| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not forget that spellbooks make decent loot.
Alternate materials and protections are important for protecting your spellbook from the elements or water damage.
I have a Blessed Book that my character decided to write the most boring story ever into (think the Similarion Family trees) in mundane ink, and wrote all the spells over it in Arcane Mark. The idea I had was, if someone gets my spellbook, they will have to dispel the traps I put on it, and if they do, they also dispel all the spells in it and the book becomes worthless as it is an empty spellbook.
When you actually bother to care about spellbooks and spellbook mechanics, the wizard receives a gigantic balancing factor, and Cypher Script becomes and amazing feat.
Myself, I feel like any game style that basically ignores the weaknesses or restrictions put on spellbooks is the same kind of game that doesn't bother with an alignment restriction on clerics/monks/paladins/druids because it requires more work, doesn't make it not important.
OTOH, if they take it, dispel your traps (and the spells) and then you catch them, kill them and get your book back, it's useless to you too.Let's not forget that spellbooks make decent loot.
Alternate materials and protections are important for protecting your spellbook from the elements or water damage.I have a Blessed Book that my character decided to write the most boring story ever into (think the Similarion Family trees) in mundane ink, and wrote all the spells over it in Arcane Mark. The idea I had was, if someone gets my spellbook, they will have to dispel the traps I put on it, and if they do, they also dispel all the spells in it and the book becomes worthless as it is an empty spellbook.
Not really, Blessed Book doesn't cost anything to rewrite my spells in, and I expect that if someone else gets my book, it means I'm dead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back in the old 1e games I used to play in, wizards didn't get so many "free spells" just for leveling up, and couldn't just run out to the corner newsstand to buy scrolls for pennies. Pretty much the only way to get new spells was by copying another wizard's spellbooks.
This is often overlooked, but it was a MAJOR limiter on what wizards could do. Don't want to deal with simulacrum shenanigans? Make sure no NPC wizards have simulacrum in their spellbooks. Problem averted.
Maybe we were playing "wrong," but it sure made for a lot of fun when you found a new spell. Ransacking an enemy wizard's books was like opening presents on Christmas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a bit dismayed at the number of players who seem to never want anything bad to happen to their characters. In good epic story lines, characters have abyssal lows before reaching ultimate triumph.
When bad stuff happens...that's when the great opportunities for RP occur. It is at these dark times when you show your mettle and overcome in spite of odds and obstacles.
Spellbooks make for great story McGuffins. They can be a link to the history of your world (ancient books with long-forgotten spells). They are a reminder to the Wizard that great power comes with a price. They are one of the few things that hold real value to a character in the D&D world.
A wizard who has lost his spellbook is a great story waiting to happen.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a bit dismayed at the number of players who seem to never want anything bad to happen to their characters. In good epic story lines, characters have abyssal lows before reaching ultimate triumph.
When bad stuff happens...that's when the great opportunities for RP occur. It is at these dark times when you show your mettle and overcome in spite of odds and obstacles.
Spellbooks make for great story McGuffins. They can be a link to the history of your world (ancient books with long-forgotten spells). They are a reminder to the Wizard that great power comes with a price. They are one of the few things that hold real value to a character in the D&D world.
A wizard who has lost his spellbook is a great story waiting to happen.
It's a great story to read, but it's not a great story to play. You can create very compelling stories without screwing over your players by taking away all of their class abilities. Without a spellbook, a Wizard is a glorified commoner npc class. It isn't fun to play a commoner while everyone else is playing a PC class.
|
Back in the old 1e games I used to play in, wizards didn't get so many "free spells" just for leveling up
IIRC, you got a single "free" spell whever you gained access to a new spell level. So over the course of your career, you only got EIGHT "free" spells. And you had to roll to make sure you could learn it, otherwise you moved down the list to your next choice.
Other than that, a wizard mostly expanded their spell book by finding scrolls or other spellbooks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Genre convention. Same reason that there are still dwarves, gnomes, and halflings.
