How is a wizard without a spellbook going to roleplay being one. Without a spellbook. Once he cast his spells. He can't re-learn them without spending a hour with a spellbook. Now it's different if a multiclassed Sorcerer. Some class choices can be roleplayed easily. Some not so much. All a Wizard can do is cast spells when he needs to. While fun roleplaying at first not so much because once all the spells cast. Your reduced to firing a ranged weapon or nothing at all. Or at most a skill resource.
Why can't you roleplay it? Or at least give the GM some indication so he can work something in?A wizard without a spellbook is not that bad. roleplaying is roleplaying... Your wizard who is so prideful and powerful and rubbing it in that the others are so far beneath him loses his spellbook... Maybe he will learn some humility... Maybe he will be constantly angry... maybe he accuses everyone of stealing it...
THIS IS ROLEPLAYING! Have your character grow organically rather than pouting because you cannot throw your customary 6d6 fireball every round.
...A wizard without his spellbook is literally a commoner. I think you are forgetting that this is a roleplaying game, not happy magical story time. The mechanics and narrative are interwoven into a cohesive unit, you can't just piss on one in the name of the other. If you do you lose out on both.
Why can't the GM just work something in when it happens, since evidently their the only one that's bothered by it?Anzyr, are you a GM? A GM works to make a cohesive world which has at least a dozen hidden parts under the surface, that is the GM's Job. The players job is not to play, counterintuitively, it is to create a Character, whom the player controls.
Why is it my responsibility to bend backwards to allow character to do something this character would have no way of doing with what they have shown me in an RPG?
I am (primarily). Your world has gunslingers (since you allowed the class) so the player is right in taking it. They don't need to justify it anymore then a Fighter taking another level Fighter. How does a Wizard taking Gunslinger affect your "cohesive" world? No really how? Keep in mind in your answer that this is game and not a novel you are working on.
While I agree it also depends on the players at the table. If they have a interest in doing that kind of roleplaying I work with them to achieve it. If not I can;t very well force the players to do so. It's a bit of give and take on both parties imo.
It is give and take. Yes. I totally understand that, and that's the point I wanted to bring across. If I ask a roleplaying group to roleplay and all I get is grief, I'm going to be angry as a GM.
If I am a character who puts in the extra effort to make my character and make him very interested in becoming a wizard 2 levels ago... and I finally hear tales of an evil necromancer... Then someone else levels from rogue into cleric, no story, no indication...nothing... I Would Be utterly pissed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like playing Skull and Shackles with a character who's got no interest in pirating. What are you doing there?
That kind of player behavior has not happened to me very often. But even I would not work to hard to incorporate such a player. A few months back I dropped a player who was pretty much the defination of a "lump" playstyle from the GMG. He loved playing Palladium rpgs and when it came to those rpgs he would come up with the best backgrounds. Any other rpgs he was lazy as heck. Simply stating "make me a character". No input or help. After a certain point I had enough.
That being said I do wish posters would stop using such extreme examples. Really how often does a player join a pirate themed campaign with the intention of not playing a pirate.
Actually there is a sizable number of players out there that do just that. These entitlement players often think that even though the majority of the group wanted to play one theme they will go out of their way to try to make a character that forces the game in another direction completely. Fortunately most of these players are online players, making them easy to ban and replace... unfortunately that anonymity means they can get away with simply making a new account and playing that way. ~sigh~
...A wizard without his spellbook is literally a commoner. I think you are forgetting that this is a roleplaying game, not happy magical story time. The mechanics and narrative are interwoven into a cohesive unit, you can't just piss on one in the name of the other. If you do you lose out on both.
So? A barbarian is out of RAGE!!!! and his axe is broken, he has no armor... Isn't that a commoner?
A rogue is cursed so that every sound he makes is magnified ten times when he tries to sneak... and he is all alone so no flanking... Isn't that a commoner?
Its not so much that it is a roleplaying game as it is a roleplaying game
How does your unarmed and exhausted barbarian act? that is roleplaying an unarmed and exhausted barbarian in a situation where an unarmed and exhausted barbarian exists.
