|
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.
The phrase "memorizing spells" has been used since 1974. A bit of change in the flavor isn't going to make people suddenly change how they phrase things.
|
|
The caster studies a pattern of sound or images or whatever and locks this pattern in his mind. As he goes about his day, this pattern picks up power in much the same way as a magnet picks up metal or velcro picks up string. You ask "where does the power go?" The answer is that the power is inside the wizard.This doesn't work. If magic worked like this spells would be more powerful at 5 PM than at 8 AM.
After you finished preparing your spells, you would only be able to cast cantrips. After 1 hr 40 minutes, you would be able to cast 1st level spells. Every 1 hr 40 minutes, you gain access to the next level of magic.
:P
To the OP: If you're looking to get rid of spellbooks then...
Propose what changes you'd make to the mechanics of spell learning and requirements for spell preparation. and discuss what balance issues if any.
References to spell point systems, psionics, Hate rants on Vancian magic, and the likev are being adequately covered on other threads.
I was trying to avoid the casting system as a whole, but threads run away often.
The house-rules are already in place, I'm just trying to get input outside of my, mechanically biased, gaming group.
The caster studies a pattern of sound or images or whatever and locks this pattern in his mind. As he goes about his day, this pattern picks up power in much the same way as a magnet picks up metal or velcro picks up string. You ask "where does the power go?" The answer is that the power is inside the wizard.
Since the wizard can contain power, a conduit shouldn't be necessary.
The requirement exists as a form of balance. In this case, could the spells available to the wizard through extra study simply be limited as a form of balance and leave the wizard/witch free of a physical spell container?
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?
1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?
No actually. In my campaign I stayed with the concept that you have a focus item such as the familiar you speak with, the magic sword you bond with (more of a Magus sorta thing with that one), the One Ring of power that whispers to you, or the spell book you pour over endlessly. Why however? Entirely for flavor. If not for flavor then why allow it to be changed to a different focus at all?
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?
Again, flavor.
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.
and...
4 - Have you (or has your GM/DM) made any house-rules regarding this? If so, what changes were made?
Remove them if it fits your game concept. Personally we still use spell books in my campaign but they really only show up in places like universities and are a resource for when you want to learn something new. Secondly we have gone to a purely dynamic casting model (ala Sorcerer) where once you know a spell it stays permanently in your spells per day "Matrix", until you deliberately change it (thus requiring the spell books, university, temple, etc). This rule was applied to ALL casters. Spell Mastery allows you to add additional spells to your known list for even more dynamic casting although does not add more such castings per day. Granted this took alot of the appeal away from the Sorcerer (a class i've hated since the launch of 3.0) however the Sorcerer still remains king with their number of castings per day.
Additionally we declared that additional spell lists (such as the Blood line sorcerer spells & Cleric Domain spells) were automatically added to the "known spells" list but to the fact that they are such a core part of those characters.
As a point of balance we still felt this left the Sorcerer with diminished returns and ruled that the Sorcerer COULD change their spells but only between adventures as it would take like a week to 10 days to do so and they had to be in a place of rest and safety to do so. Further such changes could not change the theme / feel of the caster (a Fire based blaster Sorc could not reset and become a Sumnoner Sorc for example).
For more on how we customized the magic of our campaign, feel free to check out:
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/lazlo-cos-pathfinder/wikis/spells-an d-magic
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?
I view a written spell more as a magical device; the wizard passes his magical energy through the magical diagram that is written spell, and he gets a ready spell at the end of the preparation. It takes up the space in his being the undirected magical power was using previously.
Sorcerers have these patterns innately in their being, they just pass energy through them when they need to cast a spell. Wizards have to prep it because it takes them far more time to do the same thing. For a wizard, memorizing a spell is like memorizing a toaster; memory doesn't turn bread into toast - you need a toaster for that. Written spells are his toaster, they do the job for him.
A wizard with Spell Mastery has internalized some of these patterns, so he doesn't need a book to do this, though he still can't just shove out magical energy like a Sorcerer.
This also helps justify why spellbooks are so expensive (when regular ink isn't), as written spells are pseudo-magical devices. Not exactly canonical, especially given the whole 'individual shorthand' that hinders memorizing untranslated spells from other books, but it's easy to assume that there are multiple spell architectures that achieve the same final goal, just as there are efficient and inefficient ways of achieving the same effect with computer programming.