Not sure what you mean here, you don't really see people who use spell books everyday outside of D20 games that I'm aware.
2. World immersion. A wizard's game utility comes from his vast repertoire of spells. A library he doesn't have instant daily access to.
How does he not have daily access too it?
If it were all "in his head", he'd be a sorcerer archetype, not a class. Therefore, he needs somewhere to put his spells that's not "in his head", to make him a wizard instead of a sorcerer. (See below for direct response on this topic)
There are several dozen other differences; class features, class skills, flavor, various school powers, and various bloodlines so I don't think this holds up.
3. To create non-death risk for a sub-set of PCs. Actually, the whole group, since losing your wizard's spellbook is a major blow to the whole party. Assuming he only carries one (or they all get stolen).
That is my point, it isn't a risk really. If you use this you either A) have to give them another one/time to fix it or B) they aren't really a PC anymore.
|
|
It's a great story to read, but it's not a great story to play. You can create very compelling stories without screwing over your players by taking away all of their class abilities. Without a spellbook, a Wizard is a glorified commoner npc class. It isn't fun to play a commoner while everyone else is playing a PC class.
So essentially, you're advocating that the wizard's spellbook get metagame plot immunity. Should that apply to a witch's familiar? Can the witch simply toss her invulnerable cat at the BBEG and let it slowly whittle him down to unconciousness with scratches, without any risk to herself whatsoever? Does this metagame plot immunity also apply to a wizard's bonded object? Do the non-spellcaster classes get similar metagame plot immunity for any of their equipment?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but with the exception of the witch, no other class is as crippled by the loss of any piece of equipment. And the familiar can easily just stay perched on the witches shoulder or in a backback and be safe from all harm unless the DM decides to specifically screw over the witch.
A fighter can pick up a chair leg and fight if his weapon is sundered. A cleric losing a holy symbol can replace it for a few gp, or start with a trait that lets them have it a birthmark. If a wizard chooses a ring or amulet as a boneded item, then it's very unlikely to be sundered unless the dm targets it using metagame info. Also, wizards don't need to choose a bonded item, so they are accepting some risk if they do.
But all wizards are forced to carry a spellbook with them and study it each morning to prepare spells. Spellbooks are not well suited to adventuring. You have to swim across a river? well sorry, your backpack isn't waterproof and your book is destroyed by water damage. Ambushed while studying your spells at camp? Paper is pretty flammable, a spark cantrip or slash damage from alchemist fire will destroy it.
And what does a wizard get for this Achilles' Heel? The chance to learn a wide breadth of spells. But in practice, a Sorcerer is just as effective in any situation and doesn't have any of these drawbacks. A well built druid can be just as an effective blaster/summoner/controller as a wizard and be a front-line melee combatant and have more hit points, better bab, and no crutch of a spellbook.
The wizard is hamstrung by the sacred cows of D&D. The game has evolved past the need for spellbooks as a limiting factor, but the wizard is stuck in the 1st edition mindset of 30 years ago because that is the way it has always been.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You use them to keep your spells in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I do not care for them. I think the class would be a bit more balanced if they had a set number per level and no need of the spellbook. If you want to use spellbooks, go the 4e route and divide spells into spells and rituals and make a spellbook a must for rituals.
|
|
The spellbook is a lot easier to protect than a familiar, if for no other reason than you don't have to worry about making provisions for it's breathing, eating, drinking, and.... the other thing. Quite frankly, I consider this paranoia about spellbook loss to be overblown, because quite frankly it's far more likely that your wizard will be killed outright before his book is stolen.No, but with the exception of the witch, no other class is as crippled by the loss of any piece of equipment. And the familiar can easily just stay perched on the witches shoulder or in a backback and be safe from all harm unless the DM decides to specifically screw over the witch.
In most games it never happens, because most GMs don't target player items indiscriminately. If the entire party is imprisoned and everyone loses items that one thing, but I find the idea of making a multi-session story to recover a stolen or destroyed spellbook of a PC to be not fun for the player of the wizard.
