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.
I agree that bombing a wizard's lab should hurt the wizard's progress and force some improvisation, but it shouldn't keep the wizard from casting the most basic of spells. The desire to go back home with newfound tomes and scrolls and pour over them should come natural to the wizard; they shouldn't be quaking with fear during the journey over whether or not they'll survive the trip. Inconvenient can be fun, but unfair pisses everybody off.
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.
Now that is a system I'd support. The wargaming aspect of RPGs is not why I play. It's good therapy, for sure, but I play (and GM) purely for escapism whether that means fighting off angry paladins, Victorian murder-mysteries, doomed horror escapades, modern-gang-war/Saint's Row-meets-Mage:Awakening, or far-future scifi scenarios.
*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...
I've always thought games should be tiered by the classes' capabilities. As an example:
I - mundane fighter, very generic thief/pickpocket, scholar with access to magic rituals
II - specialized warrior with pet, stage magician trickster, psychic investigator
III - angelic holy knight, high-speed ranged specialist, arcane 'mutant'
IV - stealth/black-ops martial artist capable of inhuman feats, heavily augmented magical juggernaut, unorthodox savant-arcanist
V - transcendant immortal monk, master thief with steampunk/cyber enhancements, cross-planar/dimensional reality manipulator
This way everyone plays the game they want; no 'waiting until level five' or 'let's start at 11HD today'.
Well how about this; Spells you gain from level ups are always available, (they came from experimentation and as you gained experience) hence you are familiar (like spell mastery, except less sucky; seriously who even picks that piece of trash feat?) All other extra spells must be transcribed to your spell book, since you are not so familiar with those spells, and you don't cast them frequently. This also applies at level 1 to the 3+int mod spells known as well, and cantrips, since they are easy to master (still limited by number of spells per day for cantrips).
That is a bit of a middle ground approach to the no-record keeping party and the keep-the-record-keeping party happy (I hope).
|
- 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).
Wait. Stop. Am I missing an inside joke? The Witch class, as I read it, is very much based on historical witchcraft, and as far as I'm aware, they didn't have "binder's vestige" back in Salem Mass.
wikipedia[/url]]Although both Good and Sarah Osborne denied the allegations against them, Tituba admitted to being the “Devil’s servant.” She stated that a tall man dressed all in black came to them, demanding they sign their names in a great book. Although initially refusing, Tituba said, she eventually wrote her name, after Good and Osborne forced her to. There were 6 other names in the book as well but Tituba said, they were not visible to her. She also said that Good had ordered her cat to attack Elizabeth Hubbard, causing the scratches and bite marks on the girl’s body. She spoke of seeing Good with black and yellow birds surrounding her, and that Good had also sent these animals to harm the girls. When the girls began to have another fit, Tituba claimed she could see a yellow bird in Good’s right hand. The young accusers agreed.
...as in, you know, a witch. There's more in those trial transcripts. Flying on brooms and the whole bit. Check it out some time.
|
|
It occurs to me that no one has said the obvious yet, so I'll bite:
Why not just use Sorcerers? Int based, with schools, no bloodlines, etc - but Sorcerers. Seems like that would fix the balance issue AND get rid of the books.
So, yeah, how did we get to 103 posts without that one being tossed out there? Or did I just miss the post some how?
Then let me clarify. My major issue regards people who treat the wizard like god while ignoring or, worse, demanding that anyone who GMs them help them ignore the weaknesses of the class.
I intended this thread to be a discussion as to why formula books, magic-filled familiars, and spellbooks might be considered essential to INT-based casters. I have never targeted a wizard's spellbook/alchemist formula manual/witch's familiar, but many players anticipate this. I've always focused enemies on casters (once NPCs realize they're casters and consider them a threat) in and out of combat. I've never seen spellbooks as a weakness as much as unnecessary rules baggage. Please understand that threatening an INT-caster's spell storage is an unusual choice for me as a GM and I don't avoid it out of any reverence for the class.
A distant second issue is that the game has made wizards even more powerful as new editions came out (for example, with the concentration issue I mentioned). This is an issue for me because whenever you increase a class' powerful relative to other classes, you decrease the diversity of adventures being played (because many people gravitate towards the most powerful class, published adventures tend to emphasize that class). Loss of diveersity means making my game more dull.