My first experience with this type of magic was actually the Dragonlance books I read when I was young. I vividly remember Raistlin decribing the magic words as being "burned" into his mind when he prepared spells, and after he cast them, he couldn't remember them, because the magic had fled.
So, in response to the question earlier about "where's the bullet?". THAT is the bullet. The words are MAGIC. When you read your spellbook, they're burned into memory, but when you cast, it expends the memory.
Mechanically, my players play for fun, so I tend to let the wizards have only 1 spellbook, filled as much as they want (no pages to count). Also, what if your villan is a wizard? The rogue tries to steal his spellbook in preperation for tomorrow's epic battle or something. Remember that the player's weakness is also the enemy's weakness.
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. No, I do not particulary like the spellbook as default method, though I do like the flavor of magical tomes expanding the knowledge and power of the caster. More akin to a powerful and coveted magical item.
2. I already kind of answered this I suppose, though I can see them as a source of learning I don't think dependency on them fits the theme well
3. I am fine with that, witches and (sage)sorcerers I think are a better default, not sure wether casters should be INT based, I rather think a little MAD INT(learning ability)/CHA(magical talent) would serve to strike a better balance with other classes.
4. No, but I am working on it. I contemplate using CHA to set the DC for spells, maximum allowable level and bonus spells, I would spike skill points up a bit for casters to 4+int modifier. INT should feature as the ability to learn new spells and how many spells a caster can know, maybe a limit per spell level, Paizo already put forth ways for a sorcerer to drastically expand the number of spells known, anchoring this to INT seems a sensible step.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My two C-bills.
Intelligence based preparation casters* have to store forulae in their heads. In essense a wizard maintains a 'memory palace' where the spells are memorized. He can't 'burn a magic missile for a shield' because the room that holds the formula and energy for magic missile is arranged differently than the room next door for shield. The spellbook/familiar in this scenario is a guideline on how to 'arrange the furniture' of a room. Spell Mastery is a feat investment that allows the wizard to memorize some of the formula, but they still have to build the rooms when they prep spells. In essense the feat is making the caster into his own spellbook.
*
In my model, spontanious intelligence arcane casters do the same kind of memory palace, except it's more of a 'memory canal system' The spells known in each story of the palace are fixed chambers and casting the spell is essentally knowing which routes to send the magic through to get the result ("If I channel the spell through rooms A, B, C, I get magic missile if it goes through B, D, and R, I get shield") In this case learning/replacing new spells is a mix of adding rooms and trying new combos of rooms.
Charisma casters don't mess with theory so much as practice. A sorcerer doesn't just worry about making a complex mental construct. He just grabs the power and "pulls." The limited spells are more a trial and error. He knows if he does X, Y happens. When he learns doing X can also equal Z he's learned a new spell.
Wisdom based casters are so far divine only. In this case they don't know the theory behind it, or how it works. They basically ask to be the conduit for the power they've braced themselves for ('memorizing' spells) and have the mental endurance to handle that power going through them.
Now that said, I'd love to see a Pathfinder Ritual system, to allow things like Butters drawing a magic circle against evil, or some of those old folk charms to actually work.
For the flavor err well, for the flavor I would start magic rules from scratch.
First of all, I'd seperate "raw magic" (fireballs) from "somewhat intelligent magic". Sorcerers are masters of the raw stuff.
Wizards use books to create the actual spells a long time ahead before they cast them - they should be able to cast raw stuff spontaneous but need to prepare intelligent stuff. These "precast" spells fly around in the "aura" of the wizard and are only mere concepts of a spell and require power. Wizards with some cash buy permanent concept holders like staffs and pendants that contain these concepts permanently and enable the wizard to cast these spells spontaneous.
Also wizards get rituals that take some while but are quite powerful (utility spells!) and need books
Another use of the book would be that wizards need them to get new spells - instead of scribing new spells in their books as it is now, they are already in the book (or to be more precise, there is magic theory in that book that wizards use to research new spells)
As for witches, familiars are indeed nice flavor but I'd relax it to "the witch needs to stay in contact with her link, if she is seperated more than a week from her familiar, she can not cast any spells but the very simple ones" (which also means that if a familiar dies and the witch gets a new one, all spells are available again)
(basically I dislike Vancian magic btw altough it's quite funny in Discworld)
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.
