| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing in the core rulebook or any rulebook that suggests that the GM is in any way obligated to provide NPC wizards who will allow party wizards to copy spells out of their spellbooks for any price. There are guidelines for such a thing if it comes into play, but nothing that explicitly says this is the expectation or the norm. Many adventures (written by Paizo staff) even take parties far away from any possible providers of such services for long periods of time (I can think of one example that went a minimum of five levels). If that doesn't indicate that such is the not the expectation, I don't know what does.
Going outside of the rulebooks themselves to other sources of information on game worlds we also find little evidence to support that free exchange of spells (especially higher level spells) is the norm. Quite the opposite really, in terms of history. Thirty years of gaming and storytelling tradition paints wizards as private, often paranoid, enigmatic, and selfish in their desire for arcane knowledge and power. That isn't to say all wizards are or should be so, but it is an observation as to what tradition would dictate. Take a look at Leomund, Otto, Rary, Mordenkainen, Bigby, Tenser, or any other archmage from lore and tell me how many are on record as letting others copy their collections of arcane lore (particularly higher level spells) for a nominal fee. I think more often you'll find any and all sharing of arcane knowledge to be contingent on close relationships (master/apprentice, brothers in arms) or services rendered. The only real exceptions I can think of off hand are dedicated servants of Mystra in the Forgotten Realms setting - and even then they don't hand out powerful magic willy nilly to individuals they don't know. Indeed, there are many tales of those seeking arcane lore from key figures (such as Elminster) and coming up empty handed even in a setting that has its goddess of magic explicitly commanding her servants to share magic far and wide.
Further, I don't think it's out of line to suggest, as Justin did, that more personable wizards are probably more likely to secure (at least more easily) such services than those with poor hygiene, no social graces, bland personalities, poor features, or a general lack of ability to connect with others (take your pick as representative of a low charisma). Nor do I think it's out of line to suggest that when exchanging services that aren't exactly available to everyone, which come from a relatively small group of individuals, that the price may vary depending on how personalities mesh together. The closest modern analogy in the industrialized world is likely transactions of an illicit nature - where those who offend their 'seller' are likely to find they have difficulty procuring what they wish, or do so at a greater cost than someone who is friendly with them.
There's also a responsibility in sharing dangerous arcane lore - especially the kind that PCs typically want - that is similar to the responsibility most assign today to selling firearms - only amplified. A fireball has the potential to take dozens of innocent lives if used towards ill ends. It even has the potential to take dozens of lives if used towards benevolent ends if used by someone who is incompetent or careless. I've seen people turned away from firearms sales counters because they seemed off, or the seller got a bad feeling from them. A firearm does tremendously less damage than most spells of over second level do. Suggesting that someone might not want to sell them to the dangerous person who is more than a little off (dumped Charisma or Wisdom) willy nilly seems to break my suspension of disbelief.
Even if you do secure someone who is willing to share spells with another, typically history would suggest that it isn't so simple as walking into their home and picking out what spells you want, and simply paying a nominal fee. They have to know the spells you want, and you likely have to interact with them to a far greater extent than buying a sword from a smith or other source of direct transactions. They have to allow you access to their most valuable possessions (their spellbooks) for hours at a time to study then copy the results of a lifetime of effort for yourself. This is not as simple as going to the grocery store. It isn't even as simple as going to the local library.
Now, granted, none of this is spelled out in the rulebooks - if it did we'd be lugging around stacks of books thicker than War and Peace and Atlas Shrugged put together. There's an awful lot that doesn't fall into the category of explicitly published material that is left to the discretion of the GM - especially since there are many groups that might not want to put up with the headache of trying to pry spells out of a powerful wizard who doesn't trust them. Many groups get together simply to slug it out with monsters and play a lighthearted bear and pretzels style game. That isn't wrong, and the game that does immersive world building and interactions isn't necessarily better. Pathfinder leaves the rules open for both groups - and that's an accomplishment that should not be overshadowed by a minority of people who complain about how under a specific set of circumstances an option is inferior or superior to another. Pathfinder is a tremendously robust system that accommodates a wide variety of play styles to one degree or another.
