Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[nogray]

But the Wizard cannot scribe the Cleric's scrolls. He can only scribe scrolls of spells he can cast. That is clear from the feat description. Unlike, say, Wondrous Objects, it is not possible to have a different caster provide the spell prerequisite. The same is true of potions and wands.

The rules for item creation seem to indicate that you can always share prerequisites. The wording of the feats always is about "you" meeting the prerequisite or knowing the spell, but the rules for item creation say this:

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).

I suppose it could be interpreted differently, but the feat statement would seem to be modified by the caveat in the item creation rules, above. This is supported by the identical language from the various creation feats. For scrolls, potions, wands, and staffs, that verbiage is as follows:

The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and ...

The only difference between that and the other items (rods, wondrous items, weapons, armor) is the addition of the phrase, "If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the [item]." (Oddly, rings have different verbiage.) This distinction is likely because there are some items from that set that do not have spells as a prerequisite, whereas potions, scrolls, and the like all have spells as prerequisites. Those prerequisites still seem to fall under the umbrella of the parenthetical "... access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed."

Though the quoted text is from the online SRD, I found similar language in my perusal of my (3.5) DMG.

----

On the main topic, this has been a fascinating thread to read. I'd like to thank all the participants for their thoughts and insights.

 

[Hussar]

I admit we always played it the way Nogray states. Casters can cooperate to create magic items.

This is the first time I've seen a differing interpretation.

Oh, and I never used UA, so craft scroll was standard for all wizards. Why would I ever trade that out? It's just too good.

But then, we're back to play issues. Never running out of spells, to me, is just too good to not take advantage of.

So the idea of not having the right spell at the right time to me is the sign of a weak player.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It was free pre-UA. Post-UA it comes with an opportunity cost - the fighter bonus feat list ACF.

I always allowed it to be traded for Collegiate Wizard (can't remember if that was a by the book trade or not). Being a wizard is so financially draining that it's almost essential. Scribe Scroll is to me the opposite. It's the thing you would do if you had too much money and wanted to throw some away (or if you wanted to start a business and sell them).

 

[Hussar]

I always allowed it to be traded for Collegiate Wizard (can't remember if that was a by the book trade or not). Being a wizard is so financially draining that it's almost essential. Scribe Scroll is to me the opposite. It's the thing you would do if you had too much money and wanted to throw some away (or if you wanted to start a business and sell them).

See, this is where the problem in this thread lies.

"Financially draining"? What levels are you talking about? See, throughout this thread we (and by we I mean those who feel there is an imbalance) are talking about double digit levels. No one is complaining about imbalance at 5th level. But, by 15th level, a mere 10% of character wealth buys me about 100 scrolls with two or three copies of every possible utility spell I could possibly need. Particularly if I'm scribing my own.

Again, because I think this is where the major stumbling block is in getting understanding, we're not really talking about single digit levels here. Even a 9th level caster likely isn't dominating anything. He could, but, not generally. No, the issue really starts about 12th level, and gets progressively worse and worse as time goes on.

Focusing on low and mid level play isn't going to get us anywhere. We're not talking about that. There's a reason 3rd to 10th or 12th is called "Sweet Spot" play in 3e. It's because it's the period where there aren't any huge issues that can't be worked out pretty easily by the table. No, it's the 12th level on up campaign where this becomes a total problem.

This is why I talked about the example of Conan (a high level fighter) and Kelben Blackstaff. THAT'S where the problem is. Frodo hanging out with a 2nd year Hogwarts student isn't a problem for anyone.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Okay, but do you know how much the by-the-book cost is for a wizard of 12th level to add a spell to his spellbook beyond the couple of free ones per level? A lot! If you're talking about the character cherry-picking the best spells every day and scribing some small-niche things in case he needs them, that means the character's spellbook has to have all of those spells. Basically it's a tax on character flexibility. So...

But, by 15th level, a mere 10% of character wealth buys me about 100 scrolls with two or three copies of every possible utility spell I could possibly need. Particularly if I'm scribing my own.

That's that cost on top of the 100 gp per page of spellbook writing, and 50 gp per spell level if you nicely ask another wizard for the privilege of looking at his spellbook.

And then on top of that cost, there's the drain of XP if you're scribing all those scrolls, by the book anyway.

Which is one of the reasons why spontaneous casting is better. I'm not even enforcing the XP cost, and I'm often starting characters a triple the wealth by level table and going up from there, and I would still describe the financial cost of playing a broadly effective wizard as bordering on prohibitive.

No one is complaining about imbalance at 5th level.
...
Again, because I think this is where the major stumbling block is in getting understanding, we're not really talking about single digit levels here. Even a 9th level caster likely isn't dominating anything. He could, but, not generally. No, the issue really starts about 12th level, and gets progressively worse and worse as time goes on.

So, not talking about balance between classes at general, only specific to high-level play? Okay.

That raises a lot of issues. For one, the idea of balance over 20 levels and not at each level. The classic D&D approach is that if you played a wizard at 1st level to 12th, you deserve something special.

Another is that a 12th level character is a big deal. "Legendary" according to the Legend Lore spell. So all that stuff you like to call "adversarial DMing" becomes much less so, because other people (including some who might like to hurt or rob you) can be reasonably assumed to have heard of you and have some idea of your capabilities and weaknessness (which, if you're a wizard, include being crippled without your spellbook). It's a different game after 10th. Heightened reality. No one's arguing that.