How does your spellbookless wizard act in the situation where your wizard has had his spellbook stolen?
Yeah, your wizard is not at his peak effectiveness, but I have never seen a level 1 commoner wearing a Robe of Ethereal Jaunt, and decking people with a Staff of Elemental Magic...
Maybe he has been arrested and must now talk to the jailers and try to convince them to set him free... without mind controlling them and just walking out... NOT EVERYTHING IS COMBAT
While I agree it also depends on the players at the table. If they have a interest in doing that kind of roleplaying I work with them to achieve it. If not I can;t very well force the players to do so. It's a bit of give and take on both parties imo.
Have the character Act like a person... People have to learn things. I just think that people should roleplay at least an interest in something before they are bestowed powers from the rulebook...Honestly, if the players aren't going to give at least a little roleplaying, I'm not interested in GMing for them.
Nor am I interested in playing without RP being a big part of it.
It may come down to irreconcilable differences.
It comes down to you thinking of your campaign as to much of a novel and to little of a game, unless there's some more valid reason beyond "I don't like it."
...A wizard without his spellbook is literally a commoner. I think you are forgetting that this is a roleplaying game, not happy magical story time. The mechanics and narrative are interwoven into a cohesive unit, you can't just piss on one in the name of the other. If you do you lose out on both.So? A barbarian is out of RAGE!!!! and his axe is broken, he has no armor... Isn't that a commoner?
No, Barbarian has higher BAB, better saves, Bigger HD, more skills, DR, Fast move, Uncanny Dodge and trap sense. Please try again.
Understood. I do expect some of the above to happen. One also has to be careful how long one drags out such roleplaying. If I multiclass into a Wizard and roleplay it. I expect to get a spellbook within 3-5 game session. Or simply ask if I could just be a single classed character. There is a fine line between roleplaying and feeling useless at the table. If I multiclassed into a fighter while being a Rogue. Without better armor I'm not going to charge into combat. While roleplaying is all well and good I don't play sucidal characters fro any DM.
You don't seem to understand my point in that section of the post... I'm not asking for much. For your Rogue to Fighter example... If there is a fighter in the group, or even a ranger, or /SOMEONE/ the captain of the guard of the main town... the barbarian bandit that they befriended... Have the rogue talk to them about, "What is it like to swing around such a massive weapon?" "How do you survive combat when you are being hit that much?"
Do it up front.
It's not "How long will I have to roleplay a wizard without a spellbook", it's "I should roleplay wanting to learn magic and find myself a spellbook" before taking that wizard level.
You get your spellbook free by taking that level. Don't confuse "Roleplaying Game" with "Fantasy Novel".
Contributor
|
Why can't the GM just work something in when it happens, since evidently their the only one that's bothered by it?1) I'm bothered by it as a player too. Characters that are just build and no logic or motivation. Character developments that come out of the blue, just for build reasons at the last moment. Sudden alignment changes to allow class switches particularly annoy me. Again whether I'm playing or GMing. Luckily, I don't see it very often.
2) "Poof! A Mysterious Stranger appears in camp tonight and spends the evening teaching you how to shoot and repair guns. He's gone in the morning, but leaves you a battered pistol."
Yeah. Sure. Whatever. Mind you, give me some warning on it and I'll try to work something in. If it makes any sense at all.Guns are hard because it's really hard for me to justify gunslingers wandering around willing to teach total strangers their country's military secrets. And for those secrets to still stay secret.