That said, don't bring your assumptions about the game into a public forum and assume that they are some kind of universal standard by which balance and fairness should be judged. They aren't a universal standard, they likely aren't even a standard that the plurality of gamers adhere to.
Stephen, I don't think Kirth is downplaying your play experience - I think he's saying that your extensive play experience informs your playstyle more than the rules as they currently exist - and then suggested something he thought might help evaluate if the rules, in and of themselves, push playstyle in a direction other than your extensive playing experience pushes you.I have to agree on this point: anyone who started the game on Gygaxian dungeon-crawls is going to think of trapfinding as far more useful than a player who started the game with the much rarer and far less dangerous traps of modern Paizo APs. I think our early experiences with RPGs always tend to color how we look at the game.
Definitely true in my case. We still play PF, 4E or anything else essentially the same way we played AD&D (I still call them thieves, in fact). We expect far more encounters per day than the rules assume and far more traps along the lines of "find this or you're screwed".
They are a standard set out by the CRB and while yes there is some flexibility, I would say that their very inclusion in the rules means that borrowing spells is an expectation of the Pathfinder setting (Witches can do it to for further proof). I never claimed the GM was obligated to provide such things, but unless there are no Wizards in your towns (unlikely) then generally speaking they should be willing to share most spells for the listed price. A GM that would not allow a Wizard to take advantage of this fact is playing a very different game from what the rules suggest. If the GM wants to rule that only "personable" wizards should get spells, that should apply uniformly to all transactions and thus shoot Kog the Fighter in foot.
The rest of your post is random out of book assertions that are rather unhelpful. The general rule is clearly spelled out and under it there is a general price for borrowing books. If you want to cite some rules that indicate that is not an expectation, please do so.
I would say the group that does not permit this is the one not adhering to the general standard, not mine.
In your experience, clearly they have -- but I'd respectfully suggest that this may be an artefact of the fact that, in your games, that playstyle is already assumed by default, and that everyone is already "on board" with it.Well considering that my games, playstyle, and assumptions are based on over 30 years of play experience, 7 of which running organized play with the 3.5 ruleset, and over a decade of lurking on message boards, reading playtest feedback, teaching and introducing tabletop games to game design students (most of which grew up solely on computer games), and designing these types game experiences, I think I'm going to run with it.
But thanks for the advice.
This looks kind of snippy/sarcastic, just saying.
Also, I'm kind of sad that you've responded to pretty much everybody's post but mine. Makes me feel like that long response I wrote to your post was wasted. =/
Pretty sure I gave a few examples of how climb could be worthwhile above. Here's another - when you'r chasing someone and don't have the time to stop and cast a spell.
You don't have time to stop and use a Standard action that will overall increase your speed and nullify your chances of a failed check?
You mean other than the rule that lists the general prices? The one that's actually *in* the book? I'm not saying it must be that way every time, but as a general rule, yes Wizards can usually borrow spellbooks and usually pay a price that is equal to half the cost to write the spell into the spellbook.
That's not anymore reasonable then denying anyone with a low CHA from purchasing anything. I'm not sure what you mean by privilege or right in the context of a TTRPG, the simple fact there is a general rule for borrowing so generally yes you can copy spells as I described.
I skimmed through parts of the thread so I don't know if this was adressed. I don't think balance matters. Ultimately Pf is a social game. Balance likely only ever comes into play if someone fails thrier social skill check. Most of the people I play with have poor system mastery and other groups I've seen fall within this scope. Just understand your group paradgim and balance shouldn't ever be an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are a standard set out by the CRB and while yes there is some flexibility, I would say that their very inclusion in the rules means that borrowing spells is an expectation of the Pathfinder setting (Witches can do it to for further proof). I never claimed the GM was obligated to provide such things, but unless there are no Wizards in your towns (unlikely) then generally speaking they should be willing to share most spells for the listed price. A GM that would not allow a Wizard to take advantage of this fact is playing a very different game from what the rules suggest. If the GM wants to rule that only "personable" wizards should get spells, that should apply uniformly to all transactions and thus shoot Kog the Fighter in foot.
