I've long believed that the Learn A Spell cost remains largely the same whether you are buying materials for research, renting from a library, hiring an expert to teach you, or whatever.
Today I encountered a GM who seemed to think that it ONLY covered costs of materials. So if, for example, you hired someone to teach you a new arcane wizard spell, you would have to pay for that service AND also pay for the materials to scribe the spell into your spellbook.
Is that correct???
I know the GM can adjust costs for extenuating circumstances; I'm asking in regards to general Learn a Spell usage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'd agree the cost listed is purely your cost to scribe it into your book, etc. It doesn't cover the cost of getting access to the source you're copying/learning from. There are cases where it would be free, there are cases where it would be cost-prohibitive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The costs of learning a spell are already somewhat steep. Adding the cost of hiring a spellcaster on top of that seems a bit excessive.
The added cost isn't game breaking by any means, but it does seem a bit much. Especially since it would only be needed in some cases, and would be variable and unpredictable.
Also, Witch rules for learning a spell seem to indicate that the cost of learning a spell should be the entire cost and it can be described in-game in any manner desired.
You and your familiar can use the Learn a Spell activity to teach your familiar a spell from another witch's familiar. Both familiars must be present for the entirety of the activity, the spell must be on your spellcasting tradition's spell list, and you must pay the usual cost for that activity, typically in the form of an offering to the other familiar's patron.
So yes, the cost listed in the Learn a Spell table should cover all of the costs - materials, offerings, bribes, government license fees, payment to the instructor, ...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are pretty explicit that the cost is for associated materials and distinctly separate from the source of the spell itself. Step 1 is having the source, Step 2 is having materials of a specific cost.
Any other associated costs that might come from learning a spell would, by necessity, be separate. That could be 0 if you discover a spellbook, or it could be some fee if you're hiring someone to teach you or buying a scroll to learn from.
So yes, the cost listed in the Learn a Spell table should cover all of the costs - materials, offerings, bribes, government license fees, payment to the instructor, ...
All of the costs? So could I pay 2gp to Learn a first level spell and get a free 4GP 1st level scroll?
Clearly that's not correct. Neither would be gaining a free partially filled spellbook. I don't see why you'd treat hiring someone or any other source differently.
You have to pay 2 gp to learn the spell, yes. Where are you getting a free scroll from?
If you are using a scroll as the magical writing to learn the spell from, then you already have the scroll - whether from purchasing it or from finding it as loot/treasure. There is no free scroll.
If I spend 4 GP to buy a scroll and another 2 gp to learn the spell on it, then I end up spending 6 GP total and get both the scroll and the spell known.
If I spend 2 gp to learn the spell from someone who charges me 3 GP for the service, then I end up spending 5 GP total and end up with only the spell known. That seems like a pretty steep cost in comparison.
Also, if I spend 3 GP for someone to use their spellcasting, then they are expending that spell slot and actually casting the spell. If all I am doing is learning the spell from them, then 3 GP is way too much cost for just an hour of their time and no expenditure of resources.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems a little two things are getting mixed together here that we should be very sure to treat separately.
1. Do the costs of Learn A Spell automatically include any costs for getting someone to teach you?
This is definitely a no. Those are the costs you pay even if you have a scroll or spellbook in front of you, or a friendly teacher instructing you at no charge.
2. Is the Spellcasting Services chart a good thing to use as a list of prices for instruction?
This one is definitely a judgement call, not a rules question, as there is no rules answer to the price of instruction. Yes, it can seem steep, especially for common spells where buying a scroll wouldn't be difficult (and I wouldn't consider it the ideal go-to), but also it could be very reasonable for the price to sometimes be even higher than that instead of lower, depending on the campaign, the location and the spell in question.
You have to pay 2 gp to learn the spell, yes. Where are you getting a free scroll from?
The point is you aren't. So why would you get a hired spellcaster's services for free either?
If you have access to a library or something similar, the cost might be completely free (or part of whatever obligations or expenses give you access to that library in the first place, if any), but clearly if you're going out and hiring a spellcaster to teach you a spell, there is going to be some cost associated with it, per your GM's discretion.
As I read it the cost of Learn a Spell only covers the cost of scribing it in your book or teaching it to your familiar or learning a new prayer. It does not cover the cost of acquiring the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if you are charging something equivalent to Skilled Labor for the cost of teaching the spell, I guess that would make sense.
