How do YOU handle new spells?

[blackshirt5]

OK, I'm still working on my homebrew, which I plan on making a wee bit more magic light than originally planned; it'll still be high magic, but there won't be permanent magic items floating around everywhere(although scrolls and potions are still available for a price from the kind priest or the sage and his apprentices, or the druids if you're on good terms with them, and my players will be able to get magic items commissioned without too much of a problem).

One thing that I want to have is the feeling that a lot of spells are lost, tucked away in old manuscripts and scrolls that are found in guarded old libraries, tombs, and the ruins of ancient cities. I dislike the idea that when you level up, you learn two new spells automatically.

Has anybody played around with characters having to hunt down new spells, either from teachers or from books and scrolls? I really like the idea of having adventures centered around the group taking a break as the wizardess and her big paladin bodyguard and the rogue delve into the Library of Altaron looking for new spells, while the Ranger and the Druid go back to a Druid Circle to try to learn some spells from the local branch office(pun fully intended).

 

[blackshirt5]

Basically what I'm trying to say is that I'm trying to keep magic more mysterious; there might be spells over that next horizon that could level mountains, or unlock the mysteries of the cosmos...or that could just turn your enemies into blue-tusked badgers.

And do you think this'll give a benefit to the psionic characters in my world(there are no sorcerers in my world and the magic system is akin to Arcana Unearthed; when you refresh your spell list you pick a limited number of spells you can cast from for that day from the total list of spells you know, but you can cast whatever from that list up to your limit), who don't have to do this(the power of the psions is all in their minds, after all)?

 

[Corwyn]

Ha, my old wizard did nothing else.

That was back in the 2e era. The only way for my character to get new spells was to either find them(scrolls and tomes), trade for them with other mages or research them.
I remember I realy wanted a lightning bolt spell... but getting it wasn't that easy... took me untill lvl 7 to finaly find a mage that was willing to trade spells that knew it.
It's fun so go for it. Getting the spells you want maybe easy but realy there is no fun in that at all. Although it can be a bit frustrating.

Hope it helps..

 

[blackshirt5]

I just know too that I'm gonna have a player with a Ranger who wants to learn direct damage spells(probably elemental stuff).

And y'know what? I'm probably gonna be inclined to let him.

Also gives me a good way to dole out little bits and pieces of Relics and Rituals 1 & 2, I love those books.

 

[nikolai]

In afraid I don't have much to add. I just want to offer my wholehearted support to your opinion. I've been reading Jack Vance's The Dying Earth tales recently. One of the setting features, that didn't make it to D&D, is the idea that there was once a golden age of magic, but most of this knowledge has been lost. Only a hundred or so spells remain - a fraction of earlier knowledge - and wizards try to hoard magic and find lost secrets in ancient ruins.

I'd get rid of the +2 spells/level. But this is a major part of the bonuses of the Wizard class. Any idea what it could be replaced with?

 

[Gothmog]

The automatic 2 spells per level for wizards is something new to 3E, and something I'm not fond of. I much prefer to have wizards find their new spells, or develop new spells on their own, than just to assume they have been doing the necessary work and select any 2 spells they want at a new level. And to answer your question- no, it won't affect the viability of arcane casters to only let them find their spells, as long as you give them the chance to find maybe 5 new spells every 2-3 adventures. I have done it this way since 1E, and it hasn't caused any game balance problems.

 

[blackshirt5]

Gothmog, I mean do that for everyone; example, the Rangers and Druids have to go out and cut deals with the Spirits(my homebrew uses an alternate cosmology), Clerics have to beseech their Gods or find ancient scripts as well that contain fragments of spells in them just as wizards do.

Hell, for once I might be able to base an entire adventure(or even a campaign) around the party Wizard! The Paladin or Fighter could be his bodyguard, the Cleric his friend from their not so long ago youth, and the Rogue a young lock-pick and n'er-do-well who comes for the money but stays for the adventure.

 

[Shallown]

I think the 2 spells per level of 3E was for two reasons. 1 - help protect players from DM's who didn't let them get new spells hardly ever. I have heard horror stories though have never, personally, had a problem with it. 2- To take pressure off having to worry, as a GM, where spells are coming from if the campaign, for some reason, is very isolated and finding magic spells may not be "realistic".

I personally like both ways. I may not introduce new spells as much but it still a part of my game. I wouldn't mind dumping that rule altogether except it allows the player some feeling of control when he can oick the spells he wants and not depend on the GM to second guess his wants or needs. Think about if the fighter wanted to use an odd but not rare weapon like a scythe. Would the dm limit his choices in feats that specialize in scythes. It is almost the same thing as limiting the wizrds choices.

Its just a matter of trust and player input. You don't always have to give them what they want but at least be aware of it. I like the concept of hunting through old libraries and ruins to find fragments of lost spellsthen using the players skill sto put it altogether into a new spell. It is also a way for NPC interaction to increase becuase it should happen that PC's have spells that NPC's want as much as the other way around.

later

 

[blackshirt5]

Y'know what? I honestly never thought about NPCs wanting spells that the party had! That's a cool idea.

So, you think I should get player input about what type of spells they want? I mean obviously I'm not always gonna load up the decaying library with fragments of what they want but if someone's looking to play a straight illusionist(not bloody likely with my group, but...) I'd feel bad tossing them Evocation after Evocation.

 

[Gothmog]

Gothmog, I mean do that for everyone; example, the Rangers and Druids have to go out and cut deals with the Spirits(my homebrew uses an alternate cosmology), Clerics have to beseech their Gods or find ancient scripts as well that contain fragments of spells in them just as wizards do.

Hell, for once I might be able to base an entire adventure(or even a campaign) around the party Wizard! The Paladin or Fighter could be his bodyguard, the Cleric his friend from their not so long ago youth, and the Rogue a young lock-pick and n'er-do-well who comes for the money but stays for the adventure.

Ok, I see what you mean now. I think this would work too. I do something similar in my own homebrew. Clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers do not get to access all spells at each level- instead having to learn individual prayers. I pad out the divine casters a little bit by giving them 5 spells whenever they get access to a new level of spell to represent their god/spirit granting them access to greater power, but the rest of the spells they have are learned from holy texts, spirits, or through religious rituals. It has helped individualize the spell lists for divine casters a lot, which IMO is a good thing.