Boccob's Blessed Book

[IceBear]

Well, I think that's hard to do as WizardDru pointed out, the fairness of this rule will depend on many things.

If your rule was how things were currently in the PHB, I think there would be even less sorcerer players than there are now (and that's, apparently, a problem right now). You've essentially made scribing costs negliable, and if the campaign was run as per the PHB (that's what I'll have to assume based on what you're asking) the wizard would have little problem getting spells.

Let's see, in the current rules, if I went from level 1 to level 2, I'd get two free spells. If I wanted to add a third then I'd go an buy a 1st level scroll (25gp) and scribe it (200gp). With your rules, if I spent 225gp I could get 6 spells (6 scrolls for 150gp, and 60gp to scribe). Sure the time could be a factor, or it might not. All I know, is all else being equal, the wizard has twice as many spells as he did in the current rules.

Now, in a campaign world where getting your hands on a spellbook or scroll isn't that easy, then this might not be an issue.

IceBear

 

[WizarDru]

I intentionally provided no background on the flavor of my campaigns (how often spellbooks are found or how much downtime is available) because I'm trying to ascertain if these rules provide a certain "intrinsic balance". In other words, if these were the rules currently printed in the PHB, would you be calling for them to be fixed in v3.5?

Intrinsically, no, I don't think they're balanced, if you assume the standard D&D world to be in effect, as per the core. Icebear has already pointed out the economic difference. Your changes enhance the wizard compared to other classes, as the economic disincentive to scribing spells is removed, BBB or no BBB. Gaining new spells has never been a problem in world with purchasable magic items, easily obtainable in most larger urban centers.

The Sorceror specialist rules would just become the de facto design for sorcerors,who generally gravitate to a very focused approach to spell casting (the artillery cannon being the most popular type). Not many Abjuration Sorcerors will feel that bad about losing Divination and Necromancy, for example.

Now, if you were to prevent the players from having lots of downtime, or limit access to the 'magic' ink, for example, those change the equation. If magic items, especially scrolls, are not readily available, that's another thing, as well. If there is more than one wizard in a party, that too, changes things. It's just not that simple an equation. Saying you're giving a barbarian a d20 instead of d12 is a straightforward mathematical change, and reasonably easy to gauge. Saying you're giving a barbarian literacy, but having him forbidden from writing...that's another kettle of fish. It may be balanced, it may not. The 'intrinsic' balance of your changes is too heavily tied to other factors to be judged accurately without a point of reference, IMHO.

 

[IceBear]

The 'intrinsic' balance of your changes is too heavily tied to other factors to be judged accurately without a point of reference, IMHO.

Exactly. That was my issue with this too. I'm sure it's perfect in his world and I can see it working somewhat in mine too, but in the default world - nope.

IceBear

 

[Rel]

The 'intrinsic' balance of your changes is too heavily tied to other factors to be judged accurately without a point of reference, IMHO.

I agree with this statement too. I wasn't posing this as some kind of "trick question" either. But what I've come to understand over time is that most balance issues are highly situational based on the campaign environment.

The Wizard's scribing costs are my "pet peeve" with 3E. I dislike them on a great many levels. I had an irresistable urge to change them and since then I worry if I've made the new rules too favorable to Wizards. The funny part is that since I've implemented these house rules, there has only been one Wizard created in the game and he was made as a replacement character who was only played for the last few sessions of the campaign. There has also been only one Specialist Sorcerer too. The other Sorcerer player didn't want to be limited by the prohibited schools.

Anyway, I'm not trying to justify my house rules as being better than the core rules for everybody. But they've solved a lot of "problems" caused by the core rules (in my perception). Here's a brief list of issues that I think work out better for me using my house rules:

I don't feel compelled to hand out as much monetary treasure or make frequent trading available in order to keep the Wizard rich enough to broaden his spell selection.