But there are GMs who feel like a spellbook is fair game (usually the same ones who like making lose-lose alignment situations for paladins), and loosing access to spells cripples a wizard more than any other class.
Also, I find the entire premise of Vancian magic implausible. Outside of the Dying Earth series and D&D based games, how many wizards in the genre are limited to this kind of need to constantly read spellbooks? Gandalf, Harry Dresden, Alex Verus, even Harry Potter don't and I think they have more impact on the idea of wizard than the works of Jack Vance, but that's what were are stuck with because that's what Gygax and Arneson was reading when they made the game.
That said, I'm not suggesting to do away with spellbooks entirely, because like it or not, they are a sacred cow of the game. What I think should happen is a once a wizard prepares spells using a spellbook, they can cast that spell again without preparing it after 8 hours of rest, the book is only needed if changing prepared spells or learning a new spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a great story to read, but it's not a great story to play. You can create very compelling stories without screwing over your players by taking away all of their class abilities. Without a spellbook, a Wizard is a glorified commoner npc class. It isn't fun to play a commoner while everyone else is playing a PC class.I am a bit dismayed at the number of players who seem to never want anything bad to happen to their characters. In good epic story lines, characters have abyssal lows before reaching ultimate triumph.
When bad stuff happens...that's when the great opportunities for RP occur. It is at these dark times when you show your mettle and overcome in spite of odds and obstacles.
Spellbooks make for great story McGuffins. They can be a link to the history of your world (ancient books with long-forgotten spells). They are a reminder to the Wizard that great power comes with a price. They are one of the few things that hold real value to a character in the D&D world.
A wizard who has lost his spellbook is a great story waiting to happen.
I disagree. Some of the best games I've ever played involved situations just like this. Whether you are having fun in a game is up to you as a player. Sometimes it is great to wield cosmic power and bend physics to your will. Sometimes it is a blast to play the character stripped of all his major powers (you will always have cantrips) and forced to survive on wits alone.
Fun gaming doesn't always depend on a character being a Mary Sue. It can be fun to play in extreme adverse conditions - making the eventual victory that much sweeter.
YMMV
|
|
I think rituals (useable by any class) are a great idea. Were I in charge of Pathfinder 2E development, I'd basically move the overwhelming majority of non-combat related spells over to being rituals. Maybe have rituals work in a way akin to magic in Call of Cthulhu.You mean drive you insane?
Well, more of a "each ritual has a personal cost" type thing. Rituals that deal the one performing it ability damage or something along those lines.
|
|
Well, more of a "each ritual has a personal cost" type thing. Rituals that deal the one performing it ability damage or something along those lines.I think rituals (useable by any class) are a great idea. Were I in charge of Pathfinder 2E development, I'd basically move the overwhelming majority of non-combat related spells over to being rituals. Maybe have rituals work in a way akin to magic in Call of Cthulhu.You mean drive you insane?
That's one of the things I really liked about the Earthdawn game. In order to fully use any magic item, you had to complete rituals to bond to it, and most of those rituals required you to sacrifice a number of permanent hit points in order to unlock the extra abilities.
A fighter can pick up a chair leg and fight if his weapon is sundered.
Lolwut.
A RAW fighter, without his favorite weapon loses all its properties and can't even penetrate DR, loses the use of a number of his class features and potentially half his feats, and essentially can't fight -- at least, not on a level that makes him anything other than a convenient snack for the next monster that comes alomg.
Don't get me wrong -- I'd like it if what you said was true, but the way the rules are currently written it's not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a long distance between being a Mary Sue and being a competent, equal member of the team. A 10th level wizard having to go through several days worth of adventuring relying on cantrips and a handful of scrolls and wands, while the rest of the group is at full strength is not going to be fun for most people....
Again I disagree. Personal experience tells me otherwise. Perhaps if handled by a sub-par DM it could suffer. But I've run games for thousands of people and have very seldom had complaints. A good story is its own reward. So long as you have a great payoff, the "hobbled character" story line is a consistent hit.