We actually had #1 up there too, in CotCT GM's last campaign (Age of Worms). The GM in question allowed total rebuilding at every level-up. One guy was playing a kobold rogue at the start. A few levels in, out of nowhere, kobold PALADIN! I left that campaign for personal reasons shortly before that, but apparently he flipped again a couple of levels later. Kobold druid, now, out of nowhere. As someone who tries to play rich, complex characters as part of an ongoing story, that sort of thing would bother me, since it completely twists the suspension of disbelief. I would at least ask why and try to play it into the story. Since gunslinger is apparently the hot issue, if a player knew they wanted that in advance, I'd try to set it up. I might allow the spontaneous multiclass, but I might not give them the battered pistol out of nowhere mid-dungeon. It all depends.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am (primarily). Your world has gunslingers (since you allowed the class) so the player is right in taking it. They don't need to justify it anymore then a Fighter taking another level Fighter. How does a Wizard taking Gunslinger affect your "cohesive" world? No really how? Keep in mind in your answer that this is game and not a novel you are working on.
Perfect. To answer your statement/questions in order.
Why do they need to justify it more than a fighter taking another level in fighting? Because they are doing something inherently different than what they have shown me before.
I am a fighter, I wear heavy armor and swing a sword... "Okay, what does your next level do?" I fight, wear armor and swing a sword... "Okay, that makes sense."
"Wizard, what do you do?" I master the secrets of the arcane and cast spells, "Okay, what does your next level do?" Shoot guns. "Ummmm... where did you get this knowledge of gunplay?" The game allows me to do this. I just want to shoot stuff.
(This is the noise of shattering the carefully constructed suspension of disbelief I have spent the past ten gaming sessions creating.)
We actually had #1 up there too, in CotCT GM's last campaign (Age of Worms). The GM in question allowed total rebuilding at every level-up. One guy was playing a kobold rogue at the start. A few levels in, out of nowhere, kobold PALADIN! I left that campaign for personal reasons shortly before that, but apparently he flipped again a couple of levels later. Kobold druid, now, out of nowhere. As someone who tries to play rich, complex characters as part of an ongoing story, that sort of thing would bother me, since it completely twists the suspension of disbelief. I would at least ask why and try to play it into the story. Since gunslinger is apparently the hot issue, if a player knew they wanted that in advance, I'd try to set it up. I might allow the spontaneous multiclass, but I might not give them the battered pistol out of nowhere mid-dungeon. It all depends.Why can't the GM just work something in when it happens, since evidently their the only one that's bothered by it?1) I'm bothered by it as a player too. Characters that are just build and no logic or motivation. Character developments that come out of the blue, just for build reasons at the last moment. Sudden alignment changes to allow class switches particularly annoy me. Again whether I'm playing or GMing. Luckily, I don't see it very often.
2) "Poof! A Mysterious Stranger appears in camp tonight and spends the evening teaching you how to shoot and repair guns. He's gone in the morning, but leaves you a battered pistol."
Yeah. Sure. Whatever. Mind you, give me some warning on it and I'll try to work something in. If it makes any sense at all.Guns are hard because it's really hard for me to justify gunslingers wandering around willing to teach total strangers their country's military secrets. And for those secrets to still stay secret.
Feel the tyranny! Let it flow through you!
No, Barbarian has higher BAB, better saves, Bigger HD, more skills, DR, Fast move, Uncanny Dodge and trap sense. Please try again.
...A wizard without his spellbook is literally a commoner. I think you are forgetting that this is a roleplaying game, not happy magical story time. The mechanics and narrative are interwoven into a cohesive unit, you can't just piss on one in the name of the other. If you do you lose out on both.So? A barbarian is out of RAGE!!!! and his axe is broken, he has no armor... Isn't that a commoner?
Wizard has higher BAB, Better Saves, more HD, more skills, Familiar/Bonded Item, Scribe Scroll, Feats, and a partridge in a pear tree... Please try again.
If gunslingers are only driving you crazy because of the 'gun' part, why don't you just tell the player to refluff it as a crossbow user?
Unless crossbows are only available in one part of your setting too, in which case use a different ranged weapon.
I have no idea why everyone keeps bringing up gunslinger... it makes no sense at all in any situation. They want to play, "My character takes a level in 'Didgeridoo Player' and viola they have the extraordinary ability to please crowds of people." Does it matter that they were a hermit character that only has levels in Knight? Nope.