I have no compunctions about destroying a Wizard's spellbook if that's the way the dice fall or if it makes sense to the plot. I've lowered the scribing costs to the point that you can afford to make a backup if you choose. Or, you can use a found spellbook as your own, provided that you have a good Spellcraft skill (or roll well on the checks). Under the core rules, I feel like it would be more kind to kill the character than to destroy his spellbook.

Wizards need to plan ahead more. They'd better stock up on scribing ink before they leave town. Given the chance to bargain for a look at another Wizard's spellbook, they should consider it strongly. Because they can't just pick up any spell they want for free when they level.

As has been pointed out (and is pretty much the reason for the thread in the first place), scribing costs become negligible as soon as you can create a BBB. Over the life of a Wizard who reaches 20th level, his scribing cost should average far less than 100GP per page because in his later levels he will use BBB's to reduce the cost. Most of our campaigns top out before 10th level and so this long term benefit is never realized.

We've all seen the "Sorcerer Spell List" threads that show the optimum spells to pick that scale well and such. I like the concept of a "themed Sorcerer" even if it might be just a bit sub-optimal. I'm willing to reward this by giving them a few extra spells over the course of their career.

And the example I always cite about why I hate the core rules on scribing is the "Elf in the Library". An elven Wizard is given unlimited food and water and locked in a library containing spellbooks with every known spell in them. 100 years pass and he is freed from the Library. How many more spells can he cast now than he could 100 years ago? If he didn't have any gold, the answer is 0.


Anyway, perhaps my original question was folly. The "balance" of my house rules cannot be objectively evaluated because the campaign environment is too subjective to begin with. I just can't shake the feeling that the core rules are jarringly arbitrary and on some levels just make no sense. Adding BBB to the issue doesn't make it any more clear to me.

Sorry for the hijack and thank you for your opinions.

 

[IceBear]

I too thought that the cost for scribing was too high, so I cut them in half. Then I realized I was only giving out half the gold I was supposed to be

Anyway, the thing with 3E is that there is a certain amount of treasure that's expected to be award to the players to help keep the "balance". If you're giving out less treasure (in your case, because the wizard doesn't need it for scribing), then that could mean that the equipment the characters should have for their EL is lacking, and thus the challenges are harder, etc.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that (I personally thought the default levels were too high), but it's not really scribing that's out of wack, it's the fact that your campaign doesn't have the amount of treasure as it should have had.

Personally, I think the BBB is broken *IF* they meant the scribing costs to be a balancing factor between sorcerers and wizards.

IceBear

 

[Bastoche]

I've got a question for those of you posting in this topic. I realize that this should technically go in House Rules but you folks are already in the mindset of analyzing the scribing costs and I'd appreciate your opinions.

My question is this:

Do you think that my house rules (detailed below) excessively favor the Wizard over the Sorcerer or vice-versa?

The house rules are as follows:

1) Wizards get NO free spells when they advance in level. All spells they can prepare must be found in the form of scrolls and spellbooks.

2) Scribing costs are reduced to 10% of normal (i.e. 10 GP per page). Scribing time is the same as the core rules. The GP cost for scribing is the money paid for special ink. This is a comodity purchasable in almost any town of at least medium size and it must be tracked. If you run out of ink while in the wilderness or in a dungeon, you don't just get to spin gold into new spells in your spellbook.

3) A found spellbook can be used to prepare spells from, even if the Wizard doesn't copy the spells to his own spellbook. But he must take a day to "understand" each new spell he wishes to prepare from it. This requires a Spellcraft Check (DC20+Spell Level).

4) Sorcerers may Specialize, just like Wizards. They get one extra known spell from the speciality school at each new Spell Level they are able to cast. (i.e. They know an extra 1st level spell, an extra 2nd level spell, etc.)

Any thoughts?

From a balance stand point, I think it's ok. But the wizard will not have the choice for his spells. He will only get what the DM wants him to get. Not that this is automatically bad. Also keep in mind that random scroll generation tables do NOT contain all the spells. So it's like allowing those spells to sorceror only...