The rest of your post is random out of book assertions that are rather unhelpful. The general rule is clearly spelled out and under it there is a general price for borrowing books. If you want to cite some rules that indicate that is not an expectation, please do so.
I would say the group that does not permit this is the one not adhering to the general standard, not mine.
I cited thirty years of gaming history, the two most popular settings of all time, intentionally consistent world building and NPCS, and adventure paths written by the people here at Paizo. You've cited "you're wrong". You have absolutely no support for your position - and certainly not any more than I have for mine. Even with that disproportionate level of evidence I courteously gave you an out in my post, noting that no style of gaming was wrong or could assert it was the majority.
To be blunt, if you can't put together any more constructive a post than that I see absolutely no reason for you to continue to post on this topic. You aren't engaging in discussion, you are putting forth your personal views on how something should be as an example of what is normative. Any real discussion requires a willingness to change your position and evidence in favor of each position that can be scrutinized and reevaluated by both parties after that scrutiny. It requires you to actually examine the other persons evidence in good faith. There's nothing to support the idea that you are doing so here.
No one has ever said that a wizard cannot share spells. No one denies that the rules lay out a possible means for charging for it. We've simply observed that the assumption that there will be a wizard who will let you copy spells at a set fee with no increase or decrease based on character choices is not something supported by the rules. We've observed instead that the rules are actually open ended, and drawn conclusions based on the traditions of the game, on published supplements, and on what a reasonable person in the GM chair might have play out. You've responded by throwing a fit about how we're wrong, and how the game assumes such is the norm. It does no in any way shape or form, in the same way that it does not assume the GM will or will not throw you against enemy wizards who's spellbooks you can loot. These are additions to the game that fall within the power of the GM.
Aren't there like, libraries full of every known spell in Golarion? That anyone can pay a reasonable fee to enter and copy spells from?
I'm pretty sure there's one big one and like 2 smaller ones.
Just saying, I don't think your charisma matters too much when the only social interaction necessary is "Here's your gold, I get how many hours?", unless you for some reason rule that having a Cha of 9 or lower means you have South Park's rendition of Tourrete's Syndrome.
|
Wow. Another long thread of my view is right yours is wrong, so there. A lot of people play pathfinder, and can see, can't see or don't care about the obvious flaws in trying to assign some realism to a GAME that utilizes a series of random mechanisms to allow us to explore our imaginations and enjoy a few hours playing in a social group. The game has flaws as would most games ever conceived I would imagine. Most people address the flaws by communication and house rules (picking the pearls out as it were). If the system causes so much angst and resentment for you play something else - D&D next is coming, perhaps that will address all the balance and verisimilitude issues. Long winded threads like this are not an effect of balance issues but of people unwilling to let the last word go, or who feel their own opinions are inherently correct, or at least more correct than anyone else.
They are a standard set out by the CRB and while yes there is some flexibility, I would say that their very inclusion in the rules means that borrowing spells is an expectation of the Pathfinder setting (Witches can do it to for further proof). I never claimed the GM was obligated to provide such things, but unless there are no Wizards in your towns (unlikely) then generally speaking they should be willing to share most spells for the listed price. A GM that would not allow a Wizard to take advantage of this fact is playing a very different game from what the rules suggest. If the GM wants to rule that only "personable" wizards should get spells, that should apply uniformly to all transactions and thus shoot Kog the Fighter in foot.
The rest of your post is random out of book assertions that are rather unhelpful. The general rule is clearly spelled out and under it there is a general price for borrowing books. If you want to cite some rules that indicate that is not an expectation, please do so.
I would say the group that does not permit this is the one not adhering to the general standard, not mine.
I cited thirty years of gaming history, the two most popular settings of all time, intentionally consistent world building and NPCS, and adventure paths written by the people here at Paizo. You've cited "you're wrong". You have absolutely no support for your position - and certainly not any more than I have for mine. Even with that disproportionate level of evidence I courteously gave you an out in my post, noting that no style of gaming was wrong or could assert it was the majority.