Everyone always has the power to contribute equally to the game because they have the capacity to role play and enrich the story. Relative power in combat isn't a good measure of a player's ability to make a game session memorable and fun for all.
|
|
A fighter can pick up a chair leg and fight if his weapon is sundered.Lolwut.
A RAW fighter, without his favorite weapon loses all its properties and can't even penetrate DR, loses the use of a number of his class features and potentially half his feats, and essentially can't fight -- at least, not on a level that makes him anything other than a convenient snack for the next monster that comes alomg.
Don't get me wrong -- I'd like it if what you said was true, but the way the rules are currently written it's not.
It depends on how you build your fighter. Improvised weapon mastery is a single feat and goes along way. If you don't foucs on specialization in a single weapon, it becomes easier to carry backups if your main weapon gets sundered. A brawler can be deadly even if completely unarmed.
Just because most builds are dependent on a single weapon doesn't mean they all are.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Targeting the Will save of a fighter is actively encouraged.
Throwing the paladin into a situation where he's almost certain to fall is tolerated.
Inconveniencing the wizurd is something only a horri-bad tryant GM would even remotely consider.
Just to note, I find lose-lose alignment situations targeting a paladin to be just as bad for a game as targeting a wizard's spell book.
Targeting a low will save isn't bad at all. It's a temporary effect, there are feats and stat choices that can mitigate it, and every character (Except for some monks) have a hole in some defense - either will, fort, reflex, ac, or simple low HP.
It's a trope of the genre that wizards should have spell books, so they are in the game. But I don't feel that it's fair to loose all magic except cantrips and school powers if you can't read it each morning.
As I said before, my solution is to use spell books for changing prepared spells. But once a spell is prepared you can use it each day without preparing it again. You can keep you spell library at home to change your spells vs the demon of the week. But once you cast a spell, you don't forget it, but you can't cast it again until your body recovers from the stress of channeling the energy by resting. It lets wizards not be crippled by the loss of a spellbook while not stepping on the toes of the sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Almost everyone agrees that Wizards are super-powerful, and arguably the most powerful class in the game. This is close to the truth: they have access to the most spells, can know the most spells, and their spell list includes some of the most powerful spells.
Part of the balance, and part of the responsibilities of the class, is protecting the spell-book. When reading most of the wizard guides I have seen, all of the spell-book protecting spells are ranked as orange or lower. Why? Because it is not likely that you will have a GM target the spell-book.
Some players want wizards to be invulnerable, to be all positives and no negatives. Any intelligent foe will understand the power of a spell-book, and so they should order their minions to try to steal it, destroy it etc. And intelligent wizard will understand the vulnerability of a spell-book, and make sure that it stays safe.
The main problem comes from people wanting the game to be something that it is not :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the balance, and part of the responsibilities of the class, is protecting the spell-book.
I disagree. A Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, and Oracle can all match or surpass the wizard in terms of spell power without needing to protect the spellbook to balance them. Granted a wizard can learn more spells than the sorcerer, but the sorcerer casts more per day. Clerics, Druids, and Oracle can have spells from the wizard list through domains or mysteries and have options that no wizard ever will.
Wizard versatility almost never comes in to play in a game because of the lead time needed to prepare spells when you don't necessarily know what you will be facing. If you do know what you will be facing, you do have an advantage, but that advantage does not require loosing access to all spells as a balancing mechanic when other classes can warp the fabric of time and space as well as the wizard without that limitation.
It depends a lot on the game you're in. Some GMs will never target spellbooks, bonded items, or component pouches, and will even tell the players so up front. In those games, those items really exist only in a quantum mechanics sort of way--they appear real until you start looking closely at them. In all other games, precautions are necessary.
