL and in which it's a drain on resources of some of the top classes, which some might say balances with melee characters needing to buy those expensive weapons. A caster with ALL the arcane spells on their list is too powerful compared to a Sorcerer/Bard (as levels rise and #/day difference shrinks), but in a money-light campaign, you'd have to go Sorcerer or the mechanic would have to be altered. Another mechanic, i.e. max spells known/level, could work, but that's a bit sucky, though there's precedent.
That is a very good point to raise: a low-resources campaign. Everyone who picks up Pathfinder sees quickly that it's intended to be run in a traditional fantasy setting with Magic Item Superstores in every town (think Wal-Mart). There's nothing inherently wrong with this (D&D did the same thing, with worse class abilities), but it tends to shatter my (and many players') immersion.
If a chocolate pie saved my life, I would remember the recipe.
Ever cook something really good, or make something on the fly that you weren't quite able to replicate again? Its the same thing. And a wizard spell is a good bit harder than a cake recipe.
Most recipes involve several established oven settings (whether 'until browns', 350º, etc.) so once you've learned a few recipes you notice a pattern. Do things enough, they become almost instinctive.
Right, but it takes longer that way, hence the slowed progression.
1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?"Necessary" for the mechanics? Eh. Having to maintain an item is overhead, expenses balance the game a bit. Having a focus is also a game balancer. If I were going to ditch them I would likely put some other limiting factor in there. It's not a HUGE limiter but it's there.
2 - Do you feel that the flavor and themes surrounding an INT-based caster require them to draw their power from a book or pet? Could you cite examples (books, film, etc.) as to why?There are gobs of films/ whatever where wizards are scouring through books looking for spells, recording spells, formula, whatever. See Dresden Files for an example, though it's a bit circular since Butcher is a gamer...
There are plenty of counter examples where books are NOT essential to wizards. Belgariad is a great counter example.3 - What would be your response to removing spellbooks (and equivalents) as a requirement for INT-based casters? This would not mean witches would have to give up their familiars, but rather that they could prepare spells without chatting up their pet each morning. The casters would still have to pay the necessary gold to learn new spells (outside of leveling up) and prepare them each day as usual.It's hard to say... I would definitely pull something. Maybe Arcane Bond from wizards and the witches familiars from them.
4 - Have you (or has your GM/DM) made any house-rules regarding this? If so, what changes were made?no
Thanks for the response.
Yes. Also, a wizard, by the time 15th level rolls around, will have transcribed all his spells to blessed books. Also, a 15th level party often has a portable hole in which the wizard's books can be stuffed. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to what happens when you try to store a familiar in a portable hole.
And if a campaign doesn't support the standard magic items? I don't think the classes should have to depend on magic items just to function properly.
It'd be easy enough for the Sage Sorcerer to select his spells so as to focus on a particular school.
The specialist abilities wouldn't be available through the Sage bloodline.
Ever cook something really good, or make something on the fly that you weren't quite able to replicate again? Its the same thing. And a wizard spell is a good bit harder than a cake recipe.
Personally, I've never had this problem because I've examined what steps I strayed from and made a mental note of it. I alter the procedure next time and I don't have any problems.
Right, but it takes longer that way, hence the slowed progression.
Not if you cast the spell on a regular basis, recognize the patterns in its effects. Daily (or at least weekly) casting should yield some inner workings of magic enough to remember it.
There's another aspect of the wizard that hasn't really been mentoined above - the opportunity to find an old scroll/tome/tablet/whatnot with a rare or powerful spell.
If we didn't have the spellbook system, how would you have that work? If every wizard simply knew every spell as soon as they hit the right level.
(since I assume you'd still want the wizard to be versatile to keep it separate from the sorcerer who has a set limit of spells known but no need to prepare)
(I'm also assuming here that not every campaign gives a wizard a nice local magic store/wizard's university/whatever with a 100% free reign of picking and choosing whatever spells they want with no restrictions. Sometimes, a campaign doesn't really work like that)
Personally, I've never had this problem because I've examined what steps I strayed from and made a mental note of it. I alter the procedure next time and I don't have any problems.
