Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 615756" data-attributes="member: 99">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.</blockquote>

Verification