The fact that some people whine that a class already considered the most powerful in the game is getting it's disaddvantages played is just grating - like nails on a chalkboard. As for other Int-based classes, Int (due to it's impact on skill points) is heading towards becoming the most powerful attribute in the game. So, many players aggressively seek ways to base their class on Int (see Sage bloodline for Sorcerers) which, again, leads to a loss in diversity and an increase in dullness.
What class one person considers powerful, another considers it the weakest in the game. It all boils down to our expectations of the class, which are rooted entirely in our own fantasy preferences. Even if the majority of players consider Class-E to be the most unbalanced, powerful class available, that does not make their position absolute for everyone else. On a personal note (not seeking support, debate, and on), I consider the cleric to still be the most unbalanced, powerful class in the game; I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but that is how I feel based on the games I run.
And that's what all of this depends on: how each of us runs our games.
As for your issue with spellbooks, what irritates me, greatly, about the stance you've taken is that you've offered no alternative to restrict the Int-based caster's power once the restraining power of the spellbook goes away.
Once again, this thread was never intended to suggest alternatives. It was created to get a variety of opinions. I don't need forum support to run a character concept I want; I'm not even running a character as I'm nearly finished preparing Carrion Crown for my players. And my players were the ones who brought the issue up to begin with and at their request, I've dropped spellbooks/familiars/formula books completely. Now back to your statement: you've offered no alternative to restrict the Int-based caster's power once the restraining power of the spellbook goes away.
Yes I have. And the only reason I've given them was because you asked:
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 books
Then,
How would you replace the power limitations imposed by protecting spell books once you got rid of spell books?
I've posted this twice and this will be the third time I've posted it:
- 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.
If this isn't enough of a restriction, then you and I simply run two very different incarnations of Pathfinder. I'm happy to have your participation, but this is becoming less of a discussion/debate and more of an argument.
"Why are spellbooks, formula books, and spell-stuffed familiars necessary?"
Because knowledge is power, and knowledge is better preserved while written somewhere. :)
Beside, I like both the fluff and the mechanic of spellbooks.
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.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.
And how many chocolate pies can you recall right NOW (no, you don't have any time for digging through memories). That's how the sorcerers do it and they have a limit on their pie ricipes.
Wizards on the other hand haul their travelling book of recipes with them and quickly memorize pie recipes they think they'll need that day and prepare the ingredients to bake them when the pie throwing battle is imminent.
as far as I'm aware, they didn't have "binder's vestige" back in Salem Mass.
What about what's left of Giles Corey? (what... too soon?)
Just do what I did in my Homebrew setting and get rid of the wizard class, worked out well for me, though your mileage may vary.
A distant second issue is that the game has made wizards even more powerful as new editions came out (for example, with the concentration issue I mentioned). This is an issue for me because whenever you increase a class' powerful relative to other classes, you decrease the diversity of adventures being played (because many people gravitate towards the most powerful class, published adventures tend to emphasize that class). Loss of diveersity means making my game more dull.
Well.... AGAIN, I never played 3.x, but I think the wizards HAVE been a bit nerfed since 2E. They may have a lot of cool new options... but so does EVERY class. Rangers, druids, and bards for example are MASSIVELY cooler then their 2E counterparts.
However, between low DC saves for low level spells... The loss of save or die/suck, New Spell resistance rules... Spending money to write spells in your book... Still having to prepare ahead of time... My casters are REALLY having a tough time being effective. And when they DO the damage is usually cut in half from easily made saves...
Sooooo Wizards DO have their own limitations, My 2E wizard would stomp any pathfinder wizard I've seen in a heartbeat.
Honestly, I just have a hard time seeing a spellbook as a legitimate weakness. Messing with the book nerfs ONE character... 2 days from now.
And the arguement about back up books?? Where do people KEEP their back up books? If a thief sneaks into camp and rummages through your pack... won't he find BOTH books? Or do people have a tower or home base where you keep your spares?
Most of our games have been cross-country/jungle expeditions... having a book at home is like not having a book at all....