But it is also such a trivial cost, I wonder why you are bothering to track it.
And if it is not a trivial cost that you are charging, why are you requiring it for additional spells known? My expectation on the game cost balance is that the listed cost of learning the spell is the actual cost of learning the spell.
Sort of like how the price of a weapon rune is the price of a weapon rune. Do you also get charged gold for the transfer of the rune to your weapon?
If you buy a potion, do you also get charged separately for the bottle it is in?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the question was a rules question about how Learn a Spell works, if you want to run it differently in your game, or argue whether or not it's a good rule, sure, but that wasn't the question that was asked.
And what rule says that hiring a person to teach the spell is necessary?
If you want to go with strict RAW, I am only seeing a vague requirement of being in conversation with someone who knows the spell for 1 hour per level. That doesn't say that it costs anything. It doesn't even list that the spellcaster in question has to be willing to talk to you or even that you have to be discussing spellcasting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what rule says that hiring a person to teach the spell is necessary?
If you want to go with strict RAW, I am only seeing a vague requirement of being in conversation with someone who knows the spell for 1 hour per level. That doesn't say that it costs anything. It doesn't even list that the spellcaster in question has to be willing to talk to you or even that you have to be discussing spellcasting.
what rule says that hiring a person to teach the spell is necessary?
None. A person teaching you is one potential source of a spell, not the only one. A person willing may be willing to teach you a spell freely, or for money, or for some favor, or as a swap for one of your spells, or not at all. (I don't see anyone in here suggesting that paying for spell teaching is the only way, either, just talking about how to handle it when it comes up).
Why would that be something rules tried to dictate? The concept makes no sense.
If you want to go with strict RAW, I am only seeing a vague requirement of being in conversation with someone who knows the spell for 1 hour per level. That doesn't say that it costs anything. It doesn't even list that the spellcaster in question has to be willing to talk to you or even that you have to be discussing spellcasting.
I don't have to tell you how far from a good faith reading of the rules that would be. You know full well that that's just trying to parse things into absurdity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what rule says that hiring a person to teach the spell is necessary?
If you want to go with strict RAW, I am only seeing a vague requirement of being in conversation with someone who knows the spell for 1 hour per level. That doesn't say that it costs anything. It doesn't even list that the spellcaster in question has to be willing to talk to you or even that you have to be discussing spellcasting.
What do you mean?
I acquire spells from purchasing a scroll, finding a spellbook, finding a scroll, finding someone to teach me, or any variety of ways.
Learn a Spell is not to acquire the spell, but to learn it from whatever source you find or procure.
If you want to go with strict RAW, I am only seeing a vague requirement of being in conversation with someone who knows the spell for 1 hour per level. That doesn't say that it costs anything. It doesn't even list that the spellcaster in question has to be willing to talk to you or even that you have to be discussing spellcasting.
I don't have to tell you how far from a good faith reading of the rules that would be. You know full well that that's just trying to parse things into absurdity.
Indeed I do.
But when someone is telling me that charging a spellcaster the equivalent of an entire consumable so that they can have the opportunity to learn a new spell - even though the rules say that nowhere ... and then tells me that my reading is not RAW ... sarcasm is my natural response.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But when someone is telling me that charging a spellcaster the equivalent of an entire consumable so that they can have the opportunity to learn a new spell - even though the rules say that nowhere ... and then tells me that my reading is not RAW ... sarcasm is my natural response.
Ah, but the rules also do not say that you don't pay extra for access to the spell formula, so checkmate. /s
But yeah, it is called 'Scribe a Spell' and not 'Get a Spell' for a reason. The 2 spells casters get on level-up are free, everything else will have to be acquired somehow. And the closest equivalent we have is acquiring a construction formula to learn to craft a thing:
"You can buy common formulas at the Price listed on Table 6–13, or you can hire an NPC to let you copy their formula for the same Price. A purchased formula is typically a schematic on rolled-up parchment of light Bulk. You can copy a formula into your formula book in 1 hour, either from a schematic or directly from someone else’s formula book. If you have a formula, you can Craft a copy of it using the Crafting skill. Formulas for uncommon items and rare items are usually significantly more valuable—if you can find them at all!"