I agree on the rituals but taking books as argument in general is not that sound - nearly anything you learn is in books. You read it, you learn it, you throw the book away.
In general (not as an answer to your post) one should take examples from fantasy movies and books, "real world magic" is not what we want (only it's Hollywood versions, even voudou and kaballah aren't that flashy in action)
|
|
In earlier versions of the game, it actually did take longer to learn a spell for the day if it higher level. This has been simplified in 3x, but I think only for the sake of simplifying it (ie. not as any sort of commentary on internal game world logic).Also, because the time requirement of high-level spells was quite ridiculous. A 10th level wizard would spend 6½ hours memorizing all his spells (assuming he cast them all) - and that's in addition to the 8 hours sleep he needed before.
10 minutes per spell level for every spell you memorized.
1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?
I'm coming straight from 2E, so that's where my history lies... That said... I don't see any mechanical reason for it. When we switched to pathfinder, I was AMAZED at how many casters there are. Bards... sorcerers, druids, rangers, paladins, etc, and NONE of them need books.
In the old days, There was simply Divine and Arcane. Divine used prayer books, Arcane used Spell books. Everyone got their spells from SOMEWHERE...
Now we've got a wizard in our group who has helped kill 2 sorcerers, a bard, and a ranger and a witch and not gotten a single book out of it. Killed an alchemist, and can't copy spells from him...
it seems like wizards are the ONLY ones left who are held back to the old tradition. Soooo Mechanically I don't see a point to it. FLAVOR-wise I still like them, but mechanically... not so much.
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?
Spellbooks have a long history of tradition. Personally, I was never a BIG fan of memorizing spells ahead of time. I don't remember ever reading a book where the mage came up to the locked door and had to rest 8 hours to switch out a spell to get through it.
nope... wizards ALWAYS have the right spell for the right occassion. SADLY this philosophy steps on the toes of Sorcerers... so I could never get the group to go along with that idea.... The best i could do was bump up the 'spells per day' by 2, thus giving a little more room for the basic utility stuff....
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.
Honesly, as the players are still doing everything the same ANYWAY... I wouldn't see it as a big deal. Our DM has never 'sundered' a spell book or gimped over a mage in a big way ANYWAY... Sooooo it's generally assumed you have a book when you prepare... and you put it away afterward. It's not a major thing.
Hence the reason I see them as unnecessary.
4 - Have you (or has your GM/DM) made any house-rules regarding this? If so, what changes were made?
We have not. Other than giving our 2E straight wizards an extra +2 spells per day per spell level (multi-class still went by original list)
The most important thing being clarified by this discussion is that noone who hates the spellbook has offered any replacement to restrain the wizard's power.
I did. Copying from what I posted earlier...
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.
And that tells me that we have very different interests in playing this game.
This, on the other hand, has always been the case. I've played with 'Hogwart's' groups (where the PCs were casters and the NPCs were non-casters), anti-mage groups (where casting spells means using pounds of diamond dust, nosebleeds, and constitution damage all at once), doom-Lovecraftian investigator groups (we usually didn't survive the climax and if we did we were insane or mutated), and other extreme combinations that many gamers wouldn't consider joining.
Mechanically, it wouldn't change much (aside from the treasure drops thing, as stated in question #1). The option for DMs to screw with such a character's available power is there, but most wisely choose not to wake that particular dragon (it seems unfair when other equally-powerful spellcasters don't have such an Achilles Heel). Flavor-wise, I would not be happy with the change - spellbooks are neat.
The treasure drop issue is something I'd like to address by adding single-spell tomes to the treasure in place of scrolls (I mentioned this in an earlier post). I too like the flavor of spellbooks, just not the dependency on a daily basis. This type of item could be found in old abandoned libraries, towers, archives, etc. akin to the bookshelves in the first Diablo game.
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.
and...
4 - Have you (or has your GM/DM) made any house-rules regarding this? If so, what changes were made?
Remove them if it fits your game concept. Personally we still use spell books in my campaign but they really only show up in places like universities and are a resource for when you want to learn something new. Secondly we have gone to a purely dynamic casting model (ala Sorcerer) where once you know a spell it stays permanently in your spells per day "Matrix", until you deliberately change it (thus requiring the spell books, university, temple, etc). This rule was applied to ALL casters. Spell Mastery allows you to add additional spells to your known list for even more dynamic casting although does not add more such castings per day. Granted this took alot of the appeal away from the Sorcerer (a class i've hated since the launch of 3.0) however the Sorcerer still remains king with their number of castings per day.