In my game, I have implemented a homebrew house rule re: wizards' spells and spellbooks. A wizard knows all the spells in his spellbook, regardless of whether it is in his possession or not. A wizard's mind doesn't forget a spell once cast, because that is not how casting works. The spells are mostly cast during spell preparation and finished with a few words and gestures when needed. However, casting spells from memory takes far longer than casting from a book. Rather than taking a total of an hour in spell preparation, it takes either two hours or 15 minutes per spell level, whichever is more.
Also (in my game), as wizards do know all the spells they have learned, it is possible to rewrite a spellbook from memory, but it takes a while and every copy costs just as much as the original.
|
|
Wizard versatility almost never comes in to play in a game because of the lead time needed to prepare spells when you don't necessarily know what you will be facing.In your games, you mean.
And even if you DO reliably know what you are facing, that advantage isn't worth the penalty of loosing access to all spellcasting if your book is gone when balanced vs other spellcasing classes.
There's a lot of roleplay potential in spellbooks, too. A spellbook says a lot about a wizard. My magus likes to doodle little pictures illustrating the use of his spells.
|
|
And even if you DO reliably know what you are facing, that advantage isn't worth the penalty of loosing access to all spellcasting if your book is gone when balanced vs other spellcasing classes.In your opinion.
Then explain to me in your opinion what exactly the wizard can do that a sorcerer/druid/cleric/oracle can't that warrants the extra balancing mechanic of access to a spellbook in order to prepare spells each day.
In games I run, fighters fairly quickly start gaining massive bonuses to leadership, administration, and warfare, while rogues gain massive bonuses to what would be called 'human intelligence' and trade. Both gain moderately large bonuses in the other's spheres, as they're '2nd best' in those areas (most other classes are 3rd, 4th, or 5th rate). Neither system is based on feats, skills, or attributes, but rather class abilities.
Would you be willing to share these mechanics? I've long been arguing for something similar, and given the typical reaction to my "heretical" proposals, I certainly never expected to find someone else who had actually thought to put something similar down on paper.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then explain to me in your opinion what exactly the wizard can do that a sorcerer/druid/cleric/oracle can't that warrants the extra balancing mechanic of access to a spellbook in order to prepare spells each day.
With an attitude like that, why should I bother? You've just been dumping your opinion all over this thread about how pointless spellbooks are. I doubt you'd even listen to an honest argument.
|
|
Is the incredible hostility towards this sort of thing a generational issue? Or is it that most of you have experience almost exclusively with capital-G gamists (where you get the book back only after you've had to suffer the requisite amount of time regardless of your preparations, akin to the GM exercising a Champions-style disadvantage?) or capital-N Narrativists (where you get the book back only once that section of the narrative is done?)?
I've peen playing since 1st edition in the 80s. In that time I have played at MANY different tables running many different systems. I've had incredible games and terrible games. Most of the terrible games I've had the misfortune of playing in were with railroading GMs who use Narrative as an excuse to screw over players. Forcing Paladins in to a Fall or Die situation, or destroying a mages spellbook at 8th level and then give a spell book with Color Spray, Sleep, and Knock in it as a repalcement. Or GMs who believe in random treasure rolls and no magic shops, so they give the fighter a +3 awl pike to punish them for specializing in longswords.
Most of these are the exception rather than the rule, but my point is if the rule exists, then there is a GM somewhere who is going to use it as an excuse to be a jerk to a player, and there is no mechanical reason to retain the limitation when compared to other spellcasters.
|
|
Then explain to me in your opinion what exactly the wizard can do that a sorcerer/druid/cleric/oracle can't that warrants the extra balancing mechanic of access to a spellbook in order to prepare spells each day.With an attitude like that, why should I bother? You've just been dumping your opinion all over this thread about how pointless spellbooks are. I doubt you'd even listen to an honest argument.
I'm not saying they are pointless. I am saying the mechanics for using them are too severe. I've offered a suggestion as a compromise on how to use them that is not crippling, and I would really like to know what advantage preparing spells give a wizard has that a well built druid or cleric doesn't have as well. I admit, I went into a tanget on Vancian magic in general, but that is a core of the game and isn't going anywhere.