A consequence of this is that GMs will feel less guilty about messing with spellbooks (and, so, be more okay with doing it).Well how about this; Spells you gain from level ups are always available, (they came from experimentation and as you gained experience) hence you are familiar (like spell mastery, except less sucky; seriously who even picks that piece of trash feat?) All other extra spells must be transcribed to your spell book, since you are not so familiar with those spells, and you don't cast them frequently. This also applies at level 1 to the 3+int mod spells known as well, and cantrips, since they are easy to master (still limited by number of spells per day for cantrips).
That is a bit of a middle ground approach to the no-record keeping party and the keep-the-record-keeping party happy (I hope).
A balanced approach without additional magic item alterations; a sound suggestion.
Wait. Stop. Am I missing an inside joke? The Witch class, as I read it, is very much based on historical witchcraft, and as far as I'm aware, they didn't have "binder's vestige" back in Salem Mass.
...as in, you know, a witch. There's more in those trial transcripts. Flying on brooms and the whole bit. Check it out some time.
My comment about vestiges was a criticism of the witch's flavor and subsequent ability descriptions. When I read the entry, it screamed 'Hey guys look! Vestiges were cool, but let's call 'em Patrons instead.' This isn't even that big of a concern, just a nitpick.
Nothing about the witch trials interests me except what has been extracted as the popular conception of the witch: the hat, the cat, the pot, the laugh, the magical ability, and the broom. There were some interesting tibits in the article and I'm not discounting the source, but I don't wish to use that as the flavor for 'what a witch should be'.
It occurs to me that no one has said the obvious yet, so I'll bite:
Why not just use Sorcerers? Int based, with schools, no bloodlines, etc - but Sorcerers. Seems like that would fix the balance issue AND get rid of the books.
So, yeah, how did we get to 103 posts without that one being tossed out there? Or did I just miss the post some how?
As I said earlier, the thread was never created to seek advice; the original intent was to get a variety of opinions regarding a few specifics of Core rules and some associated inquiries. A few still answer some of the questions, as written, so I'm still responding. This is my fault for including a question in the thread name -- everyone assumes that's the only question and ignore the initial post.
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.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.
And how many chocolate pies can you recall right NOW (no, you don't have any time for digging through memories). That's how the sorcerers do it and they have a limit on their pie ricipes.
Wizards on the other hand haul their travelling book of recipes with them and quickly memorize pie recipes they think they'll need that day and prepare the ingredients to bake them when the pie throwing battle is imminent.
This weird example has put the imagery of a Three Stooges: Mage Edition pie fight into my head...
as far as I'm aware, they didn't have "binder's vestige" back in Salem Mass.What about what's left of Giles Corey? (what... too soon?)
No, too heavy.
I think you were using a lot of house rules in 2e. Magic resistance existed in RAW 2e. A Wizard who took damage while casting automaticcally lost their spell. Adding spells to spellbooks cost gold, by RAW. Saving throws were easier to make for mid to high level spells. 2E Wizards started off with, maybe, two spells per day and 1d4 + Con hit points.
We DID add a few spells per day, I'll admit to that... RAW was Brutal to those...
magic resistance existed, but was a bit more rare... at least at low levels. And while I havent' done a study or anything... I THINK I like the old x% resistance better then the caster level to overcome...
A wizard automatically lost his spell... but he didn't provoke an AoO just by casting one... That's a flip toss over which is prefered... I REALLY hate punishing a caster... JUST for being a caster...
Adding spells to the book cost gold??? I NEVER heard that before... and looking it up right now, I'm not seeing anything mentioned in the PHB... It costs insane gold to RESEARCH spells... You have to BUY scrolls... You need to BUY components... But once you have it, all I'm seeing here is making your 'chance to learn spell' roll.
|
|
A wizard automatically lost his spell... but he didn't provoke an AoO just by casting one... That's a flip toss over which is prefered... I REALLY hate punishing a caster... JUST for being a caster...
One major factor in that is the AoO didn't exist in 2E.
And it's not punishing a caster just for being a caster, it's enforcing the limitations that being a caster comes with.
|
Idea:
Say you want to make a wizard character. Instead of requiring a spellbook, why not put Spellcraft to use? At first level, you have "memorized" a number of spells equal to your INT modifier. You gain 3 bonus spells per rank of Spellcraft. One of these spells must be a specialist spell, or any spell in the case of a Univeralist.