Additionally we declared that additional spell lists (such as the Blood line sorcerer spells & Cleric Domain spells) were automatically added to the "known spells" list but to the fact that they are such a core part of those characters.
As a point of balance we still felt this left the Sorcerer with diminished returns and ruled that the Sorcerer COULD change their spells but only between adventures as it would take like a week to 10 days to do so and they had to be in a place of rest and safety to do so. Further such changes could not change the theme / feel of the caster (a Fire based blaster Sorc could not reset and become a Sumnoner Sorc for example).
For more on how we customized the magic of our campaign, feel free to check out: http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/lazlo-cos-pathfinder/wikis/spells-an d-magic
I tried the spell-stays-in-slot-until-mage-changes-mind approach, but I eventually just dropped it for the spell recharge variant from Unearthed Arcana. I skimmed over the link and I'll read it later.
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?
I view a written spell more as a magical device; the wizard passes his magical energy through the magical diagram that is written spell, and he gets a ready spell at the end of the preparation. It takes up the space in his being the undirected magical power was using previously.
Sorcerers have these patterns innately in their being, they just pass energy through them when they need to cast a spell. Wizards have to prep it because it takes them far more time to do the same thing. For a wizard, memorizing a spell is like memorizing a toaster; memory doesn't turn bread into toast - you need a toaster for that. Written spells are his toaster, they do the job for him.
A wizard with Spell Mastery has internalized some of these patterns, so he doesn't need a book to do this, though he still can't just shove out magical energy like a Sorcerer.
This also helps justify why spellbooks are so expensive (when regular ink isn't), as written spells are pseudo-magical devices. Not exactly canonical, especially given the whole 'individual shorthand' that hinders memorizing untranslated spells from other books, but it's easy to assume that there are multiple spell architectures that achieve the same final goal, just as there are efficient and inefficient ways of achieving the same effect with computer programming.
Interesting imagery (not the toaster analogies). I see where you're coming from now; I still disagree, but I get why you see it this way. Thanks for your input.
My first experience with this type of magic was actually the Dragonlance books I read when I was young. I vividly remember Raistlin decribing the magic words as being "burned" into his mind when he prepared spells, and after he cast them, he couldn't remember them, because the magic had fled.
So, in response to the question earlier about "where's the bullet?". THAT is the bullet. The words are MAGIC. When you read your spellbook, they're burned into memory, but when you cast, it expends the memory.
Mechanically, my players play for fun, so I tend to let the wizards have only 1 spellbook, filled as much as they want (no pages to count). Also, what if your villan is a wizard? The rogue tries to steal his spellbook in preperation for tomorrow's epic battle or something. Remember that the player's weakness is also the enemy's weakness.
That interpretation of magic is what I think of when I imagine a gritty magic system.
Regarding steps to take when facing a wizard:
How my group handles it - Poison, blackmail, hostages, ample distractions, etc. Anything but open combat even with other wizards/witches/sorcerers in the party.
How my group handles it - Mostly the same, but I'd have to physically confront my enemy for the sake of pride. However, it would in no way be a 'fair' fight.
1. No, I do not particulary like the spellbook as default method, though I do like the flavor of magical tomes expanding the knowledge and power of the caster. More akin to a powerful and coveted magical item.
2. I already kind of answered this I suppose, though I can see them as a source of learning I don't think dependency on them fits the theme well
3. I am fine with that, witches and (sage)sorcerers I think are a better default, not sure wether casters should be INT based, I rather think a little MAD INT(learning ability)/CHA(magical talent) would serve to strike a better balance with other classes.
4. No, but I am working on it. I contemplate using CHA to set the DC for spells, maximum allowable level and bonus spells, I would spike skill points up a bit for casters to 4+int modifier. INT should feature as the ability to learn new spells and how many spells a caster can know, maybe a limit per spell level, Paizo already put forth ways for a sorcerer to drastically expand the number of spells known, anchoring this to INT seems a sensible step.
1 - Agreed.
2 - More agreement.
3 - I could see this happening if the system ever gets a serious overhaul. And then, I'd like to see more than six attributes.