Really? You remember the EXACT amount of every ingredient you added to anything you've ever made, in what order you added it, how it was piled up? The bowl you used? The ambient temperature? The humidity?
The exact amount of which colors you mixed on every painting, the exact amount of each stain mixture, how much you applied to the cloth, how quickly you ran the cloth over the wood, exactly how many times you sanded the polyeurethane between coats...
Either you have a photographic memory or there's a little bit of slack in between different iterations of what you try.
Not if you cast the spell on a regular basis, recognize the patterns in its effects. Daily (or at least weekly) casting should yield some inner workings of magic enough to remember it.
How many people play mozart by ear? Magic is more complicated.(those are the wizards taking the feat that lets you know some spells without the spellbook)
A wizard isn't just memorizing words that cause an effect. If that were the case the world would be overrun as soon as someone invented the phonograph. They're preparing a state of mind to gather in the energy of the universe and hold it there until they're ready for it.
|
1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?
2 - Do you feel that the flavor and themes surrounding an INT-based caster require them to draw their power from a book or pet? Could you cite examples (books, film, etc.) as to why?
3 - What would be your response to removing spellbooks (and equivalents) as a requirement for INT-based casters? This would not mean witches would have to give up their familiars, but rather that they could prepare spells without chatting up their pet each morning. The casters would still have to pay the necessary gold to learn new spells (outside of leveling up) and prepare them each day as usual.
4 - Have you (or has your GM/DM) made any house-rules regarding this? If so, what changes were made?
1) Mechanically, it serves to give the caster a weak point. If the familiar dies, or the spellbook is destroyed, the character has to make a new one before he can cast again. I think that if Paizo put it in, they must have thought it made the classes more "balanced," and I don't know enough about game design to argue with that.
2) Witches: yes. Witches traditionally have familiars, which they need to cast spells. And spellbooks and alchemical manuals are pretty popular wherever there are wizards, though I'm not sure the class should "need" them flavor-wise. However, I'm not really sure a wizard "needs" to prepare spells flavor-wise, but that's a traditional facet of the game.
3) I don't think it would affect the game too much, but I like the current flavor and wouldn't play that way.
4) As a DM, I've sometimes modified NPCs' spellbooks to contain removable scrolls or magical traps. This always excites my PCs. The best one I've done was an intelligent spellbook that could cast spells like scrying and let the PCs see what it was seeing. But while I've made additions, I've not made changes to the base rules.
There's another aspect of the wizard that hasn't really been mentoined above - the opportunity to find an old scroll/tome/tablet/whatnot with a rare or powerful spell.
If we didn't have the spellbook system, how would you have that work? If every wizard simply knew every spell as soon as they hit the right level.
(since I assume you'd still want the wizard to be versatile to keep it separate from the sorcerer who has a set limit of spells known but no need to prepare)
(I'm also assuming here that not every campaign gives a wizard a nice local magic store/wizard's university/whatever with a 100% free reign of picking and choosing whatever spells they want with no restrictions. Sometimes, a campaign doesn't really work like that)
I absolutely love the rare-tome discovery moments to such an extent that I really don't want to get rid of spellbooks themselves--just the reliance on them on a daily basis. On the other hand, I really dislike the concept of scrolls.
Also, most of my campaigns don't include mage guilds in every small city complete with a fully stocked Hogwart's Vending Apparatus.
Only intelligence-based casters (and alchemists) are required to physically store the spells they 'know'. It seems to me that a high intelligence score would indicate a good memory; why shouldn't wizards 'remember' their spells? What if spellbooks could be created as sort of expensive combined scroll? As long as the flavor was intact would it matter?
This is intended as a discussion (The battleground's that way...), so here are a few questions to get things started:
1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?