Thoughts?
I know this doesn't address learning more spells on your own time. I'll get to that later. I just want to see how this idea pans out first.
A wizard automatically lost his spell... but he didn't provoke an AoO just by casting one... That's a flip toss over which is prefered... I REALLY hate punishing a caster... JUST for being a caster...One major factor in that is the AoO didn't exist in 2E.
And it's not punishing a caster just for being a caster, it's enforcing the limitations that being a caster comes with.
Beside, thanks to 5ft. step, AoO provoked by spellcasting are quite rare.
I removed some posts and the replies to them. Do not use the word 'retarded' in that way.
1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?
Solely the mechanic being necessary? No. I don't think the mechanic is necessary.
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?
Yes, I do. I probably could give examples, but I'd have to do research since I don't know any specific names off the top of my head.
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.
SUCK. The flavor is necessary for me, AFAIC.
4 - Have you (or has your GM/DM) made any house-rules regarding this? If so, what changes were made?
No.
|
1 - Do you feel that the spellbook (or equivalent) mechanic--not flavor--is necessary for INT-based casters? If so, why?
No, for several reasons.
I feel that it adds an added expense to casters that isn't necessary for anyone else to pay. Why do I have to keep my notes in rare inks that cost hundreds of gold pieces? Why do my "rune" spells that are a single word take up more than one page?
Additionally the spellbook makes a wizard's abilities tied to an item rather than their own skills. In fairness no other class has this restriction.
The spell book acts as a handycap that isn't balanced in sorcerers. In fairness, giving the Wizard a spellbook should necessitates that the sorcerer be given a ring or talisman that acts as a focus that they cannot cast spells without.
Some would argue that Sorcerer's have the handy cap that they can only learn so many spells, but really, that is balanced by the fact that they do not need to prepare them ahead of time AND get more spells per day.
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?
I think that it is very interesting thematically for wizards to be surrounded by books and feel that a wizard should have some penalty for not having access to their notes but the idea that they cannot even retain one spell per level, that they are reduced to "read magic" without it... it is too much of a handy cap.
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.
I think that their should be some way for a caster to invest in their familiar or spellbook (after all having a bigger library should have it's advantages) but I think that forcing a caster to be totally reliant on a thing that can be easily destroyed and costs a lot to replace should not be enforced. It is like taking away a warrior's sword and not letting them pick up another one.
Look at Arcana Evolved (a 3.5 book writen by monte cook) the magic system presented there is my favorite to date... in how the spell casting works anyway... I hate the power level of the spells themselves.
Honestly, the cost of a spell book isn't much when compared to the heavy costs a fighter or rogue faces early on. At later levels, when spells and scrolls become more costly, you should be earning a lot of money to help level things out.
As for the spell book being necessary, couldn't it be argued that few things are absolutely necessary? Spell books and familiars and such are there for class distinction and flavor. If you're not going to have wizards memorizing their spells out of their books, what separates them from Sorcerers? Nothing really, since they just have to choose what spells to prepare. They are no longer limited, and just remember and contain every spell. Sorcerers can do this because the magic is inside of them. Wizards need to rehearse their spells every morning, to make sure they remember the exact inflection necessary. They are capped off at certain numerical limits because the brain can only hold so much specific information all at once.
Spell books are pretty much what separates wizards and sorcerers. If you're gonna ditch the book, you may as well just start changing things like wizard armor proficiencies as well.
As for witches and their familiars, I admit I was a bit skeptical of this approach as well, but it gives the class flavor, which is nice, since we are playing a role playing game. If the flavor gets tossed out because, "there's no mechanical reason that it's absolutely necessary," it can really hurt the class distinctions and role play tools.
If you want to remove spellbooks, or want to dump the Spell Mastery feat 'cause you feel it's a tax, or want most wizards to be able to contribute during an adventure even if something happens to their book plot-related; consider this variant.