4 - This seems to justify what you mentioned previously. Interesting.
10 minutes per spell level for every spell you memorized.Also, because the time requirement of high-level spells was quite ridiculous. A 10th level wizard would spend 6½ hours memorizing all his spells (assuming he cast them all) - and that's in addition to the 8 hours sleep he needed before.
Exactly. A 10th level wizard had 39 levels of spells = 390 minutes = 6 hours 30 minutes.
I think 1e had 15 minutes per spell level, but compensated for that (at least at lower levels) by requiring a shorter period of rest, based on the top spell level you would have to prepare. But I never played 1e, so I'm not 100% sure about that.
In 1E the additional time to recover spells was based on the highest level spell being memorized. It was 4 hours for level 1-2 spells, 6 hours for level 3-4 spells, 8 hours for level 5-6, 10 hours for level 7-8 and 12 hours for level 9. This time frame worked for Magic Users, Clerics, Druids and Illusionists. You needed uninterupted rest for that period of time. Nothing worse than being jumped just before your "nap" was over...
My two C-bills.
Intelligence based preparation casters* have to store forulae in their heads. In essense a wizard maintains a 'memory palace' where the spells are memorized. He can't 'burn a magic missile for a shield' because the room that holds the formula and energy for magic missile is arranged differently than the room next door for shield. The spellbook/familiar in this scenario is a guideline on how to 'arrange the furniture' of a room. Spell Mastery is a feat investment that allows the wizard to memorize some of the formula, but they still have to build the rooms when they prep spells. In essense the feat is making the caster into his own spellbook.
*** spoiler omitted **
It seems like we see divine casters (as written) exactly the same. I still think divine and arcane magic (and psionic concepts) should be combined into a simple magic type and the classes refitted to the particulars.
Now that said, I'd love to see a Pathfinder Ritual system, to allow things like Butters drawing a magic circle against evil, or some of those old folk charms to actually work.
This would replace a lot of problematic spells (problematic mainly due to bad timing and spamming) and ridiculous components. I support it.
As for witches, familiars are indeed nice flavor but I'd relax it to "the witch needs to stay in contact with her link, if she is seperated more than a week from her familiar, she can not cast any spells but the very simple ones" (which also means that if a familiar dies and the witch gets a new one, all spells are available again)
(basically I dislike Vancian magic btw altough it's quite funny in Discworld)
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.I agree on the rituals but taking books as argument in general is not that sound - nearly anything you learn is in books. You read it, you learn it, you throw the book away.
In general (not as an answer to your post) one should take examples from fantasy movies and books, "real world magic" is not what we want (only it's Hollywood versions, even voudou and kaballah aren't that flashy in action)
A sensible approach to witches.
I agree with referencing film and literature over real world accounts of 'magic' (aka chicanerie). I'm a cinematics person; everything I imagine in game gets played out visually in my mind. I have to make mental adjustments everytime I brainstorm scenarios for the next session, because I imagine magic so differently than how it's portrayed in my favorite gaming system.
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 one of the major elements defining these type of casters. The limitations help define the class, give it it's particular flavor. As others have pointed out the spell book / familiar mechanic acts as a brake on the class. If you alter it you may find the changes echoing on through the game. Anyway, not absolutely necessary, but a different class (and game) if you change it.
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?
The Witch's familiar as a link to a (typically diabolical) patron is well established in myth and literature. The connection to magical tomes is also well established but less specific. The particular mechanics of D&D are related to Jack Vance and D&D. I'm not trying to be snide by citing D&D. Really :) The game is built around these conventions and has been for it's entire 37 year existence. Minus 4E of course. Change it and you're changing a number of underlying mechanical assumptions and balance issues.
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.
If you're not changing the prep time / costs to spell memorization and acquisition all you're doing is eliminating an element which restrains the ability of the caster to function without a safe base (or protection for said spellbooks / familiars). In short, you've made them stronger. I'm sure many Wizards and Witches would approve...
4 - Have you (or has your GM/DM) made any house-rules regarding this? If so, what changes were made?