It's a limiting factor for classes that can (in theory) "learn" every spell on a broad and powerful list (even magi and witches; alchemists' extracts are less broad, but very powerful within that focus). In addition to the cost, there is a physical creature/object that is required to prepare spells (although read magic and spells selected for Spell Mastery can be prepared without the book/familiar); this is a further limiting factor on some of the most (potentially) powerful/versatile classes.
2 - Do you feel that the flavor and themes surrounding an INT-based caster require them to draw their power from a book or pet? Could you cite examples (books, film, etc.) as to why?
As much as some dislike Vancian spellcasting, it's the traditional magical method for D&D; spontaneous casters (in the core rules) are a new development of D&D 3.0. There have been various optional systems using spell points, but the core mechanic has always been based around Jack Vance's Dying Earth: complicated mystical formulae memorized/prepared, "charging" the caster with magical energy which is then expended with set triggering gestures, materials, and/or words. Roger Zelazny had a similar mechanic in his two Amber series': the caster prepares or "hangs" incomplete ritual "spells" so that they can be "completed" on short notice at a later time (instead of going through the 1 min or longer ritual). Alchemists, instead of complicated magical formulae have complicated and precise alchemical formulae to prepare extracts; anyone who's taken a lab science course knows how important exactly following a precise formulae/process, instead of relying on memory, is in achieving repeatable results.
Divine prepared casters commune with their deities, etc. for access to these complicated formulae (similar to a witch's familiar, but without limits on available spells). Arcane prepared casters need to have the formulae on hand. Spontaneous casters don't need to prepare spells; they have an inherent connection to/source of magical power that they can unleash in a few set ways (spells known).
3 - What would be your response to removing spellbooks (and equivalents) as a requirement for INT-based casters? This would not mean witches would have to give up their familiars, but rather that they could prepare spells without chatting up their pet each morning. The casters would still have to pay the necessary gold to learn new spells (outside of leveling up) and prepare them each day as usual.
It removes a limitation from some of the more powerful/versatile classes in the game, which is something that needs to be considered. It also removes one of the GM's rewards/tools for arcane prepared casters: finding a spellbook/formulae book as treasure. Players will no longer be able to learn spells used by slain foes; also, they may be missing a key/useful spell for an upcoming encounter (you can provide a scroll, but the spellbook is a less blatant method; especially if it's a rare/uncommon spell).
4 - Have you (or has your GM/DM) made any house-rules regarding this? If so, what changes were made?
Not for eliminating spellbooks.
For an alternate 3.5 setting, I had developed an alternate spellcasting class that replaced clerics, druids, sorcerers, and wizards; bards had to be prestige bards and paladins and rangers couldn't cast spells. Basically, they could write any spell on those four lists into their spellbook, but would cast spells as a sorcerer (prepraring spells "known" for the day to cast spontaneously).
Really? You remember the EXACT amount of every ingredient you added to anything you've ever made, in what order you added it, how it was piled up? The bowl you used? The ambient temperature? The humidity?
Either you have a photographic memory or there's a little bit of slack in between different iterations of what you try.
I don't know about photographic, but it's always been good. Going back to the recipes, when something works really well I make a point to make it again the next day (or sooner if the opportunity presents itself) to nail down what worked.
A wizard isn't just memorizing words that cause an effect. If that were the case the world would be overrun as soon as someone invented the phonograph. They're preparing a state of mind to gather in the energy of the universe and hold it there until they're ready for it.
I'm not saying that INT-based casters shouldn't have to meditate or what-have-you every morning. I just don't think the spellbook should be a must during that meditation.
Also, I'm borrowing the phonograph-domination idea for future use.
And..? It seems like you're trying to make some sort of point. The best I can figure out is that, in your opinion, a wizard should be able to have all their powers and none of their weaknesses.
Let's turn this discussion around.
Given
1.) The Wizard class is widely considered to be the most powerful class in the game
2.) One way built into the game to reduce the Wizard's total power is to have them invest wealth into protecting their spell booksThen,
How would you replace the power limitations imposed by protecting spell books once you got rid of spell books?