As I've said before, if you want to argue that the fighter class's dead levels and saves are unacceptable past a certain point, I don't argue that, but to me a typical monstrous or multiclassed/prestige-classed martial character is quite viable at that level.

 

[Neonchameleon]

See, this is where the problem in this thread lies.

"Financially draining"? What levels are you talking about? See, throughout this thread we (and by we I mean those who feel there is an imbalance) are talking about double digit levels. No one is complaining about imbalance at 5th level. But, by 15th level, a mere 10% of character wealth buys me about 100 scrolls with two or three copies of every possible utility spell I could possibly need. Particularly if I'm scribing my own.

Again, because I think this is where the major stumbling block is in getting understanding, we're not really talking about single digit levels here. Even a 9th level caster likely isn't dominating anything. He could, but, not generally. No, the issue really starts about 12th level, and gets progressively worse and worse as time goes on.

IMO you're an optimist here. E6 is E6 for a reason. Level 7 is where the imbalance starts being a real problem in skilled hands. But you're right it's progressively worse as you level up. To the point that Giant In the Playground gamed out level 13 wizards vs level 20 fighters in situations massively favourable to the fighter (no pre-buffing, no running away). It turned out to be about even - but only because the fighter had about 2 million GPs (if I remember my wealth by level tables correctly) of equipment they hadn't made and were unable to make. The normal tier systems are based on level 13. All of which means Gygax was on to something with his soft-cap at around level 10.

 

[sheadunne]

And then on top of that cost, there's the drain of XP if you're scribing all those scrolls, by the book anyway.

Which is one of the reasons why spontaneous casting is better. I'm not even enforcing the XP cost, and I'm often starting characters a triple the wealth by level table and going up from there, and I would still describe the financial cost of playing a broadly effective wizard as bordering on prohibitive.

I haven't found the cost prohibitive since a well played wizard doesn't particular need any magic items (with the exception of Int boosting, pearls of power, a wand or two, and scrolls) and most of their wealth can be put into spellbooks and scrolls.

As has been said before, the XP cost is a benefit not a negative, as having lower level means more XP per an encounter and can actually move you above the rest of the party. (ie spend just enough to prevent leveling and waiting until the next encounter to boost you over the rest of the party. Rinse and repeat.)

Using later 3.5 splat books gives you nearly equal spells per a day as a sorcerer so that's not really an issue.

I always say, if you want to play a blaster, play a sorcerer , otherwise play a wizard since the Evocation school is pretty lousy.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I haven't found the cost prohibitive since a well played wizard doesn't particular need any magic items (with the exception of Int boosting, pearls of power, a wand or two, and scrolls) and most of their wealth can be put into spellbooks and scrolls.

Well, that depends on where you're getting your defenses from. If you spend some of that flexibility and daily slots on covering up your defenses, then no you don't need the major magic items, but then you do need even more spells (and you become rather vulnerable to various sorts of dispelling).

 

[sheadunne]

Well, that depends on where you're getting your defenses from. If you spend some of that flexibility and daily slots on covering up your defenses, then no you don't need the major magic items, but then you do need even more spells (and you become rather vulnerable to various sorts of dispelling).

I haven't found it an issue. A wizard I played a couple of years ago had a 10 AC and 50 HP at level 17 and didn't particularly need to worry (saves were pretty low as well). Dispelling usually isn't an issue since there are ways to counter that as well. There are a lot of good spells out there and a lot last all day. Most wizards don't need to cast more than one party buff/offensive spell per an encounter. If he's casting more than that, I'd be concerned that the player doesn't have a good grasp of the mechanics (ie Haste = more damage than Fireball) or should be playing a sorcerer because he likes to nova blasting spells.

That's been my experience with 3x. I can certainly see how other tables might have evolved differently.

 

[pemerton]

So we're just placing heavy handed restrictions on the druid's spellcasting abilities, then. I'm still not seeing this as superior to the accusations leveled against a balanced 3rd Ed D&D game.

How is casting time a "heavy handed restriction"? The player knows what it is, and plans and declares actions accordingly.

A one-day casting time for Weather Summoning, for instance, might actually balance quite nicely with a BW-style Weather Sense ability: the non-magic character can Weather Sense, giving the player the chance to dictate tomorrow's weather. The druid then starts casting Weather Summoning, and by the time it takes effect has to vary the weather from the other player's parameters, and - if Weather Summoning is interrupted or dispelled - the other player still gets those parameters.

Whereas a casting time for Weather Summoning of (say) 10 minutes gives the player of the druid the chance to get the weather s/he wants straight away in the fiction, whereas under typical genre constraints there is no way that Weather Sense can yield a meaningful change in that sort of ingame timeframe.

If we want more freedom and flexibility for player decisionmaking, seeking an alliance with Keraptis becomes a more valid approach. It does, however, require figuring out just who Keraptis is, beyond "a mad wizard creating a bizarre dungeon", a common trope of early modules.

I would go further: it requires abandoning the module. The only support that White Plume Mountain provides to the "ally with Keraptis" scenario is providing a name. The whole rationale of the module is for the players to take their PCs in and beat the dungeon.