I've always enjoyed tinkering with the game. I've used spell points ( as representing magical power), recharging spells (spells being permanently known but only usable periodically), and skill based magical (skills and knowledge in a given magic school being required to cast a given spell) systems among others in the last 36 years. Oddly enough I keep coming back to the Vancian magic system as I update my game to each new edition. Currently I'm looking at a point based memorization system to improve flexibility without losing the books by eliminating the rigid specific spell level requirements. I'm quite aware that this is an advantage for the caster. I'm hoping to balance that by reducing the amount of overall magic they will be able to cast for the day. We'll see. My current PC Wizard is on board with it.
1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?I'm coming straight from 2E, so that's where my history lies... That said... I don't see any mechanical reason for it. When we switched to pathfinder, I was AMAZED at how many casters there are. Bards... sorcerers, druids, rangers, paladins, etc, and NONE of them need books.
In the old days, There was simply Divine and Arcane. Divine used prayer books, Arcane used Spell books. Everyone got their spells from SOMEWHERE...
Now we've got a wizard in our group who has helped kill 2 sorcerers, a bard, and a ranger and a witch and not gotten a single book out of it. Killed an alchemist, and can't copy spells from him...
it seems like wizards are the ONLY ones left who are held back to the old tradition. Soooo Mechanically I don't see a point to it. FLAVOR-wise I still like them, but mechanically... not so much
1 - This covers one of my biggest pet peeves: everyone gets their magic from somewhere. Most sources are either too restrictive (for flavor) or incredibly vague.
- Wizards/alchemists/magi get their power from formula stored in books.- Witches get their power because of some 'patron' garbage that is basically the equivalent of a binder's vestige (yes, it sucks that they're closed content, but don't hijack a new class to try and play one).
- Sorcerers are empowered by their heritage.
- Clerics and inquisitors depend on a connection to their deity (or granted by the universe itself based on the character's philosophy).
- Druids and rangers call upon nature and their enviroment to cast spells.
- Summoners are said to deal with some outsider patron (another damned 'patron') and likely pull their spells and eidolon from said entity.
- Oracles seem to be a sort of divine nexus that just happened into existence; their power source is a mystery (pun intended).
- Paladins/antipaladins recieve their gifts from some undefined LG/CE source.
- Bards simply have to sing/dance/joke/juggle/etc.
1: No. players and DMs alike gripe about the best way to weaken a wizard, and the spellbook is just worthless.
2: spell points would do better than a spellbook.
the witche's familiar actually stores the spells, similiar to that of the wizard's spellbook.
nice concept, but same in practice to the book.
3: use a spell point system and let the caster cast any spell in the book or with familiar.btw, I dont care if it would make the sorcerer obsolete.
the sorcerer is a diferent beasty all together
I really don't know why people put the Pathfinder wizard and sorcerer in the same group (despite sharing a spell list). The wizard is all about variety and focused studies, whereas the sorcerer is defined by gradually becoming something more by tapping into a magical/supernatural heritage.
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?But magic isn't a gun. Magic is the set of physical laws that govern how guns work.
Every spell is a gun and every spellbook is an armory. A wizard goes to the armory every day to equip as many guns as he can carry, each of which comes loaded with one bullet. Once he has fired all of his guns, his knowledge of their triggers is irrelevant; he can't fire anything else until he goes back to the armory and trades his empty guns for loaded ones.
Meanwhile, the sorcerer is a gunsmith who makes his own bullets and guns. He doesn't have access to an armory, so he can't exchange one of his guns for a different one without melting it down and reforging it. But he can craft custom-made bullets that can be transferred from the chamber of one gun to the chamber of another gun, as needed.
And, of course, the psion knows there is no gun. He just pumps an amount of energy equivalent to that of a speeding bullet of the desired caliber through whatever strange channels he had previously opened in his mind.
So our interpretation of magic differs on a fundamental level. Still, the discussion is interesting; it helps me to understand what many consider arcane/divine/psionic.
1. Yes, because it balances out the extremely varied power of their class abilities.
2. Traditionally, wizards have been involved with long years of study and Discworld's Sourcery (and the other discworld books), as well as the various depictions of magic in Glen Cook's universes and even the Vancian books make it somewhat clear that magic is a part of the universe, it requires training to use or abuse (somewhat like science) and thus you need guides and blueprints to do so, which are what spellbooks are. There are other tales (Merlin, for instance) that involve learning magic through a patron, but I imagine the game would become unfair if Sabrina was able to bring her demon lord patron down to a fight whenever she needed help, so having it brought through a pet is probably more fair. Also in various mythologies, where people have learned wisdom from animals or gods or gods wrapped in animal-bodies.