Firstly, I don't think INT-based casters should be able to learn every spell that they are capable of learning. I have no problem with the 3.5 approach of prohibiting an entire school (outside of use magic device) or a similar restriction. I've never seen a player try to learn every single spell they've come across, so as long as the restrictions have enough varieties to choose from I can see no problems with it.
Secondly, the theme of a magical librarian is not my idea of a wizard. Sure the wizard consults a grimoire occasionally for magic/information not used on a daily basis, but not every day. The alchemist is already lugging around a mobile lab, so wouldn't that be enough? My perception of a witch was never anything like the witches of folklore; I always saw the witch as a pointed-hat wearing, broom-riding, cackling lunatic that occasionally borrowed one of the wizard's books. The familiar was always assumed to be just a pet.
Lastly, my solutions to the balance concern:
- Replace scrolls with spellbooks. The spell contained can be cast as if the book were a scroll, but afterwards the book must "cool down" and the spell cannot be learned, cast again, or prepared (by anyone)from the book until 24 hours have passed.
- These books contain the formula for learning one new spell per book. Once learned, the caster can never cast the spell from the spellbook (like a scroll), but can reference the book to prepare the spell in an empty slot using only five minutes.
- Learning a new spell from a book takes a day per level of the spell (minimum of one day). The costs remain the same as the caster needs material to experiment with arcane energies required for the spell.
- Prohibited school spells cannot be learned, but can still cast them from books using UMD
- A witch's patron choice has an opposition list of spells that count as a prohibited school.
1) Mechanically, it serves to give the caster a weak point. If the familiar dies, or the spellbook is destroyed, the character has to make a new one before he can cast again. I think that if Paizo put it in, they must have thought it made the classes more "balanced," and I don't know enough about game design to argue with that.
2) Witches: yes. Witches traditionally have familiars, which they need to cast spells. And spellbooks and alchemical manuals are pretty popular wherever there are wizards, though I'm not sure the class should "need" them flavor-wise. However, I'm not really sure a wizard "needs" to prepare spells flavor-wise, but that's a traditional facet of the game.
3) I don't think it would affect the game too much, but I like the current flavor and wouldn't play that way.
4) As a DM, I've sometimes modified NPCs' spellbooks to contain removable scrolls or magical traps. This always excites my PCs. The best one I've done was an intelligent spellbook that could cast spells like scrying and let the PCs see what it was seeing. But while I've made additions, I've not made changes to the base rules.
Thanks for posting, #4 gave me a few ideas I hadn't considered.
Only intelligence-based casters (and alchemists) are required to physically store the spells they 'know'. It seems to me that a high intelligence score would indicate a good memory; why shouldn't wizards 'remember' their spells? What if spellbooks could be created as sort of expensive combined scroll? As long as the flavor was intact would it matter?
This is intended as a discussion (The battleground's that way...), so here are a few questions to get things started:
1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?
It's a limiting factor for classes that can (in theory) "learn" every spell on a broad and powerful list (even magi and witches; alchemists' extracts are less broad, but very powerful within that focus). In addition to the cost, there is a physical creature/object that is required to prepare spells (although read magic and spells selected for Spell Mastery can be prepared without the book/familiar); this is a further limiting factor on some of the most (potentially) powerful/versatile classes.
2 - Do you feel that the flavor and themes surrounding an INT-based caster require them to draw their power from a book or pet? Could you cite examples (books, film, etc.) as to why?As much as some dislike Vancian spellcasting, it's the traditional magical method for D&D; spontaneous casters (in the core rules) are a new development of D&D 3.0. There have been various optional systems using spell points, but the core mechanic has always been based around Jack Vance's Dying Earth: complicated mystical formulae memorized/prepared, "charging" the caster with magical energy which is then expended with set triggering gestures, materials, and/or words. Roger Zelazny had a similar mechanic in his two Amber...