It comes down to you thinking of your campaign as to much of a novel and to little of a game, unless there's some more valid reason beyond "I don't like it."While I agree it also depends on the players at the table. If they have a interest in doing that kind of roleplaying I work with them to achieve it. If not I can;t very well force the players to do so. It's a bit of give and take on both parties imo.
Have the character Act like a person... People have to learn things. I just think that people should roleplay at least an interest in something before they are bestowed powers from the rulebook...Honestly, if the players aren't going to give at least a little roleplaying, I'm not interested in GMing for them.
Nor am I interested in playing without RP being a big part of it.
It may come down to irreconcilable differences.
Maybe it's you thinking of it too much like a game and too little like a novel.
But I guess I have no right to GM or play the way I enjoy.
That's because it is 100% a game and 0% a novel. I think maybe we've found the issue here.
Wizard has higher BAB, Better Saves, more HD, more skills, Familiar/Bonded Item, Scribe Scroll, Feats, and a partridge in a pear tree... Please try again.
Wizards do not have better BAB or HD than a Commoner of the same level.
They do, however, have the ability to use wands and scrolls, so a bookless Wizard would be a lot more useful to the average group.
Wizard has higher BAB, Better Saves, more HD, more skills, Familiar/Bonded Item, Scribe Scroll, Feats, and a partridge in a pear tree... Please try again.No, Barbarian has higher BAB, better saves, Bigger HD, more skills, DR, Fast move, Uncanny Dodge and trap sense. Please try again.
...A wizard without his spellbook is literally a commoner. I think you are forgetting that this is a roleplaying game, not happy magical story time. The mechanics and narrative are interwoven into a cohesive unit, you can't just piss on one in the name of the other. If you do you lose out on both.So? A barbarian is out of RAGE!!!! and his axe is broken, he has no armor... Isn't that a commoner?
You might want to check Commoners HD, BAB, and Skills again. And yes I'm sure Scribe Scroll comes in very handy when you have no spells. So yes, the Wizard has some class features, but is significantly more like a commoner without their spellbook then a barbarian is without their rage.
Cryptic'd by Matthew Downie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's because it is 100% a game and 0% a novel. I think maybe we've found the issue here.
Role-playing games are often considered a form of collaborative storytelling.
If your campaign story achieves the level of a novel, without breaking the 'game' aspect, you've done well.
If you're not going to even try to make a story, I'd rather play boardgames.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's because it is 100% a game and 0% a novel. I think maybe we've found the issue here.Role-playing games are often considered a form of collaborative storytelling.
If your campaign story achieves the level of a novel, without breaking the 'game' aspect, you've done well.
If you're not going to even try to make a story, I'd rather play boardgames.
RPGs are storytelling. Not Novel writing. There is a difference. I can make a story, but that story conforms to the needs of the game, not the needs of a novel. And the needs of the game say that a person who multiclasses into Wizard is assumed to have been trained and gets a free spellbook.
That's because it is 100% a game and 0% a novel. I think maybe we've found the issue here.
What? No seriously... What?
Have you read the story of Hercules? There are gods and goddesses, quests, fighting terrible monsters, memorable characters... How is this not exactly like a typical game of pathfinder?
How about Lord of the Rings. Would anyone have just gone... 'Wait what?' if Frodo had pulled out a bow and arrow and started doing Legolas' things.
What about Gimli? if Gimli started casting spells, OUT OF THE BLUE, no build-up, no explaination, would you not have paused right there and gone... "Did anyone else see that?"
You get your spellbook free by taking that level. Don't confuse "Roleplaying Game" with "Fantasy Novel".Understood. I do expect some of the above to happen. One also has to be careful how long one drags out such roleplaying. If I multiclass into a Wizard and roleplay it. I expect to get a spellbook within 3-5 game session. Or simply ask if I could just be a single classed character. There is a fine line between roleplaying and feeling useless at the table. If I multiclassed into a fighter while being a Rogue. Without better armor I'm not going to charge into combat. While roleplaying is all well and good I don't play sucidal characters fro any DM.