Spell Memorization: A witch or wizard can memorize spells based on their Intelligence score. A witch or wizard can memorize a combined number of spell levels equal to one-half their intelligence modifier squared (rounded down, minimum 1). Memorizing a spell may be done when the wizard is preparing the spell, and remains memorized until the caster chooses to forget the spell (see below). For the purposes of memorization, cantrips are treated as being half a level. The caster must still prepare the spells memorized but doesn't need to reference a spellbook to do so. Wizards may always prepare Read Magic, and it does not count towards spell memorization.
Spell Memorization and Ability Damage: Effects that reduce or penalize a witch or wizard's can temporarily reduce the level of spells the wizard can memorize. The wizard does not forget the spells entirely in this case, but cannot recall some spells well enough to prepare them. The caster must decide prior to preparing his spells again which spells he remembers clearly (by dividing up any remaining spell as desired among his previously memorized spells). If the ability damage or penalty is healed or removed, the caster recalls all the details of his memorized spells and can resume preparing them.
Example: A wizard with a +6 Intelligence can memorize a total of 9 combined spell levels. The wizard might choose to memorize 4 cantrips (2 spell levels), magic missile and mage armor (2 spell levels), and haste (3 spell levels). During his adventures he is captured and his spell book taken away. However, he may still prepare the spells he has memorized as normal, even without his spellbook.
Spell Memorization Levels By Intelligence
Int 14 or Less = 1
Int 16 = 2
Int 18 = 4
Int 20 = 6
Int 22 = 9
Int 24 = 12
Int 26 = 16
Int 28 = 20
Int 30 = 25
Int 32 = 30
Int 34 = 36
Int 36 = 42
Int 38 = 49
Int 40 = 56
|
|
I propose the following house rules:
1. Wizards no longer require spellbooks. The knowledge of how their spells are cast is burned into their brains, and can not be taken from them.
2. Wizards no longer are required to memorize/prepare spells. They can simply cast any spell they know, whenever they so desire.
3. Wizards shall, upon attaining a class level that grants access to a new spell level, automatically gain the knowledge of how to cast all wizard spells of that level that exist in the campaign world.
4. Spell slots do not apply to the wizard. If he knows a spell, he can cast it as many times per day as he desires.
5. Wizard spells are the first thing to go off in the initiative order. It is absolutely impossible for a wizard to take damage before he completes his spell, assuming a casting time of less than 1 round.
6. While casting spells with a casting time of 1 round or more, the wizard is protected from any and all adverse affects by the magic that surrounds him. As such, it is absolutely impossible to successfully interrupt a wizard who has begun to cast a spell.
7. Due to their magical nature, all wizards begin with a 20 in all six ability scores, before racial modifiers. If a character later multi-classes into wizard, their scores are automatically raised to this level when they gain their first level in wizard.
8. Wizards shall increase their BAB at the rate of +1 per level.
9. Wizards shall increase all three saving throws at the rate of +1 per level.
10. Wizards shall gain two feats per level, in addition to the bonus feats they gain for being a wizard.
BALANCING FACTOR:
If a wizard ever fails to call another character "Gimpy the Clown" instead of their actual character name, the wizard takes a -1 penalty on appraise checks for the next round.
|
|
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.
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) I think it's no more necessary for wizards and witches than it is for Druids (But I'd go as far as to say the druid should have the same spell progression as the summoner). I'd include Cleric, but their spell list isn't the beast it was in 3.5.
2) I think the book or familiar are good flavor, but not appropriate for every concept or every setting.
3) I've lost familiars, and I've lost spellbooks. As a wizard it costs me a fortune to maintain spellbooks - and by a fortune, I mean 75%+ of my total wealth. Maintaining a main spellbook and one or two backups for when you lose them is painfully expensive by RAW. If I'm a wizard and I lose my spellbook without having a backup? Unless I come across a big arcane library REAL quick, there's a decent chance of me either retiring the character, or HALTing the plot the GM is running to go off and replace the spellbook, which could takes months in-game. Removing them entirely? I dont like the flavor, but game-balance wise, I dont have a problem with the idea. At least your way, even with the ridiculous costs to learn spells, you wont have to pay it more than once.