'Buying a formula' is akin to buying a scroll, and 'hire an NPC to let you copy their formula for the same price' is probably what Ravingdork's GM did. The only difference is that sribing spells into spell books costs extra. Oh and it can fail because nat.1s happen.
If you want to go with strict RAW, I am only seeing a vague requirement of being in conversation with someone who knows the spell for 1 hour per level. That doesn't say that it costs anything. It doesn't even list that the spellcaster in question has to be willing to talk to you or even that you have to be discussing spellcasting.
I don't have to tell you how far from a good faith reading of the rules that would be. You know full well that that's just trying to parse things into absurdity.
Indeed I do.
But when someone is telling me that charging a spellcaster the equivalent of an entire consumable so that they can have the opportunity to learn a new spell - even though the rules say that nowhere ... and then tells me that my reading is not RAW ... sarcasm is my natural response.
Why exactly do you think they put items like scrolls and spellbooks in published adventures if you could just pay the cost of learning a new spell and get the spell as well as scribe it?
They do this for a reason. Your interpretation of the rules I've never heard before in all the years I've been playing. It's the first time I've ever seen someone say the cost for learning a new spell incorporates the cost of acquiring it. They wouldn't even bother to put spellbooks, scrolls, and the like in the modules if they intended the cost of obtaining the spell and learning it to be the single cost for both.
They wouldn't even bother to put spellbooks, scrolls, and the like in the modules if they intended the cost of obtaining the spell and learning it to be the single cost for both.
Well, scrolls at least have a use outside of learning spells: they are Consumables so I can see their inclusion just like any other treasure without a need for them to be used to learn spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and it can fail because nat.1s happen.
Nat-1???
Have you played a spellcaster that needs to learn spells?
My Witch needed to learn a spell a few weeks ago. I had to roll an 11+ to succeed.
Religion (learn spell 3rd) DC 20: 1d20 + 9 ⇒ (18) + 9 = 27
Level 5 character. Skill ability doesn't match class's key ability. If it did match though, I would still need to roll at least a 9.
---------
And playing through Age of Ashes and Fall of Plaguestone both, the party always feels strapped for cash. We have to make hard decisions as a party about what we buy. Weapon runes are expensive. Armor runes even more so.
So yes, this feels like being double-charged for learning new spells.
The comparison to gaining a new crafting recipe seems very suitable. When you buy a new crafting recipe, that listed cost in the table is all that you pay. You don't have to additionally pay the person you are buying the recipe from in order to have them even talk to you. Also, you don't have a challenging skill check to make in order to be successful.
Now, if you are reverse engineering an item into a formula, you do have to have the item and make a skill check. But there is no additional cost other than having the item in the first place. Much like learning a spell from a scroll you find as loot.
Like I mentioned - if for RP and realism reasons you want to have some trivial cost to hire a teacher, that seems reasonable. Probably use the Skilled Labor cost of 5 sp per day.
But charging more than double the costs listed in the Learn a Spell table seems Too Bad To Be True.
The benefit of playing a prepared spellcaster is to have the flexibility of having a lot of spells available. The drawback is that they can't have all of those spells available on any particular day.
There is no need to overcharge the character to try and prevent them from gaining additional spells known. The Learn a Spell skill check DC and listed cost already does that just fine on its own.
Oh and it can fail because nat.1s happen.Nat-1???
Have you played a spellcaster that needs to learn spells?
My Witch needed to learn a spell a few weeks ago. I had to roll an 11+ to succeed.
Religion (learn spell 3rd) DC 20: 1d20 + 9 ⇒ (18) + 9 = 27Level 5 character. Skill ability doesn't match class's key ability. If it did match though, I would still need to roll at least a 9.
---------
And playing through Age of Ashes and Fall of Plaguestone both, the party always feels strapped for cash. We have to make hard decisions as a party about what we buy. Weapon runes are expensive. Armor runes even more so.
So yes, this feels like being double-charged for learning new spells.
The comparison to gaining a new crafting recipe seems very suitable. When you buy a new crafting recipe, that listed cost in the table is all that you pay. You don't have to additionally pay the person you are buying the recipe from in order to have them even talk to you. Also, you don't have a challenging skill check to make in order to be successful.