You don't seem to understand my point in that section of the post... I'm not asking for much. For your Rogue to Fighter example... If there is a fighter in the group, or even a ranger, or /SOMEONE/ the captain of the guard of the main town... the barbarian bandit that they befriended... Have the rogue talk to them about, "What is it like to swing around such a massive weapon?" "How do you survive combat when you are being hit that much?"
Do it up front.
It's not "How long will I have to roleplay a wizard without a spellbook", it's "I should roleplay wanting to learn magic and find myself a spellbook" before taking that wizard level.
Definitely irreconcilable differences.
Does it just pop into existence in your Inventory when you become a wizard?Don't confuse Pathfinder with a video game.
Yes, it just shows up in my inventory. And is assumed I've been carrying it all along.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's because it is 100% a game and 0% a novel. I think maybe we've found the issue here.What? No seriously... What?
Have you read the story of Hercules? There are gods and goddesses, quests, fighting terrible monsters, memorable characters... How is this not exactly like a typical game of pathfinder?
How about Lord of the Rings. Would anyone have just gone... 'Wait what?' if Frodo had pulled out a bow and arrow and started doing Legolas' things.
What about Gimli? if Gimli started casting spells, OUT OF THE BLUE, no build-up, no explaination, would you not have paused right there and gone... "Did anyone else see that?"
The story of Hercules is not a game of Pathfinder. They have very different goals, with one being a story and the other being a game. If Gimli started casting spells out of the blue it would be bad for a fantasy novel. It would however, be very good for a game. The two mediums are different and distinct. I advise you separate them to improve your enjoyment of the game or the quality of your novel, whichever you prefer.
Yes, it just shows up in my inventory. And is assumed I've been carrying it all a long.You get your spellbook free by taking that level. Don't confuse "Roleplaying Game" with "Fantasy Novel".Understood. I do expect some of the above to happen. One also has to be careful how long one drags out such roleplaying. If I multiclass into a Wizard and roleplay it. I expect to get a spellbook within 3-5 game session. Or simply ask if I could just be a single classed character. There is a fine line between roleplaying and feeling useless at the table. If I multiclassed into a fighter while being a Rogue. Without better armor I'm not going to charge into combat. While roleplaying is all well and good I don't play sucidal characters fro any DM.Do it up front.
It's not "How long will I have to roleplay a wizard without a spellbook", it's "I should roleplay wanting to learn magic and find myself a spellbook" before taking that wizard level.
Definitely irreconcilable differences.
Does it just pop into existence in your Inventory when you become a wizard?Don't confuse Pathfinder with a video game.
So this entire kerfluffle is just about refusing to mention it before hand?
Or are you complaining about the 15 gp?
Both.
You get your spellbook free by taking that level. Don't confuse "Roleplaying Game" with "Fantasy Novel".A wizard character created at first level starts play with a spellbook. Characters who acquire a wizard level during the course of play do not. You get your spellbook when the opportunity arises to get it. It does not simply appear out of thin air. I has to be acquired, in game. (As in purchased and enscribed. Blank spellbooks are on the equipment list.)
If spellbooks appeared simply because a wizard was a wizard, they could never be taken away.
The same goes for levels of other classes. If your character has never met a gunslinger, you'd never have the opportunity to learn to be one.
Giving the GM a story about events that never happened in the game (after the game has been running long enough to gain levels) isn't "creating backstory". It's making stuff up to benefit your character without actually earning it.
Incorrect. Having a spellbook containing "all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his opposed schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice" is part of the Wizard's spells class feature. "begins play" does not mean only if you started at level 1. After all the gunslinger now "begins play" as a level 1 Wizard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RPGs are storytelling. Not Novel writing. There is a difference. I can make a story, but that story conforms to the needs of the game, not the needs of a novel. And the needs of the game say that a person who multiclasses into Wizard is assumed to have been trained and gets a free spellbook.