3. I'd be pretty disappointed in the system that did it, and probably wouldn't play it. I know there's a lot said about crunch and fluff, but in the end it's a game of storytelling. If you want to just put your coins in, buy your upgrades and have an ever-increasing power creep, there are games for that. And RPGs aren't one of them.
4. Yeah. 3.5, made it so wizards had to find spellbooks or scrolls to get new spells, rather than being gifted a couple upon level-up.
Comparing cooking recipes to spells in a book would be like the following as I always imagined it to be since that is what most people related spell scribing to.
Cantrips would be:
Seasoned Turkey Slice
1 slice of turkey
1 pinch salt
1 pinch pepper
This would all be described on one page with various diagrams and various explanations on what constitutes "turkey", "a pinch", "salt, and "pepper". So far so good with remembering all the creation steps in your mind while leaving the final, Serve!, to actually give the spell a final realization. Child's play if I do say so.
9th Level would be:
Five Bird Roast
1 Goose
1 Turkey
1 Chicken
1 Pheasant
1 Pigeon
1 Sage Stuffing
1 Savory Sausage Stuffing
1 Spiced Apple Stuffing
Each of those taking up a single page, in very tiny lettering, to explain all the specific ingredients and methods and explanations to prepare each part. An additional page explains how to bring all those things together into one grand design of cooking mastery. Also, the fantasy version of Gordon Ramsay stood over your shoulder as you scribed it and added his own notes in the margins so you wouldn't get the thing wrong. With this one you have to have essentially the equivalent of at least the order of and primary components prior to unleashing the spell.
It's one of the major elements defining these type of casters. The limitations help define the class, give it it's particular flavor. As others have pointed out the spell book / familiar mechanic acts as a brake on the class. If you alter it you may find the changes echoing on through the game. Anyway, not absolutely necessary, but a different class (and game) if you change it.
The Witch's familiar as a link to a (typically diabolical) patron is well established in myth and literature. The connection to magical tomes is also well established but less specific. The particular mechanics of D&D are related to Jack Vance and D&D. I'm not trying to be snide by citing D&D. Really :) The game is built around these conventions and has been for it's entire 37 year existence. Minus 4E of course. Change it and you're changing a number of underlying mechanical assumptions and balance issues.
If you're not changing the prep time / costs to spell memorization and acquisition all you're doing is eliminating an element which restrains the ability of the caster to function without a safe base (or protection for said spellbooks / familiars). In short, you've made them stronger. I'm sure many Wizards and Witches would approve...
I've always enjoyed tinkering with the game. I've used spell points ( as representing magical power), recharging spells (spells being permanently known but only usable periodically), and skill based magical (skills and knowledge in a given magic school being required to cast a given spell) systems among others in the last 36 years. Oddly enough I keep coming back to the Vancian magic system as I update my game to each new edition. Currently I'm looking at a point based memorization system to improve flexibility without losing the books by eliminating the rigid specific spell level requirements. I'm quite aware that this is an advantage for the caster. I'm hoping to balance that by reducing the amount of overall magic they will be able to cast for the day. We'll see. My current PC Wizard is on board with it.
1 - I understand the need for limitations per class, but I still can't see how paranoia (by losing books, pets) helps to keep balance when the character is already a glass cannon. Personally, I hated that Pathfinder softened prohibited schools, because all that's done is add more fuel to the "wizards raped my game and made the paladin cry" complaints.
2 - I'm hoping Pathfinder eventually moves further away from D&D, although not like 4e which hopped on a bus and moved into a board game (the edition's interesting, but locked content-wise in a 10+ age bracket). What I'm hoping for is less combat and more everything else.
Summoners focus their internal power to call forth an eidolan. Summoners have nothing to do with patrons.
Point taken. Maybe I read something about that in the playtest; I clearly remember there being something about the summoner binding himself to a powerful outsider who grants an aspect of itself in the form of an eidolon - not an aspect of the eidolon itself, as is written in the APG. I do feel better that the offending section was altered. Either that or I'm slowly losing my sanity.
1 - I understand the need for limitations per class, but I still can't see how paranoia (by losing books, pets) helps to keep balance when the character is already a glass cannon. Personally, I hated that Pathfinder softened prohibited schools, because all that's done is add more fuel to the "wizards raped my game and made the paladin cry" complaints.