1 - Personally, I dislike the idea of a caster learning every spell they could learn. They should have a focused theme to choose from.
2 - Yes...don't get me started on Vancian magic.
4 - I debated about an alternative wizard class, but the whole reliance on a physical spell container for daily use just kept bothering me.
Thanks for the response.
I think the spellbook is pretty much required for vancian spellcasting. If your spell vanishes from your brain when cast you're going to need to re-memorize it frequently and need a book.
I think vancian spellcasting should have been left on the dying earth. It doesn't fit any other setting not modeled on D&D and is stupid when examined closely. It was cute while it was novel, but it's not novel anymore and it's an insult to Jack Vance to associate him primarily with a tortuously absurd magic system he didn't use in most of his works.
I would let any wizard cast any spell they have memorized as many times as they have slots and let them memorize a new spell every time they increase knowledge (arcana) or spellcraft. (replacing the current 2 spells/level. Possibly just one of the two if both produces too large a list for spontaneous casting) Spell Mastery is stupid as a feat and should be both scaling and baked into the class. Spells they haven't memorized they can only cast with a grimoire open in one hand or on a stable surface and the other free (unless there are no somatic/material/focus components). You can't memorize a cake recipe at 7 AM and then bake a cake at 3 PM without the recipe book. Spell instructions are just instructions and shouldn't require rare ink or specially prepared pages. Scrolls maybe since they're spell completion items, but not just the instructions on how to cast a spell.
(in bold and enlarged to indicate 100% agreement)
Keep in mind that wizards (and witches) DON'T memorize spells. Wizards prepare spells they are familiar with. Think of it like pages and pages of mathematical formulas. A wizard uses these formulae to shape and store magical energy, which he can later fling at the flick of his hand and a word or two of power. Spellbooks are basically complex sets of instructions - this is less like cooking and more like matrix algebra. It takes most wizards the bulk of their apprenticeship to memorize Read Magic - a cantrip.
I don't think the spellbook itself is a necessity, but the semi-limited list of spells known is, as is the cost for adding spells to the list. The aspect of temporarily depriving the wizard of his spells by taking away his spellbook is a nice one as well - although I really don't like how you can permanently take away his powers by the same means.
In fact, I'm considering a house rule that "rediscovering" spells you've learned but lost the spellbook for for just the cost of scribing them in the first place (as opposed to 1.5 times scribing cost for borrowing someone's spellbook and then scribing then, or half the cost if you took the opportunity to make a copy beforehand). I figure that once you've learned the spell you pretty much know how to cast it and just need to get the details right, which would be much less difficult than researching from scratch.
As always the loss of a spellbook hurts the caster much more than the loss of a weapon (unless that weapon is the weilder's hands).
Keep in mind that wizards (and witches) DON'T memorize spells. Wizards prepare spells they are familiar with. Think of it like pages and pages of mathematical formulas. A wizard uses these formulae to shape and store magical energy, which he can later fling at the flick of his hand and a word or two of power. Spellbooks are basically complex sets of instructions - this is less like cooking and more like matrix algebra. It takes most wizards the bulk of their apprenticeship to memorize Read Magic - a cantrip.
None of it makes any sense, I get why it works, but not why it should work.
A wizard/witch gathers power and sets up a 'trigger' phrase and gesture. Where does the power go? It has to be contained somewhere, otherwise the caster would be casting from the book/familiar during combat. If d20/3.5/ogl magic is a gun and the components are the trigger, where are the bullets?
As always the loss of a spellbook hurts the caster much more than the loss of a weapon (unless that weapon is the weilder's hands).Irrelevant
What is relevant is that
1.) The Wizard is widely considered to be the most powerful class in the game
2.) The threat of losing a spell book (and, consequently, the act of redirecting wealth towards protecting said spell book) is a balancing factorIf you get rid of #2, then what do you replace that balancing factor with?
Limiting spells available to be learned. As I mentioned earlier, prohibited schools should still prohibit learning those spells.