One thing worth noting, is that in many groups, taking away or destroying a piece of gear owned by one character can introduce a Permanent wealth imbalance (many groups ensure that every time gear or profit is found, it's all divided evenly, based on gold value if it were sold), so you lose your spellbook. You come across a new spellbook, say. If you want it, you either put in the amount they could sell it for in town before the total amount of loot is divvied up (you give each other party member 1/x the sell price of the book - 1/4 for a 4 member party, 1/5 for a 5 member party, etc), or they take the highest appraisal to sell it and deduct it from your share of the total loot found in the dungeon/whatever. Now, if you can copy if and then sell it as group loot after, they will generally give you time to do so, in which case you're only stuck with transcribing costs.
[Side Note] Yes, that means that if youre someone who makes heavier use of expendable items than the rest of the group, the rest of the group will get better and better gear than you do, because you use your expendables too frivolously.
I wouldnt recommend stealing more than your share to make up the losses either: I'm also used to seeing the thieving-balancing factor of: if you get caught robbing the party, the penalty is death. I've seen a few new group members shocked when the (mostly LN and N) party give him a tribunal type trial and then execute him for his treachery. As the GM, its pretty entertaining plot, that I didnt have to work for. :P
- I guess what I'm saying is, balancing PC Gear is a difficult juggling act as it is, and having a class be so easily crippled (either in effectiveness or by losing all their wealth in one instant) doesn't help matters.
4) Lower/handwaive some of the costs (such as making it only cost for the book and ink to copy spells from a scroll or a book, and only making them have to worry about acquiring the spell, not the mountainous cost of scribing) is a nice houserule.
Not having limited numbers of castings of each spell is another nice houserule I've seen, but it steps on the versatility of the Sorcerer a little bit. (you prepare your say, 4 3rd level spells, and you can cast any of those 4 until youre out of spell slots that can take a third level spell.)
I've allowed wizards to leave slots unprepared, and so long as they leave a hand dedicated to holding their spellbook open (and have a free hand if they intend to flip between spells, allow them to prepare spells mid combat as a full-round action. That was pretty fun.
One thing I ALWAYS do, is handwaive the pages/spell requirements. 1 Page/Spell, for simplicity and reduced costs.
Finally, I really like the magic system in Ghosts of Albion, by Eden studios (not d20 based, but a similar mechanic using a d10). Anyone can cast a spell with the book in front of them (though for non-mages itll take minutes instead of seconds to do so), but spellcasters can do so with a gesture. But I really like that its non vancian, and has a sort of spell fatigue instead of spell slots. So if you can rest for a couple hours (or burn an action point) the fatigue goes away, and you stop taking penalties on your spellcasting rolls. There isn't a system like this for d20 that I've seen (yet) but I just might hammer out something similar, because I like it so much.
How are you losing spellbooks?
I see this is a group issue though. For many groups not having to worry about that spellbook would tip the scales in the wrong direction.
Back to my question. How do you losespell books, and at what level did it happen?
|
|
How are you losing spellbooks?
I see this is a group issue though. For many groups not having to worry about that spellbook would tip the scales in the wrong direction.Back to my question. How do you losespell books, and at what level did it happen?
Mostly Thieves, and Sunder. As for level? low level. I've had it happen at two, at three, once at five.
When you cant rope trick for very long, and likely dont have a portable hole/haversack.
Our 3.5 game has the Wiz stashing copies of the BOOK! amongst other players. My fighter has one worked into the frame of my backpack.
|
|
Our 3.5 game has the Wiz stashing copies of the BOOK! amongst other players. My fighter has one worked into the frame of my backpack.
Exactly.
You stash one on the fighter, or give it to your improved familiar that flies, can make itself invisible, and wears a heward's handy haversack (higher levels only).
You stash one in the major city, or somewhere nobody will find it unless they know its there. Potentially 10 feet inside the base of a mountain, through rock to mud and mud to rock, when you get it. But you know. Keep a well hidden copy that's not with the party, in case the party loses all their gear through a horrible disaster.
You attach a decoy spellbook on a light armored character like a rogue so he can bluff being the mage in dicey situations, and you carry a set of lockpicks. Then when youre captured, you use magic to get everyone out (since they took all the equipment, and you still hopefully have something useful memorized)