Now, if you are reverse engineering an item into a formula, you do have to have the item and make a skill check. But there is no additional cost other than having the item in the first place. Much like learning a spell from a scroll you find as loot.
Like I mentioned - if for RP and realism reasons you want to have some trivial cost to hire a teacher, that seems reasonable. Probably use the Skilled Labor cost of 5 sp per day.
But charging more than double the costs listed in the Learn a Spell table seems Too Bad To Be True.
The benefit of playing a prepared spellcaster is to have the flexibility of having a lot of spells available. The drawback is that they can't have all of those spells available on any particular day.
There is no need to overcharge the character to try and prevent them from gaining additional spells known. The Learn a Spell skill check DC...
There are a bunch of ways to find spells. You can also talk with your GM and do trades. All kinds of ways. Depending on your GM, I usually let clerics or druids learn for free from some other cleric or druid of the same faith.
Modules usually are fairly liberal on spells for prepared casters from spellbooks and scrolls you don't use. Or you can learn from another PC in the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually let clerics or druids learn for free from some other cleric or druid of the same faith.
Clerics and Druids don't need to learn common spells...
So now I am confused. How is this a benefit?
And how does this help a Wizard or Sorcerer that wants to learn something? Or do you just like those two classes better than the others?
But charging more than double the costs listed in the Learn a Spell table seems Too Bad To Be True.
Why are you talking as if people insist that you should charge the spellcasting service price? No one pointed to that as a fixed additional price to Learn a Spell, it's just an idea.
Personally, I think it makes no sense that you are paying X to learn from a spellbook you looted, and the same X to learn from a random wizard in town; the wizard will likely require some compensation for their time and knowledge. If you don't have cash, there are other solutions: maybe they can learn something from you in exchange, or you can befriend them, or pay with some kind of service (which could serve as an adventure hook).Of course your table is free to ignore all of that and just go on with the main adventure, but you can't say that you should do so.
Mostly from this:
You have to pay 2 gp to learn the spell, yes. Where are you getting a free scroll from?The point is you aren't. So why would you get a hired spellcaster's services for free either?
Nothing in that post mentions spellcasting services. Merely that if you go out and hire someone to teach you a spell, there might be some sort of cost involved.
I agree, adding a 3gp surcharge to learning a level 1 spell is excessive, which is why I never (and as far as I can tell, no one else either) suggested that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually let clerics or druids learn for free from some other cleric or druid of the same faith.Clerics and Druids don't need to learn common spells...
So now I am confused. How is this a benefit?
And how does this help a Wizard or Sorcerer that wants to learn something? Or do you just like those two classes better than the others?
They need to learn uncommon or rare spells.
I usually let clerics or druids learn for free from some other cleric or druid of the same faith.Clerics and Druids don't need to learn common spells...
So now I am confused. How is this a benefit?
And how does this help a Wizard or Sorcerer that wants to learn something? Or do you just like those two classes better than the others?
I don't know why you're confused. Wizards have had to pay for additional spells beyond what they get for free for years, decades.
You come across a ton of spells over the course of adventuring. You pay the cost and scribe them into your book, then sell the book. I'm not sure it mentions the scrolls or book or source disappear after you scribe it, so you can sell the item id you don't need it.
Then you can use one of your skills for earning money during the month to pay for spells. I build my Arcana up quite high for a wizard which I am currently playing, then teach people magic or do something magical in my downtime for extra money. I also pick up Magical Shorthand Skill feat to make it even easier and cheaper to scribe spells.
Nothing in that post mentions spellcasting services. Merely that if you go out and hire someone to teach you a spell, there might be some sort of cost involved.
I agree, adding a 3gp surcharge to learning a level 1 spell is excessive, which is why I never (and as far as I can tell, no one else either) suggested that.
Oh, so when you mention "spellcaster's services" you aren't meaning the Service for Spellcasting.
My mistake ... I guess.
Yeah, if the GM wants to charge some trivial charge for the teacher's time - sure, why not? I might mildly question why character wealth is being tracked that closely.
I don't know why you're confused. Wizards have had to pay for additional spells beyond what they get for free for years, decades.
I'm aware of that. My concern and question is about why they should be being charged a significant amount more than what is listed in the table as the cost for learning spells.
