Do you (in 3.x / Pathfinder) actually charge wizards for spells?

[Aberzanzorax]

I have only ever played a wizard in third edition. Our pathfinder party has a sorceror (and I'm DM). When I started this line of thought, it was in response to the thread I linked, and my contention was that wizards simply don't have the versatility that many people seem to assume they do.

"Spells are simply too expensive for them to know every spell" was my thought.

I had assumed that people who allowed wizards to become powerhouses were doing so because they were not enforcing the cost per spell from the rules (those that I've quoted in posts 2 and 3).


I still believe that I'm somewhat right in the SRD 3.x version of the wizard...those are some EXPENSIVE spells.


However, it appears that there is a major, major difference in spell cost, and hence, spell availability for Pathfinder wizards. I had never noticed this difference until trying (and failing ;p ) to prove my point regarding cost being a limiting factor on versatility. (I'll also note that the time to learn a spell is less in pathfinder, which is another limiting factor).



But I suppose the question still remains. Do you enforce all the above costs? What game edition do you play? Does cost limit your versatility when playing your wizard?

What about "costs" of time and "encumberance"? Do you track how many spellbooks your wizard is lugging around? Do you have travelling spellbooks (versus "main" spellbooks) in case of destruction? Do you track how long it actually took to learn the spells (and make spellcraft rolls to see if you fail)?

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's this attitude I think is common. That's 2 spells per level of the wizard.

So that means a lvl 17 wizard has four (and only 4) spells of every level other than 1. Have you found this to be the case (that means for lower lvl spells you actually know fewer spells than have spell slots available...and that you know fewer spells than a sorceror)?

Under the core magic system I find it typical that for each spell level a wizard will select a favorite spell (fireball, invisibility) and memorize several, throwing in maybe one or two utility spells. Memorizing more than four different spells at a single level is confusing, suboptimal, and rare.

Under my spell point system (adapted from UA), you memorize your spell list and use spell points to cast from that, but even then typically only one or two spells per spell level are cast in a day.

I do find the "collegiate wizard" (CArc) feat popular, which vastly extends those free spells.

A low-level evoker in my campaign apparently has 10 or more 1st level spells known due to the feat, but I can't recall him casting more than three or four of those during play. A similar scenario played out with an archivist a while back. I've had very few memorized casters and more spontaneous casters because that's how magic works during play, you cast one spell over and over again. Versatility is usually achieved through magic items or NPCs.


The rules for copying spells into spellbooks are similar to those for magic item creation in that I view them as essentially models for how NPCs work, not things that PCs can realistically use in play. In both cases, the costs (in time and money) are prohibitive and the benefits minimal.

 

[BriarMonkey]

I voted No, although it isn't that simple as there is some Yes, as well as Sorta in there.

In campaigns past, when a spell slinger needed/gained/wanted new spells, they would have to find those spells. They could be found as treasure, off of other spell casters, through research, or through guilds. Depending on how the spells are found would determine the pricing and difficulty.

For instance, using a guild or research often resulted in spell prices that were at, or above, what is in the books. If the character had guild membership or a good library/resources, the price could come down, but normally it would still be within 25% of what the book prices were.

In the case of treasure or captured spells, there is no cost - assuming that the character had such elements as ink and quill.

Much of that are amalgams of all the various versions of D&D I've played over the years. And, when I have a campaign again, I plan on using the same mechanics as they have proved to work very well in the past.

The only thing I am looking to change is the addition of being able to learn spells from non-scholarly sources; meaning that characters could learn spells from Demons, Archons, etc. Of course, those prices are not in gold...

 

[Sekhmet]

Voted "YES", but I think your argument of "wizards are OP because of their costs" doesn't hold much weight.
Consider how many spells are actually needed and not horrifyingly situational, and I'd bet you couldn't come up with more than 6 per level, most levels less than 4 to be "The Man Who Summons Angels" compared to the Fighter/Rogue/non caster "BMX Bandit".

