Spell Mastery

[Xorial]

If you want to change SM slightly, why not let the wizard spontaneously cast those spells, instead of just preparing them without a spellbook. To balance that, treat it like a sorcerer & metamagic. Increase the casting time to a full round. If it takes a round or more normally, leave the casting time the same.

 

[Nail]

Li Shenron
You're right, the feat spell mastery should have some extra "omph". I'd say concentrate on finding an ability that shows the character's mastery of the spell. That is, go after the "mastery" idea.

Just for brainstorming:

• +1 caster level to spells
• +1 spell DC to spells
• spontaneous cast of spell
• always make concentration checks with spell
• reduces the cost of a metamagic spell by 1 level
• spell prep time halved
• no (cheap) material components

Other ideas?

 

[Urbannen]

Li Shenron, the very fact that Spell Mastery exists means that the DM has a legitimate right to threaten the wizard's spellbook.

Frankly the whole reliance on spellbooks thing is dumb. It is an unfortunate anachronism.

There are two ways to handle this issue:

1. Don't worry about it. You and your players honor the silent contract that says that if they don't take Spell Mastery, you won't take away their spellbooks. It works.

2. As a rules variant, give Spell Mastery away for free, with the goal of giving wizards the option of eventually ditching their spellbooks completely while traveling. If you do this, I suggest giving them Spell Mastery as a free feat once at first level, and then at every second level after that - 3, 5, 7, etc.

It makes sense for wizards in Dungeons & Dragons to hole up in a tower with all their stuff on hand and never leave home. With their dependence on spellbooks and their need to constantly scribe scrolls into spellbooks, it doesn't make sense for wizards to spend a lot of time traipsing through the wilds of foreign lands. And yet that's exactly what PC wizards are expected to do.

 

[Nail]

y'know, as I think about it, the option to reduce metamagic cost seems to be the best "pairing" of the usual spell mastery benefits with a new ability.

After all, the spells that you have mastered are probably ones you want to use when yer in a bind......just the same sorts of spells that are most useful if silent spell-ed or still spell-ed.

 

[Nail]

Actually:

What if the new ability was that you could include a +1 level meta-magic feat "on the fly"? That would be tres cool. .....But too Uber?

 

[Nail]

Frankly the whole reliance on spellbooks thing is dumb. It is an unfortunate anachronism...

I don't think that word means what you think it means....

In any case, I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. Not only does the "book thing" balance a wizard, but it's excellent flavor.

As for the "unwritten agreement"....that comes from not wanting to do the same thing twice. Taking away the wizard's spell book gets boring and predictable after a while......

 

[Cheiromancer]

Part of the problem with spell books is their "all or nothing" nature. Damaging a spell-book might be an alternative; the book might lose a couple of spells, or you might require fairly hefty spellcraft rolls for the wizard to prepare them.

Similarly, you could have other spellbooks as treasure. They might be damaged by water, mildew or vermin, and require high rolls to use. In any case, they should have mostly common spells, but ones that will allow the wizard to do his job.

Provide spellbook ink as treasure every now and again. This enables scrolls to be transferred to books and important spells recopied.

If second hand spellbooks and vials of spellbook ink are reasonably common, it makes the destruction or damage of the wizard's own spellbook a legitimate ploy by the DM.

 

[AeroDm]

I agree with Cheiromancer- spellbooks are just too important to "threaten." If you harm it the wizzy just lost a lot of their power that will be very hard to get back, not to mention costly and time consuming. If you don't harm it at all, then a large part of their 'balancing' factor is gone and they don't take feats like SM or scribe back-up scrolls of their spell just in case.

If you take a fighter's magic sword, he is out of it for the adventure and you all have a good time getting it back while he uses a backup sword. if you take a wizard's spell book he is screwed for the adventure until his party gets it back for him. Uncool.

I think spell mastery should be improved somehow, but maybe instead of adding on extra benefits to no end, you could just increase the number of spells it lets you prepare without your book. 3+ int mod isn't that many, but maybe 5+int mod would be. Maybe 7 + int mod would make it worth their while. If taking it at 3rd and 6th would allow me to memorize basically all the spells I want (assuming 18 int and 7+ for 22 spells), I am fairly sure I would take it. Leave the spell book at home and feel safe.

I would also suggest that you (assuming you are the DM) inform spellcasters that you intend to threaten their books at the start of the campaign. This way they have fair warning for your intent and will know to take it.

Lastly, I'd allow wizards to take spell mastery with their 5/10/15/20th level feats. It seems perfectly reasonable, and would take away some of the 'sting' of using a real slot seeing as metamagic are sort of weak and item creation aren't always desired.

 

[Nail]

If taking it at 3rd and 6th would allow me to memorize basically all the spells I want (assuming 18 int and 7+ for 22 spells), I am fairly sure I would take it. Leave the spell book at home and feel safe.

That neglects the primary strength of the wizard-- the ability to customize, adapt, and learn. Potentially there's no limit to the number of spells you could have at your disposal.

What aboout those spells you (Wiz) may find along the way?

 

[Urbannen]

I don't think that word means what you think it means....

In any case, I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. Not only does the "book thing" balance a wizard, but it's excellent flavor.

As for the "unwritten agreement"....that comes from not wanting to do the same thing twice. Taking away the wizard's spell book gets boring and predictable after a while......

I think anachronism means an old thing or concept that is out of date with modern times. I think that reliance on spell books is from the original D&D of the early 1970's, and is out of date with modern times.

I'm not saying throw out the use of spell books. I'm saying let wizards actually be able to go on adventures without them. Let them be able to prepare a good number of spells without their spell books (not the same as spontaneous casting). If they want more variety, they can lug their spell books around. But they wouldn't have to lug around the spellbooks if they 1. wanted to protect their valuable property from the environmental hazards of adventuring or 2. didn't want to worry about carrying and losing their valuable property in the course of adventuring far from home.