Nothing in that post mentions spellcasting services. Merely that if you go out and hire someone to teach you a spell, there might be some sort of cost involved.
I agree, adding a 3gp surcharge to learning a level 1 spell is excessive, which is why I never (and as far as I can tell, no one else either) suggested that.
Oh, so when you mention "spellcaster's services" you aren't meaning the Service for Spellcasting.
My mistake ... I guess.
Yeah, if the GM wants to charge some trivial charge for the teacher's time - sure, why not? I might mildly question why character wealth is being tracked that closely.
I don't know why you're confused. Wizards have had to pay for additional spells beyond what they get for free for years, decades.I'm aware of that. My concern and question is about why they should be being charged a significant amount more than what is listed in the table as the cost for learning spells.
I've never really been charged more. It's optional to pick up more spells. I usually pick up key spells, then trade with other PCs or find lots of scrolls and spellbooks I don't use. Never really thought of it as much of a problem.
You get two free spells a level. Then you get spellbooks and scrolls often. It's always been pretty easy to acquire the spells I want without much additional cost.
This feels very similar to rune transfer costs. There's no mention of what it costs to pay someone to do it for you, just for the transfer itself. PFS has a rule about it I believe, but I believe it is unique to PFS.
I'd consider using Earn Income for the labor costs in both cases, with the spell or rune level determing the job level. I'd probably charge a day's labor regardless of how many spells you scribe that day to keep it simple. You basically pay for a day's access to spell book or library, and you still pay for it even if you only use it for 10 minutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, though, does anyone else think we should just abolish the material costs for learning spells? It impacts such a narrow range of classes, and they are no longer classes which need to be reigned in. Just let people use spells they find and make any costs associated come from gaining access. Especially since Paizo has gotten worse about including spell books in caster loot. You could keep the skill check to learn the spell, though.
Alternatively, if you want to keep the "rare inks cost gold" thing just let spell book pages be scrolls which you can choose to consume. That would be neat. Definitely would require some rebalancing, but it would be cool if you could cannibalize your spell book in a moment of need and need to pay to replenish it later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the need for abolishing the cost. Magical Shorthand pretty much makes scribing spells almost free and encourages wizards to pick up the feat. If someone wanted to give the feat for free to wizards or witches as a house rule, it would be an easy fix for the cost.
I've always liked the idea of wizards learning spells and giving them spells as treasure. The ability to acquire a massive repertoire of spells for problem solving is a major advantage of the wizard. Not as big an advantage in 2E, but it still exists.
I don't see the need for abolishing the cost. Magical Shorthand pretty much makes scribing spells almost free and encourages wizards to pick up the feat. If someone wanted to give the feat for free to wizards or witches as a house rule, it would be an easy fix for the cost.
I've always liked the idea of wizards learning spells and giving them spells as treasure. The ability to acquire a massive repertoire of spells for problem solving is a major advantage of the wizard. Not as big an advantage in 2E, but it still exists.
Clerics and druids get access to all their common spells (and uncommon spells if the GM is chill) without needing to pay the cost, though. And while the arcane list is arguably still has the most problem solving utility, it doesn't stand out as much anymore.
It may not be suitable for all campaigns and table playstyles.
Removing the gold cost still leaves the skill check and the time cost if it fails. For most of the games that I have been in, that is plenty of cost to pay.
Magical Shorthand might be a problem, but that is a problem that could also be removed along with the gold cost.
Do spontaneous casters have any way to add new spells to their repertoire?
There are two or three different things that you may be talking about.
The number of spell slots (what you use to power and actually cast a spell with), the number of slots in your repertoire, and the actual spells that are placed in your repertoire.
The following is for Sorcerer. I think most of the other spontaneous spellcasters use essentially the same rules. Summoner being a bit different than normal, but they have something very similar.
For the number of spell slots and number of repertoire slots:
Though you gain them at the same rate, your spell slots and the spells in your spell repertoire are separate. If a feat or other ability adds a spell to your spell repertoire, it wouldn't give you another spell slot, and vice versa.
There may be feats that add spell repertoire slots. I can't think of any immediately.
For the spells currently in your repertoire slots, there are a couple of ways to switch those out.
