PVP Wizards?

[joethelawyer]

I've been thinking lately about how wizards are played these days, as opposed to 1st ed. as relates to getting new spells. In 1e, you never got them automatically just because you gained a level. The only way you as a player actually had a say-so in what spells were in your spell book was if you researched them, but the costs of researching and the high chances of failure, as well as the downtime in missing out on potential adventures, made researching generally not worth it.

Nowadays we get 2 every level, and it is relatively easy to research new spells. It takes the fun out of it though. Before, you killed a wizard and took his spell books, and it was like Christmas, going through the list of spells to see what may be new. For me, even beyond any magic items, finding a spell book was the ultimate thrill. Nowadays, with a lot of spells gained through player selection, especially the cool ones that you used to hpe were in a spellbook, some of that thrill is gone.

I've been thinking of going back to the old style of play, described in the first paragraph, as long as my DM understands that he may need to up the ante on spellbooks in his adventures to make up for my lack of ability to fill my spellbooks on my own. As it stands now, spellbooks are few and far between in our adventures. I've only gotten one decent one in 2 years of playing, which I made up for through research and the 2 freebies every level.

In my opinion, spellbooks determine a wizard's relative power to other wizards, and to the group he is in, more than anything else. Versatility is power for wizards, and spells give the wizards that versatility. Therefore, going back to a style where an adventuring wizard's primary goal is spellbooks, I could totaly see a PVP (Player vs. Player) style game happening, where good and evil wizards basically batle each other, any time, anywhere, Highlander style, in order to obtain each other's spellbooks. "There can be only One Spelbook." The good wizard justifies it because he is taking out a evil guy, and the evil guy does it because he is evil.

I would think that wizards would tend to be less flashy about making an entrance into a new town. They would have more home defense kind of spells. They would always try and have followers/henchmen/adventurers around to watch their backs in case of assasination attempts. Higher level ones with money might even go so far so to have local spy networks in place to alert them to potential threats, or targets. They also probably wouldn't leave home much unless well protected.

What do you guys think about all this?

thx.

 

[Nikosandros]

In AD&D you do get a spell for "free" at each level (DMG, p. 39)

 

[joethelawyer]

In AD&D you do get a spell for "free" at each level (DMG, p. 39)

Seriously? Holy crap, for 10 yrs of playing 1 ed I never saw that rule.

I still don't agree with it though. Assuming you can go up a level in a week and get one or two spells upon levelling, no matter what the level, or you could sit at home and research and take many weeks to get a single high level spell at great cost and chance of failure, the free spell or two makes no sense.

 

[Filcher]

I love this idea and the setting implications. Need to implement this in my own game (though it will be 4E rituals).

 

[Starglim]

I would think that wizards would tend to be less flashy about making an entrance into a new town. They would have more home defense kind of spells. They would always try and have followers/henchmen/adventurers around to watch their backs in case of assasination attempts. Higher level ones with money might even go so far so to have local spy networks in place to alert them to potential threats, or targets. They also probably wouldn't leave home much unless well protected.

I very much like the campaign flavour here. I'm not sure that gaining one spell per level destroys it (actually, I think that would be about right to make wizards work for their spells) but you could revive the idea that spells with particular wizards' names are rare and not available for random or per-level selection.

 

[Wik]

Seriously? Holy crap, for 10 yrs of playing 1 ed I never saw that rule.

Yeah, I never saw it either. Didn't have one like it in 2e, I know that.

I used to love being the DM, and giving out random spells at character start. I'd always give them a few choices... "You can have Magic Missile, Burning Hands, or Sleep", and "You can have Silent Image or Charm Person", and then roll randomly to see what other spells popped up.

One thing I was on the fence about in earlier editions (and I still don't like in 3e) is the fact that if your group had two wizards, each wizard would do their best to start with different spells, and then just share spellbooks.

In Dark Sun, I came pretty close to making a houserule saying Defilers and Preservers can't share spellbooks to get by this rule... luckily, though, I didn't. If I had, the PCs would've had to kill preservers to get new spells!

 

[EroGaki]

One of the main reasons I like playing wizards is the never-ending quest to find more spells. There is nothing as thrilling as finding/stealing a spell book.

But nowadays, it is easier to just stroll down the street and buy a scroll with the spells you want. Since the advent of item creations feats, magical items have become cheap and simple to mass produce. In the current campaign I'm playing in, the mage has over 100 spells in his spells books; most of those came from scrolls he bought while we were in a major city. Where's the fun in that?

Back in the day (my day, anyway ) the main way a wizard learned new spells was: A) Finding/stealing a spell book from another mage, B) Copying a spell from a scroll (the standard method from 3E), or C) trading/buying the spell from another mage. Option C was the main one in the campaigns I was involved in; spell barter was always fun, IMHO.