To be blunt, if you can't put together any more constructive a post than that I see absolutely no reason for you to continue to post on this topic. You aren't engaging in discussion, you are putting forth your personal views on how something should be as an example of what is normative. Any real discussion requires a willingness to change your position and evidence in favor of each position...
I have the actual rule in the book and the fact that Wizard organizations exist, you've cited an adventure path that has a (temporary) drought of learning spells and not a single rule that suggests spells are hoarded. My view is how the book says it should be, yours is based on past gaming systems, I think its obvious which of these is more valid. The problem you are having is that you are letting the past shackle you when the rules have moved on...
No Anzyr. You have a rule that dates back to 3.0 and explains a possible method of sharing spells and the typical cost charged for it. You have nothing that says such is the universal reality. You have nothing that says the cost can't change. In fact, you actually have it written into the very same rule you are referencing that it is in no way absolute. But go ahead, cling to a single line of text out of tens of thousands of published pages that go against your interpretation.
I see no point in continuing to communicate with you, since it has become obvious that we are not actually having any form of discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Peter and Justin Rocket have the right of it. Anzyr seems to be failing all of the first three No answers on this helpful chart.
Peter and Justin Rocket have the right of it. Anzyr seems to be failing all of the first three No answers on this helpful chart.
Those rules are awful. Maybe if this was a formal debate, but rules for a mere discussion? Ugh. :/
Peter and Justin Rocket have the right of it. Anzyr seems to be failing all of the first three No answers on this helpful chart.Those rules are awful. Maybe if this was a formal debate, but rules for a mere discussion? Ugh. :/
If one party cannot alter their views it isn't a discussion.
If one party cannot alter their views it isn't a discussion.Peter and Justin Rocket have the right of it. Anzyr seems to be failing all of the first three No answers on this helpful chart.Those rules are awful. Maybe if this was a formal debate, but rules for a mere discussion? Ugh. :/
Discussion is just the PC word I use for informing people about how right I am.
If one party cannot alter their views it isn't a discussion.Peter and Justin Rocket have the right of it. Anzyr seems to be failing all of the first three No answers on this helpful chart.Those rules are awful. Maybe if this was a formal debate, but rules for a mere discussion? Ugh. :/
Of course it is. I often discuss things with people who I suspect arent going to change their mind. I might change my mind, so who cares if they're not going to?
.A discussion doesnt have to be competitive. Even if nobody is going to change their mind, you can still discuss things - you may well learn why someone is fanatical in their beliefs, even though you have no intention of joining them, for example.
If one party cannot alter their views it isn't a discussion.Peter and Justin Rocket have the right of it. Anzyr seems to be failing all of the first three No answers on this helpful chart.Those rules are awful. Maybe if this was a formal debate, but rules for a mere discussion? Ugh. :/Of course it is. I often discuss things with people who I suspect arent going to change their mind. I might change my mind, so who cares if they're not going to?
.
A discussion doesnt have to be competitive. Even if nobody is going to change their mind, you can still discuss things - you may well learn why someone is fanatical in their beliefs, even though you have no intention of joining them, for example.
Now don't you destroy people's superiority complex about how "they are trying to have a discussion, but the other side is so wrong that they clearly aren't"
If one party cannot alter their views it isn't a discussion.Peter and Justin Rocket have the right of it. Anzyr seems to be failing all of the first three No answers on this helpful chart.Those rules are awful. Maybe if this was a formal debate, but rules for a mere discussion? Ugh. :/
Also (as a demonstration of the lousiness of those rules) note that you just broke the third one.
There is rule. It says generally you can borrow a spellbook at the price of half the writing cost. <Fact>
Please cite a rule that suggest otherwise, otherwise I'd say your side is the one lacking evidence.
I meet none of the NO's on that chart. I am perfectly willing to change my mind if you would cite a rule.
My argument has not been shown to be faulty. I have cited a rule and no one has cited one rebutting it.
Lastly, as I have cited evidence I am quite prepared to abide by those rules.
I think fault lies with that "I have evidence from past games, but no rules" side. (Who oddly enough do meet all three of those NO's WarDragon.)
Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods.
A wizard can also add a spell to his book whenever he encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook.
In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells might cost significantly more.
Nowhere does it say that a wizard can generally expect to borrow a spellbook from someone to copy spells. Nowhere does it say that is an assumption in the game. Instead the rules say that generally speaking (if and when a wizard is allowed to copy a spell from someone) they usually carry a fee with a set amount.
Nowhere does it say that the set amount is the only amount. It even says exactly the opposite - that the cost may vary and especially that it might go up. To what extent this variation happens and when falls entirely within the purview of the GM. The rules do not spell it out. Fortunately we have decades of history, established campaign settings, and published books that detail circumstances in which these things do vary, how they vary, and ways to deal with it. We also have a human being sitting across the table who can and will play out these circumstances with us in real time. We have a human being who can react to choices we make as players - for instance to tank social skills and personal magnetism.
This isn't a problem. It isn't punishing a player. It is having the effects of their choices played out. If you make the decision to 'dump' a score there are consequences alongside your decision to bump your intelligence score (or whatever) and the benefits you reap as a result. Its a feature.
This isn't a problem. It isn't punishing a player. It is having the effects of their choices played out. If you make the decision to 'dump' a score there are consequences alongside your decision to bump your intelligence score (or whatever) and the benefits you reap as a result. Its a feature.
I agree. It also encourages inter-party roleplay, which is always a bonus. If your wizard is too curmudgeonly to convince the Archmage of Aquila to give him a peek at his spellbook, he can always bring along his silver-tongued gnome friend to help soften him up to the idea. Of course, convincing his rogue teammate to go along may require a bit of bribery, but them's the breaks. :D
This isn't a problem. It isn't punishing a player. It is having the effects of their choices played out. If you make the decision to 'dump' a score there are consequences alongside your decision to bump your intelligence score (or whatever) and the benefits you reap as a result. Its a feature.I agree. It also encourages inter-party roleplay, which is always a bonus. If your wizard is too curmudgeonly to convince the Archmage of Aquila to give him a peek at his spellbook, he can always bring along his silver-tongued gnome friend to help soften him up to the idea. Of course, convincing his rogue teammate to go along may require a bit of bribery, but them's the breaks. :D
Sure, or perhaps the wizard ends up doing a quest for the archmage in exchange for access to some new spells. They develop a long term relationship as a result, leading to more adventures and eventually a long term ally for the party that means a hell of a lot more than some random wizard kicking spells for a nominal fee. Maybe the whole party tags along, and the archmage agrees to do some crafting or something for them. Maybe later on during the quest to stop the evil chancellor from overthrowing the king Aquila is able to grant them a direct audience with the King.
That's more or less the model that's been used in my longest running game. My wizard had to run some errands for the powerful group of wizards in the closest large city. Eventually she earned her way into their graces by exposing a plot to murder one of their leaders. That provided her with spells all the way through level 12 or 13, when she started running into the limits of the spells they knew. Subsequently she's assisted a powerful archmage, saving his life and helping him reclaim his position of power after he was deposed by mutual enemies - which gave her a line on 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells for the foreseeable future. Both the allies from earlier and the current archmage have assisted in a massive two year long adventure involving overthrowing the government of said city and preventing a ritual that would destroy it.
It's about adding to the game and everyone's enjoyment. The less cut and dry the game is the more life it tends to have.
So you agree that generally a Wizard can borrow a spellbook to learn a spell a generally set price? Cause if so that's kind of been my point. I'm pretty sure the idea that CHA somehow has to do with borrowing spellbooks anymore then any other purchase to be completely unfounded in the rules, and as I said if a GM intends to rule that way, the Wizard can simply put his excess ranks into Diplomacy. The point is that borrowing spellbooks and copying spells is something that as you admitted a wizard can generally expect and will usually pay a listed price for.
(Still waiting on that rules citation that supports your position...)
Too much negativity here. Time for a time-out. Stephen, who has been active in this thread, may choose to unlock it after GenCon. Perhaps by then certain posters will start listening instead of just talking at other posters.