As you gain new spells in your spell repertoire, you might want to replace some of the spells you previously learned. Each time you gain a level and learn new spells, you can swap out one of your old spells for a different spell of the same level. This spell can be a cantrip, but you can't swap out bloodline spells. You can also swap out spells by retraining during downtime.
So you can switch out one spell when you level up, and as many more as you have time for with downtime.
When you switch out spells, you can switch it out with any other spell that you have learned with the Learn a Spell rules. You don't get extra spells known for free other than by leveling up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics and druids get access to all their common spells (and uncommon spells if the GM is chill) without needing to pay the cost, though. And while the arcane list is arguably still has the most problem solving utility, it doesn't stand out as much anymore.
Meanwhile divine and primal witches don't even get that, while still having to deal with the inferior spell learning mechanic, and getting neither the extra slot wizards get nor the beefier chassis clerics and druids have.
Balance aside, witches are in a weird space. Their flavors aligns better with a material cost, since the familiar consuming it is a minor ritual. But it also seems like the familiar is the one learning the spell so a witch shouldn't have a skill check. The "each spell book page is a scroll" idea also wouldn't really work. I feel like there's a cooler, unique solution for them but I'm not sure what.
I'm referring to repertoire, or known spells.
That is still two different things.
Repertoire has a finite number - listed in the table for the class. It starts out (and often stays) at the same number as your spell slots.
Known Spells is not finite. You can know as many spells as you spend the time and money to learn. You aren't able to cast a spell that you know unless you also have it in your current Repertoire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some examples that I found:
Oracle Divine Access - adds some spells to the tradition list, but doesn't cause them to become known spells or add them to repertoire.
Sorcerer Primal Evolution - Gives a spell slot but doesn't change the number of spells in Repertoire. It does also somewhat bypass Repertoire entirely.
Hallowed Necromancer Sacred Spells - Increases your Repertoire count by two, but doesn't change your number of spell slots. The two Repertoire slots have to be filled with spells from a short list.
Not generally, the only time they change their repertoire on prep is when you're dealing with a special feat, like an Arcane Sorcerer with Arcane Evolution being able to add one spell from their spellbook to their repertoire for the day.
PF1 only had one level of knowing a spell. Your Sorcerer either knew the spell and could cast it, or they didn't know the spell.
PF2 has two levels. Knowing the spell, and having the spell available in Repertoire and ready to cast. How that is flavored and described is up to the player.
It mainly means they can add such known spells on level up or exchange them on level up or by retraining. This is mainly applicable to uncommon or rarer spells because common spells count as known when adding them to the repetoire.
Sort of. When you gain a level and get new spell slots, you also learn the same number of new spells and those spells are added to your Repertoire.
You are also allowed to swap out one of your other spells, but it doesn't say that you automatically learn a different spell to put into that Repertoire slot. If you haven't taken the time to learn a different spell, swapping a spell doesn't automatically teach you a new spell.
But the difference usually doesn't come up - and when it does, it is often ignored for common spells because why not.
Do they decide which spells are in their repertoire every day during daily prep?
Generally (without any feats, features, or other abilities that say otherwise), you can only change your Repertoire when you level up or through a week of downtime.
Do they decide which spells are in their repertoire every day during daily prep?Generally (without any feats, features, or other abilities that say otherwise), you can only change your Repertoire when you level up or through a week of downtime.
Thanks for mentioning the one week of downtime for changing a spell in your spell Repertoire. Since I'm fairly certain that must have been added in a errata/update since I seem to recall investigating that timeframe and finding it wasn't mentioned anywhere and initial suggested timeframes in the past were, I believe significantly longer.
The primary issue I have with the cost to add spells to your spellbook for wizards is that you get the free spells... so does experience produce a reservoir of expensive ink as you progress automatically? Or only spells you don't spontaneously come to understand require the spell be written with special inks? From an understanding of the world perspective it doesn't make sense. Yes from a game standpoint and method of controlling spell availability sprawl, it does make sense. But it is nice if you can find things that fit both perspecitves.
Hey that's nice, I went hunting for that same thing and it didn't exist a few years ago as well. Glad they codified how long spells take.
Can you imagine if instead of getting everything immediately fighters had to wait a week or more every time they leveled up?
Imagine? Nothing to imagine here. Just play Pool of Radiance if you get the chance to.