Paranoia is really expensive. Fear also limits what you can do and shortens the duration of your Wizards adventuring. Wizards, more than any other class, need a safe haven. They have delicate valuable, and to a certain extent irreplacable, gear. They mechanically need rest to be effective. The other classes, not so much. As for the prohibited schools, keep them the way they were in 3.5.
2 - I'm hoping Pathfinder eventually moves further away from D&D, although not like 4e which hopped on a bus and moved into a board game (the edition's interesting, but locked content-wise in a 10+ age bracket). Moving on from the beaten rotting horse... What I'm hoping for is less combat and more everything else.
I'm sure it will evolve, but that is the key - evolution - not killing it and replacing it with a whole new game. 4E is a radical departure. That'y why I play my mutant 3.5 / PF / homebrew game. As for less combat and more other, 3.x helped that by altering xp rewards from "kill" to "defeat". The spell selection available certainly contributes to the combat oriented nature of magic. Less combat spells and more useful spells would help push things away from magic as weaponry.
*edit* One thing I've noticed as editions have come and gone is the tendency to alleviate the "weaknesses" of the Wizard / Magic User. They now use 6 sided HD. There are feats and features that relax the grip of the spell book and other limitations of older editions. Then too, the ability of 3.x Wizards to construct a magical arsenal (made even easier by the removal of xp costs in PF) allows them to overcome most of their limitations. I think I'm turning into an old grump sometimes...
1. Yes, because it balances out the extremely varied power of their class abilities.
2. Traditionally, wizards have been involved with long years of study and Discworld's Sourcery (and the other discworld books), as well as the various depictions of magic in Glen Cook's universes and even the Vancian books make it somewhat clear that magic is a part of the universe, it requires training to use or abuse (somewhat like science) and thus you need guides and blueprints to do so, which are what spellbooks are. There are other tales (Merlin, for instance) that involve learning magic through a patron, but I imagine the game would become unfair if Sabrina was able to bring her demon lord patron down to a fight whenever she needed help, so having it brought through a pet is probably more fair. Also in various mythologies, where people have learned wisdom from animals or gods or gods wrapped in animal-bodies.
3. I'd be pretty disappointed in the system that did it, and probably wouldn't play it. I know there's a lot said about crunch and fluff, but in the end it's a game of storytelling. If you want to just put your coins in, buy your upgrades and have an ever-increasing power creep, there are games for that. And RPGs aren't one of them.
4. Yeah. 3.5, made it so wizards had to find spellbooks or scrolls to get new spells, rather than being gifted a couple upon level-up.
4 - I actually would like to follow this model (and models like it), but I feel like the mage needs to be able to defend themselves while seeking spellbooks and scrolls. I'd prefer that cantrips and 'blasting' spells were simply class abilities that scaled with levels and that strange, world-altering magic can in the form of spells.
I still can't see how paranoia (by losing books, pets) helps to keep balance when the character is already a glass cannon.*Its very simple. If the Wizard spends 20,000 gp on protecting his spellbook, that's 20,000 gp he's not spending on making himself more powerful.
*Entire sentence included.
*edit* One thing I've noticed as editions have come and gone is the tendency to alleviate the "weaknesses" of the Wizard / Magic User. They now use 6 sided HD. There are feats and features that relax the grip of the spell book and other limitations of older editions. Then too, the ability of 3.x Wizards to construct a magical arsenal (made even easier by the removal of xp costs in PF) allows them to overcome most...Don't forget the certainty of having a spell disrupted when taking damage (as was the rule in 1e) vs. taking a Concentration roll (in 3X) vs. not even having to pay skill points to make the Concentration roll (in Pathfinder) vs. not even having to make the Concentration check at all (4e).
My initial questions were directed at every INT-based caster requiring physical storage for their spells, whereas other casters benefit from imprinted, inherited, or granted magic. It sounds as if you're unhappy with the wizard class, specifically.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One addendum to the 'prepared caster' style would be Monte Cook's UA casters. They basically pick their spells for the day, but can spontaniously cast the 'picked' spells.
If such a caster had a spellbook, the only crippling of the caster with the loss of a spellbook would be that they couldn't switch spells until they replaced it.