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

I've found that a wizard's free spells will hold them without needing to buy others until level 7-9 or so, when they start facing more and more magical foes and impediments because mundane stuff just can't keep up. By that level, there are two important factors to consider:

1) They rarely, if ever, fail the necessary Spellcraft check for copying spells. An 8th-level wizard with max ranks in Spellcraft, at least 5 in Knowledge (Arcana), and a level-appropriate Int 20 (16 starting + 2 level boosts + 2 headband) scribing a 4th level spell automatically succeeds on the check (minimum roll 1 + 11 Spellcraft + 2 Arcana + 5 Int vs. DC 19), and many wizards can start auto-succeeding earlier than that.

2) They can buy a Boccob's blessed book, which removes the per-page scribing cost. That changes Aberzanzorax's numbers somewhat:

Cost per spell level:
0 - 25
1 - 50
2 - 100
3 - 150
4 - 200
5 - 250
6 - 300
7 - 350
8 - 400
9 - 450

To buy every spell in the SRD by 20th level, it would cost the following (this time taking free spells into account, using a wizard with a starting Int of 16):

0 0 lvl spells = 0 (all known already)
31 1st lvl spells = 1,550 (5+Int or 8 already known)
46 2nd lvl spells = 4,600 (4 already known)
38 3rd lvl spells = 5,700 (4 already known)
37 4th lvl spells = 7,400 (4 already known)
39 5th lvl spells = 9,750 (4 already known)
39 6th lvl spells = 11,700 (4 already known)
31 7th lvl spells = 10,850 (4 already known)
31 8th lvl spells = 12,400 (4 already known)
16 9th lvl spells = 7,200 (8 already known)

The grand total for every PHB spell is thus 71,150 gp for the spells + 25,000 for the 2 BBBs necessary = 96,150 gp, about 40% of the original cost. While buying spells before buying the BBB will increase that price somewhat, many factors (such as higher starting Int, taking Collegiate Wizard, or finding captured spellbooks) will lower it as well.

So in many games, the difference between being limited to free spells and having every single PHB spell or an equivalent number of PHB+Splat spells is around 12.5% of 20th level WBL. Most wizards won't need that many spells, but if one really must have all of them, that effectively means the difference between a wizard with all PHB spells and only free spells is approximate +3 to +4 to Dex from an appropriate manual of quickness of action.

If someone really cares about completeness ('cause most wizards aren't going to need more than 300 spells), picking up Collegiate Wizard and dipping 2 levels of Geometer reduces that cost to 13,450 gp. That means that it's entirely possible for a 20th level wizard to have every PHB spell for less than the cost of bracers of armor +4, i.e. all that wizard needs to do to have the money for all those spells is to cast mage armor every day. Before someone complains that an incantatrix/archmage doesn't have room for geometer, most optimized wizards considered to be overpowered are going to need vastly fewer spells than these and shouldn't need to buy more than two to three dozen or so spells at most (and only if they didn't pick up Collegiate Wizard) rather than the full 300+ of the PHB.

And that's why wizards being overpowered doesn't depend on ignoring spell scribing costs.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Under the core magic system I find it typical that for each spell level a wizard will select a favorite spell (fireball, invisibility) and memorize several, throwing in maybe one or two utility spells. Memorizing more than four different spells at a single level is confusing, suboptimal, and rare.

FWIW, that hasn't been my experience at all.

 

[Dandu]

Confusing for mere mortals, maybe, but I went to highschool and took calculus.

 

[jefgorbach]

Originally Posted by Ahnehnois
Under the core magic system I find it typical that for each spell level a wizard will select a favorite spell (fireball, invisibility) and memorize several, throwing in maybe one or two utility spells. Memorizing more than four different spells at a single level is confusing, suboptimal, and rare.


um, so?
the benefit of Wizards is ACCESS, not "use" - so while certain selections might be a particular wizard's favorites per level, having a large variety copied into one's library is a viable and very beneficial endevor for those circumstances when your favorite simply doesnt apply.

Back to the original question - my group tends to follow RAW with casters gaining a free spell upon leveling from their mentor/organization/wherever, with additional ones needing either purchased or found while exploring. Interestingly, a practice established many decades ago in AD&D v1 was for party casters to freely share their knowledge among themselves - thereby 1) ensuring multiple backups of every spell discovered/purchased by the party 2) reducing overall spell casting expenses