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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5421005" data-attributes="member: 64209">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)?</blockquote>

Verification