A player multiclassing into an entirely new skillset without any foreshadowing and a spellbook appearing out of nowhere is one option. But as a player why wouldn't you want to make the effort to justify your character's new abilities? Storytelling is better if you actually tell a story.
(Reverse Stormwind Fallacy: the idea that any attempt to add character depth will negatively impact your gaming skills.)
RPGs are storytelling. Not Novel writing. There is a difference. I can make a story, but that story conforms to the needs of the game, not the needs of a novel. And the needs of the game say that a person who multiclasses into Wizard is assumed to have been trained and gets a free spellbook.A player multiclassing into an entirely new skillset without any foreshadowing and a spellbook appearing out of nowhere is one option. But as a player why wouldn't you want to make the effort to justify your character's new abilities? Storytelling is better if you actually tell a story.
(Reverse Stormwind Fallacy: the idea that any attempt to add character depth will negatively impact your gaming skills.)
I'm not saying attempts to add depth will ruin your game. I'm saying *being forced* to add depth will ruin your game. If the player is happy with their explanation, why aren't you? It is *their* character remember.
The story of Hercules is not a game of Pathfinder. They have very different goals, with one being a story and the other being a game. If Gimli started casting spells out of the blue it would be bad for a fantasy novel. It would however, be very good for a game. The two mediums are different and distinct. I advise you separate them to improve your enjoyment of the game or the quality of your novel, whichever you prefer.That's because it is 100% a game and 0% a novel. I think maybe we've found the issue here.What? No seriously... What?
Have you read the story of Hercules? There are gods and goddesses, quests, fighting terrible monsters, memorable characters... How is this not exactly like a typical game of pathfinder?
How about Lord of the Rings. Would anyone have just gone... 'Wait what?' if Frodo had pulled out a bow and arrow and started doing Legolas' things.
What about Gimli? if Gimli started casting spells, OUT OF THE BLUE, no build-up, no explaination, would you not have paused right there and gone... "Did anyone else see that?"
It would ruin my game. And probably make me walk out. (Assuming it would actually be presented as you're doing so here, rather than given some plausible rationale - which is all anyone is asking for.)
OTOH, turning the game into a novel and removing the game elements from it would also ruin my game and cause me to walk out.
I completely reject your premise. Though I don't have anything against you playing that way. The idea that it's the right way for everyone is simply wrong.
The plausible rationale is whatever you want it to be. "Was trained by a wanderer skilled at that." is good enough. "Was part of my background experiences." is good enough. If it is good enough for the player it is good enough for the game. If it bothers the GM, they come up with something the player is ok with. Full stop.
Incorrect. Having a spellbook containing "all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his opposed schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice" is part of the Wizard's spells class feature. "begins play" does not mean only if you started at level 1. After all the gunslinger now "begins play" as a level 1 Wizard.You get your spellbook free by taking that level. Don't confuse "Roleplaying Game" with "Fantasy Novel".A wizard character created at first level starts play with a spellbook. Characters who acquire a wizard level during the course of play do not. You get your spellbook when the opportunity arises to get it. It does not simply appear out of thin air. I has to be acquired, in game. (As in purchased and enscribed. Blank spellbooks are on the equipment list.)
If spellbooks appeared simply because a wizard was a wizard, they could never be taken away.
The same goes for levels of other classes. If your character has never met a gunslinger, you'd never have the opportunity to learn to be one.
Giving the GM a story about events that never happened in the game (after the game has been running long enough to gain levels) isn't "creating backstory". It's making stuff up to benefit your character without actually earning it.
Incorrect Again
Starting Spells (See Spellbooks below): A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his opposed schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice. The wizard also selects a number of additional 1st-level spells equal to his Intelligence modifier to add to the spellbook. At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards' spellbooks to his own (see Magic).
