Learning new spells

[Plane Sailing]

I'm brewing a new campaign and a couple of other threads in this forum have got me thinking. Despite preparing a list of house rules to deal with problematic spells (for which I'm grateful to Dannyalcatraz, Empirate and Celebrim, among others), I'm not that happy with wizards being able to simply choose the spells they want when they level.

I want to make the rules for research, or copying from scroll or book, the default way for wizards to learn new spells when they level.

I might limit sorcerers and rangers to only being able to learn only those spells they have seen being cast (irrespective of whether or not they identified them with a spellcraft check at the time). I might allow them to be taught by other members of their class.

Druids aren't a problem, because there will be no druids.

Clerics I'm not sure about. I'd like the cloistered cleric to be the default and I'm inclined to let them retain their usual spell acquisition mechanism.

Opinions welcome.

I think it can be quite flavourful. One option would be to get any of the casting classes to make a Spellcraft check of appropriate DC to attempt to learn spell 'x' at a given level. Fail and it is beyond you at the moment. Try this for as many new spells you wish until you fill the new slot (or for wizards get two new books successfully scribed into your book)

If someone really, really wants to learn a particular spell, then purchase a scroll with it on and learn it from there.

(my 1e wizard was horrified when he failed to learn Fireball upon reaching 5th level. He learned lightning bolt instead, and gravitated towards electrical attacks from then onwards, but I digress)

I think it is a bit of a problem if divine casters get a free pass though - they already get to pick everything off their ever expanding list! So if you do this, why not say that divine casters have to have their prayer books which are analogs of wizard spellbooks?

Cheers

 

[Dandu]

Disagree, especially with the variant Intimidate from Frostburn that's based on Strength.

With 2 SP/level, you won't have much to spread around. And Intimidating only gets you so far socially...

See my previous answer.

Rogues have Gather Information in addition to Intimidate, Bluff, Sense Motive, Knowledge: Local, Disguise, and Diplomacy, which makes them great at finding things. (And social encounters.)

Bards get all of that plus Bardic Knowledge.

Wizards, Sorcerers, and Clerics get Divination.

When it comes to tracking down artifacts, a Fighter with Intimidate is at the bottom of the roster.

Can't stand ToB. There's a genre it evokes that simply disagrees with me.

ToB was simply an example of what melee has to do in order to be competent: have lot of good options available at higher levels. Think of Psychic Warriors and Totemists if you can't stand ToB.

I absoultely agree. I've been very lucky to have had few players out to exploit or abuse spells, despite having done a lot of DMing at meet-ups and cons. But I have seen legitimate spell (and Sp/Su) usage threaten to cock things up for everyone on occasion.

I understand your concern, but if the ultimate goal is to reduce class discrepancies, you'll need to do something about the Fighter.

To reason by analogy, Robin Hood stole from the rich, yes, but he also gave to the poor.

 

[Borthos]

Don't cloistered clerics basically operate the same way as wizards but with divine spells? Or am I remembering wrong? Why would you change the way a wizard gets spells but not the cloistered cleric?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'm brewing a new campaign and a couple of other threads in this forum have got me thinking. Despite preparing a list of house rules to deal with problematic spells (for which I'm grateful to Dannyalcatraz, Empirate and Celebrim, among others)...

Really, this is enough to kinda sorta balance magic. As much as magic can be balanced without rewriting the entire spells chapter and/or the game.

It's impossible to pass sure judgment on rules I haven't seen, but adding rules for level-up spells, researching and whatnot is probably more trouble than it's worth. And like PCat said, it sends up the 'control freak!' red flag in my head.

 

[Ranes]

I think it can be quite flavourful. One option would be to get any of the casting classes to make a Spellcraft check of appropriate DC to attempt to learn spell 'x' at a given level. Fail and it is beyond you at the moment. Try this for as many new spells you wish until you fill the new slot (or for wizards get two new books successfully scribed into your book)

If someone really, really wants to learn a particular spell, then purchase a scroll with it on and learn it from there.

(my 1e wizard was horrified when he failed to learn Fireball upon reaching 5th level. He learned lightning bolt instead, and gravitated towards electrical attacks from then onwards, but I digress)

I think it is a bit of a problem if divine casters get a free pass though - they already get to pick everything off their ever expanding list! So if you do this, why not say that divine casters have to have their prayer books which are analogs of wizard spellbooks?

Cheers

Yes, the wizard still has other options to learn spells, of course. And I think it does have the potential to lend character to the campaign.

I agree that there's something a little niggling about giving clerics a free pass. But I don't want them to be too close to the wizard in terms of look and feel.

But the jury's still out on these ideas, which is why I'm here.

Thanks for the suggestions.

With 2 SP/level, you won't have much to spread around. And Intimidating only gets you so far socially...

The last guy who took the feat in one of my games did very well with it, actually.

Bards get all of that plus Bardic Knowledge.

Perhaps I should have mentioned no bards but the cloistered cleric has a similar mechanism.

When it comes to tracking down artifacts, a Fighter with Intimidate is at the bottom of the roster.

I DM with the goal of giving everyone opportunities to shine. I can engineer the appropriate moments. But I'm not taking issue with the basic argument.

Think of Psychic Warriors and Totemists if you can't stand ToB.

All right.

Don't cloistered clerics basically operate the same way as wizards but with divine spells? Or am I remembering wrong? Why would you change the way a wizard gets spells but not the cloistered cleric?

The cloistered cleric learns spells as the normal cleric does. That is, he knows all the spells of level x as soon as they become available. His spell and skill list are expanding in exchange for more limited martial prowess. Why not gimp him like the wizard? My initial reason for not doing so is that I sometimes find players unwilling to play the cleric (the same reason why 3e gives them so much clout as it is).

 

[Ranes]

And like PCat said, it sends up the 'control freak!' red flag in my head.

Isn't there a little bit of control freakery in every DM?

Perhaps it is harking too far back to the late 70s. But, as PS pointed out, wizards have other ways to add to their spell books. All my basic suggestion does is take away the speed-ups.

 

[Ranes]

To reason by analogy, Robin Hood stole from the rich, yes, but he also gave to the poor.

Noted.

 

[Borthos]

Well, no offense to you or anything, but in your game, if you implemented this against the wizard, I would never play one. Limiting the number of scrolls found, stuff like that is cool imo (and only imo) but I would always go for the cleric who knows every divine spell in existence (including the bard spell list with divine bard variant), even if I only have limited combat prowess. I see absolutely no reason to nerf the 2/level gain for wizards and just tell him "No scrolls were found, sorry." this is all just imo.

 

[Ranes]

Well, no offense to you or anything...

No offence taken. I welcome your opinion.

 

[Alexander123]

As far as things to do, I do agree that you will have to do something about the fighter. Dandu suggested Tomb of Battle which I agree should be allowed and I want to ask you what genre the Tomb of Battle evokes in you and why you disagree with it.

The solution is not in my opinion to restrict casters and try to weaken magic.

To reason by analogy, the solution is not to bring the rich down to the level of the poor but to raise the poor up to the level of the rich.

I don't think that there is a bit of control freakery in every DM.