removing the bonus spells for every lvl?
- Thread starter notjer
- Start date
Sejs
First Post
Bingo - that's the problem as I see it, in a nutshell. If that was instituted, the wizard would be the only spellcasting class that would be totally dependant on the DM for what spells they get. Which, frankly, sucks. Big time.
What exactly were this DMs motivation behind ganking the 2 wizard spells learned/level? Because balance it ain't.
Epametheus
First Post
Fireball is good, but it's not that good.
Eliminating the free spells that wizards get from leveling with no compensation would be crippling -- I could easily picture a 4th or 5th level wizard with nothing but his 5 to 7 initial 1st level spells.
Eliminating the free spells that wizards get from leveling with no compensation would be crippling -- I could easily picture a 4th or 5th level wizard with nothing but his 5 to 7 initial 1st level spells.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
My mistake...
And here I was reading the title and thinking "Taking the free spells from the wizard, cleric, druid, and sorceror might be balanced. But would those other classes now need to carry Prayer Books or something like that?"
And here I was reading the title and thinking "Taking the free spells from the wizard, cleric, druid, and sorceror might be balanced. But would those other classes now need to carry Prayer Books or something like that?"
Brother MacLaren
Explorer
The problem is, DMs may wish to control which spells exist in the campaign world. By the rules, a wizard need never have seen nor heard of a spell to acquire it. As long as it's in the PHB, the wizard can get it.
Suppose that, for game world design reasons, the DM has determined that the teleport spell hasn't been invented and the magic missile spell is known only by a small handful of wizards in a secretive cabal. By the rules as written, a PC doesn't have to do any research to invent these spells.
While I agree that eliminating the "2 free spells per level" is unfair, I think it reasonable to disallow "ANY 2 spells per level" and limit it to spells that the PC has encountered in some fashion or has invested time and money to invent. By the same token, players should give the DM leeway to limit cleric/druid spells to only those known by the character's order or mentor.
Suppose that, for game world design reasons, the DM has determined that the teleport spell hasn't been invented and the magic missile spell is known only by a small handful of wizards in a secretive cabal. By the rules as written, a PC doesn't have to do any research to invent these spells.
While I agree that eliminating the "2 free spells per level" is unfair, I think it reasonable to disallow "ANY 2 spells per level" and limit it to spells that the PC has encountered in some fashion or has invested time and money to invent. By the same token, players should give the DM leeway to limit cleric/druid spells to only those known by the character's order or mentor.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Brother MacLaren said:
Controlling spells that exist and access to them is legitimate if applied in a manner that could be construed as coherent by some reach of the imagination. We do not appear to be dealing with that here as far as I can tell.
As you allude to the possibility at the end, there is no apparent logical reason to limit this to wizard spells if there is an actual good reason for the change. Why not start yanking handfuls of spells off the cleric/druid lists and require them to beg for more spells? And what about sorcerors? Can they still get any spell they want without DM preapproval?
There is a huge difference between saying "you must get preapproval for any spell you acquire," and "I am taking away spells from the wizard and only the wizard because I am afraid the class might dare be useful." Not sure really which we are dealing with, but notjer's mention of 'very balanced' makes me think the DM has the second goal in mind.
Gort
Explorer
I personally vet the spells our party wizard learns as he levels. But so far all I've disallowed was polymorph spells. (I don't like them or how they're implemented)
I think it's possible that the DM just doesn't want the wizard to get out of control, but the clerics, sorcerors and druids don't have such a restriction, so it's a load of rubbish.
I think it's possible that the DM just doesn't want the wizard to get out of control, but the clerics, sorcerors and druids don't have such a restriction, so it's a load of rubbish.
scholz
First Post
I agree that the DM should have some means of controlling the access to certain spells. I like giving spell scrolls and books as treasure, but their value changes a lot when you can take any spell you want with the free 2 spells.
I instituted this rule as a stop gap, I would allow non-core spells only as treasure/trade or others discovered. So you might get an acid orb spell, but only if you faught someone who had it first (or knew someone else who had it).
That worked pretty well. But I still missed the days when wizards needed to figure out a way to get by lacking some useful spells. But in a fast moving game, that is a short lived experience. If there is a useful spell, your wizard can automatically get it.
The problem with just deciding on a case to case basis, is that is and seems unfairly arbitrary. The idea that you need to find the spells makes it somewhat fair, since no one would get the free spells. (This could also be done for Sorcerors, Clerics and Druids). I don't think it would be horribly unbalancing, any more than having them find a spell book with a bunch of new spells is unbalancing.
I instituted this rule as a stop gap, I would allow non-core spells only as treasure/trade or others discovered. So you might get an acid orb spell, but only if you faught someone who had it first (or knew someone else who had it).
That worked pretty well. But I still missed the days when wizards needed to figure out a way to get by lacking some useful spells. But in a fast moving game, that is a short lived experience. If there is a useful spell, your wizard can automatically get it.
The problem with just deciding on a case to case basis, is that is and seems unfairly arbitrary. The idea that you need to find the spells makes it somewhat fair, since no one would get the free spells. (This could also be done for Sorcerors, Clerics and Druids). I don't think it would be horribly unbalancing, any more than having them find a spell book with a bunch of new spells is unbalancing.
I agree that he the DM should be able to limit spells in his campaign. But that starts with eliminating some spells entirely, polymorph, teleport, etc.
After that you can limit what the wizard finds but those 2 spells per level are supposed to be their spells. If you want, make them appove their selection before actually getting thier spells but that would bite the big one.
After that you can limit what the wizard finds but those 2 spells per level are supposed to be their spells. If you want, make them appove their selection before actually getting thier spells but that would bite the big one.
Brother MacLaren
Explorer
scholz said:
But another word for "arbitrary decision" is "judgment call." The players should be able to trust the DM enough to give him the leeway to make judgment calls.
It wouldn't be a bad compromise to say that you *always* get a Spellcraft check to learn any spell that you see being cast... maybe at a higher DC, but no limit on how many times per level... so you don't have to actually defeat the enemy wizard and find his spellbook to learn the "What was that?" he cast at you. This would work if the player was fairly certain they'd get a decent number of spells cast at or near the PC.