After play has begun, Read as "First session of play" Any wizard levels do not magically generate spellbooks
Incorrect. Having a spellbook containing "all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his opposed schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice" is part of the Wizard's spells class feature. "begins play" does not mean only if you started at level 1. After all the gunslinger now "begins play" as a level 1 Wizard.You get your spellbook free by taking that level. Don't confuse "Roleplaying Game" with "Fantasy Novel".A wizard character created at first level starts play with a spellbook. Characters who acquire a wizard level during the course of play do not. You get your spellbook when the opportunity arises to get it. It does not simply appear out of thin air. I has to be acquired, in game. (As in purchased and enscribed. Blank spellbooks are on the equipment list.)
If spellbooks appeared simply because a wizard was a wizard, they could never be taken away.
The same goes for levels of other classes. If your character has never met a gunslinger, you'd never have the opportunity to learn to be one.
Giving the GM a story about events that never happened in the game (after the game has been running long enough to gain levels) isn't "creating backstory". It's making stuff up to benefit your character without actually earning it.
Incorrect Again
Yes, they do. You are beginning play as a Wizard whenever you take your first Wizard level. Please try again.
If it is good enough for the player it is good enough for the game.
I disagree! If it's not good enough for the GM and the other players, it's not good enough for the game!
If it bothers the GM, they come up with something the player is ok with.
OK - I'm happy with that compromise solution.
Yes, they do. You are beginning play as a Wizard whenever you take your first Wizard level. Please try again.
So... If I get my spellbook stolen... and we end the session on a cliffhanger... Next time we begin to play I can just go, "Well I am beginning play as a wizard, so I have a new one now..."
Because according to this comment, I am beginning play as a wizard...
I don't have a problem with him getting a free spellbook with some spells, God knows I have played enough low level campaigns to know /SOMEONE/ they killed has a spellbook by this point... But I stand by the fact that taking a level in wizard does not magically generate a spellbook
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thats why I've been arguing against the concept of "take whatever levels you feel like, you don't have to RP" I agree, and actively fight against the message he is trying to send...
In other news
Matthew Downie, thejeff, and Jerry Wright 307,
I think we should totally play in a campaign together at some point.
|
Contributor
|
Yes, they do. You are beginning play as a Wizard whenever you take your first Wizard level. Please try again.Incorrect. Having a spellbook containing "all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his opposed schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice" is part of the Wizard's spells class feature. "begins play" does not mean only if you started at level 1. After all the gunslinger now "begins play" as a level 1 Wizard.You get your spellbook free by taking that level. Don't confuse "Roleplaying Game" with "Fantasy Novel".A wizard character created at first level starts play with a spellbook. Characters who acquire a wizard level during the course of play do not. You get your spellbook when the opportunity arises to get it. It does not simply appear out of thin air. I has to be acquired, in game. (As in purchased and enscribed. Blank spellbooks are on the equipment list.)
If spellbooks appeared simply because a wizard was a wizard, they could never be taken away.
The same goes for levels of other classes. If your character has never met a gunslinger, you'd never have the opportunity to learn to be one.
Giving the GM a story about events that never happened in the game (after the game has been running long enough to gain levels) isn't "creating backstory". It's making stuff up to benefit your character without actually earning it.
Incorrect Again
Could you provide a reference for that, please? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I want to be able to reference it if I have a similar dispute with a future GM or player.
Thank you!
I don't have a problem with him getting a free spellbook with some spells, God knows I have played enough low level campaigns to know /SOMEONE/ they killed has a spellbook by this point... But I stand by the fact that taking a level in wizard does not magically generate a spellbookThe free spellbook is not the issue. It's the creation of items and in-game situations out of thin air to give the character a level of a class that has no in-game event to lead up to it.Right, but the rules argument that the section only applies if you start the character as a 1st level wizard means you don't get the free spellbook or spells if you later multiclass to wizard.
You do, but you need to justify it. Which is a lot easier to work out with your GM if you do so up front and come up with a reason to have one that isn't "creation out of thin air".
It is assumed to have been there all along. Much in the way it is assumed that Giants can function despite being at odds with physics. Because it's a game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anzyr, please make an FAQ with the question "When my character multiclasses into wizard, does he get a spellbook instantly, from nowhere?" and when you get back with the answer, you should post the link here.