Limited Number of Spells and No Spell-Learning for Wizards

[Roman]

Although seeking out masters to learn new combat techniques is archetypal for warrior-types, we are talking here about the acquisition of non-combat powers outside of the level-up mechanic. I am not sure what non-combat powers of this manner would really fit the fighter... unless:

Imagine that rituals could be learned through skills and used by anybody with the appropriate skill. Arcane rituals would require an arcana skill check to learn and to perform (both would be trained only), while religious rituals would require a religion skill check to learn and to perform. Hence, even classes such as fighters could learn arcane rituals if they really wanted to, but it would cost them (using SWSE skill rules: one feat to make arcana their class skill and another to become trained in it). Some of the more advanced rituals could require skill focus in the relevant skill or even higher higher specialisations, such skill mastery and more if they exist in the game.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

Could very well be. It's certainly supported in the literature, even in more mainstream 'adventure' stories where someone has to seek out the old retired blademaster to learn his secret techiniques. That forms the basis for tons of martial arts movies as well.

Excellent point. Plus, it's just fun in play to seek out & learn new spells.

Plus, it makes sense from a marketing perspective. If characters only learn new powers when they level, and only ever have a limited number, like sorcerers, then there's less incentive to buy books with new powers in them.

 

[Voss]

I'd rather the new books had new classes, and any published classes are complete from the point they show up in a book. It neatly avoids the power creep that plagues 3.5 (every time a new book gets published, classes gain from the spells, and to a lesser extent, feats). If classes are complete out of the box, they're much easier to balance and handle.

Focusing on new classes would give the marketing and money making something else to focus on.

It also avoids a serious issue, because if classes gain powers in each book, each 'new' class would be farther and farther behind the curve. For example, if a class gets, say, 60 powers to choose from in its initial book, and an extra 15 per book, by the time the PH3 comes around, PH1 classes would have 90 powers to choose from, and the druid or psion would be lingering behind at 60. And you would really have to give new powers to every class equally to keep them competitive.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Voss, I think you've got about half of the 4e strategy down. You need to put them together. Each year's PH will have new classes and new powers for the old classes! That way, you have to buy the book each and every year.

Now, my question is, what's the mechanical difference between a ritual and a class ability (if any).

 

[Li Shenron]

From the various playtests and snippets of information posted on the topic of wizards and spellcasting, I surmise that unlike their 3E counterparts, wizards in 4E will not be able to learn new spells during their adventures (other than at the point of level up) and will have a limited number of spells known, like the sorcerers in 3E. The spells will be 'powers'.

As much as I am a fan of arcane spellcasters, and even if I like the option in 3e of learning new spells by research, I am not against this change.

On one condition only: that clerics are limited in the same way, and don't automatically learn 120 spells in 20 levels!