The GM is correct in this case. You do not gain your 2 spells per level for free. I agree that it is odd the wizard doesn't get two spells per level and the sorcerer does but thems the rules. Buy the spells instead.
- Gauss
|
No. The increase to his spellcasting level does not grant any other benefits, except for spells per day, spells known (for spontaneous casters), and an increase to his overall caster level. He must spend time and gold to add new spells to his spellbook.
—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10
So unfortunately, while your "Spells" class ability is raised, your "Spellbook" class ability is not raised. Look at wizard, they're two separate class features and Spellbook is the feature that gives you the two free spells per level.
Creative Director
|
Wow. That's a pretty strong overreaction.
While I agree that it's lame that wizards who prestige class into a spellcasting class don't technically get their 2 free new spells, that's not the "core element that makes the class worthwhile." I would say that being able to cast spells is that element.
It won't break game balance, in any case, to let a wizard who gains a caster level via a prestige class to auto-learn 2 new spells, though, and I wholeheartedly recommend that all GMs anywhere and everywhere allow this.
I do not wholeheartedly recommend overly dramatic messageboard posts that use phrases like "What a stroke of idiocy" or "I feel like stabbing someone," since those phrases can well encourage us NOT to pipe in with feedback or answer questions on the boards. Also... they kind of do a great job at devaluing and undermining any stance someone may have when they have a legitimate observation about how to improve the game.
AKA: Play nice!
Yeah, a wizard who's taken a prestige class doesn't get spells for free every level.
Dumbest rule in the game.
It's FAR from the dumbest, but it is very dumb. Also a direct reversal of how it worked in 3E. It's especially dumb because all of the existing PrCs for casters are weaker than sticking to the base class anyway... Savant's the closest to being the exception, and all the goodies it grants still isn't worth the lost CL.
Not to sound mean, but that rule just fine when the GM isn't as limiting as yours seems to be. Don't get me wrong, those scenario's can be fun, but they are hardly a good situation to use as a measure whether or not a rule is ok or "dumb".
In our games, the prestiged wizard will find scrolls, spell books and other sources for new spells. Once in a while we'll even buy him one or two depending on the task ahead.
|
Creative Director
|
Sorry about the drama.
In the game I'm in now the world is limited to a single city. Going by the old 3.5 DMG, the city would be somewhere between small and large. There aren't any wizards in the higher levels, at least not that would be friendly, and the DM is very stingy with gold. To give an example, I've been saving since level 8 to gain the funds for permanency of Arcane Sight and I still don't have them. Without gaining new spells as a wizard I will either not be gaining new spells, or at the cost of gaining any other wealth or items.
It would be easy for a DM to work around this limit and throw in a few more scrolls in the loot, but he shouldn't have too.
For most classes there are multiple goodies specific to the class. Fighters get High BAB + Feats, Rogues get Sneak Attack + Talents, Rangers get Ranged/TWF + Animal + 1/2 Druid stuffs, Wizards get Spells + School Powers.
Generally when you take a prestige you give something up for a payoff, something to make the character special. Fighters prestige to one with the same BAB but lose their feats , Rogues keep Sneak Attack but lose Talents. Wizards I can understand lose their school powers, but to also take a hit on their spell growth is overly damaging.
How could this rule be considered balanced while not limiting the highest spells of other comparable casters such as Cleric prestiges?
No worries about the drama, just wanted to make sure it didn't get out of control!
It sounds, first of all, like the game you're in is already not following the standard assumption we have here at Paizo for game worlds. Which is fine... but when a GM starts to change and adjust those baseline assumptions (such as the assumption that you can buy spells at any large town or city), it starts to affect other elements in the game as well.
For example, by making it difficult for wizards to buy spells, a GM artificially transforms the 2 spells per level element of the wizard class from a relatively minor boon to something that DOES start to look like a major significant class feature. The more that a GM changes the world assumptions, the more work he's giving himself—no way around that. If a GM makes it so it's hard to buy spells and still allows wizard PCs, he absolutely needs to be on the ball in making sure that there are other ways for that wizard to gain the spells he needs.
ESPECIALLY if he's running a published adventure that was built using those baseline assumptions that he does not use in his game.
So, in most games, the rule's relatively balanced because we assume that a wizard is part of a world where the GM is NOT stingy with money and does NOT limit the number of spells available for purchase.
Frankly, I think that, even though the wizard class isn't as bad as it was in 3.5, it's still one of my least favorite classes. Folks love saying/claiming that the wizard is the most powerful class, but every time I've seen a wizard in a long term campaign (these were 3.5 D&D games; I've not yet seen a wizard played for any length of time in a Pathfinder game), the wizard character has ended up one of the LEAST effective/LEAST powerful characters in the group because unlike most other classes, the wizard is taxed in order to fully realize his strengths—taxed in money because he has to buy spells and then pay more to record them in his spellbook, and taxed in time because he has to take time to write them in there. (It was even worse in 3.5, when those costs were MUCH greater, and they were also taxed in a third area—XP—just for using their bonus item creation feats).
Frankly... if I were going to play a character in a game where I knew the GM was being stingy with money and deliberately setting up a world where there weren't many powerful wizards (and thus not many places to go buy spells)... wizard would be the LAST class I'd choose to play. And that's not so much a problem with the game rules, really, but with the GM's choice to marginalize and adjust parts of the game without, perhaps, fully thinking through how those changes would impact things in play.
I think the problem in here is with your DM, I hate to see DMs that play strict by not making it fun to grant a normal, suggested and balance ammount of treasure, my Dm once noticed this and made a reset of the gold per level and mentioned we could make changes to Magic Items in that way because we were all over the place with gold and items.
Also, you can ask your party if they can travel to another city so you can visit a Library or a Wizards guild in order to purchase spells, which imo is the only way wizards can fill their spellbooks.