Spellbooks & Sorcerers -- any use?

Ran said:
Anyway, in my group we say a sorcerer can use a book or a scroll to learn a spell he has slot to, so it can be used, of course he may also gain some levels in wizard... what means he will quit sorcerer completely.
Um... what?
If you allow sorcerers to prepare spells from a spellbook, you entirely remove the class's main drawback. They gain all the flexibility of wizards, and still get the benefit of their many spells per day. This is about the most unbalancing house rule I've ever seen for sorcerers.

Also, in the core rules, there are no restrictions on multiclassing between sorcerer and wizard. It's not very efficient in terms of spell power, but you can do it if you want to.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

AuraSeer said:

Um... what?
If you allow sorcerers to prepare spells from a spellbook, you entirely remove the class's main drawback. They gain all the flexibility of wizards, and still get the benefit of their many spells per day. This is about the most unbalancing house rule I've ever seen for sorcerers.

Also, in the core rules, there are no restrictions on multiclassing between sorcerer and wizard. It's not very efficient in terms of spell power, but you can do it if you want to.

Well, you got me wrong, they may LEARN a new spell they have just been allowed to (table on PHB) from a scroll or book, they cannot prepare from a book, they cannot even try to.

Of course there are no restrictions, but since a wizard is much better than a sorcerer and he already has some versatility, he will probably have more benefits from the wizard class than from the other one.
 
Last edited:

mooby said:
I remember in 2E, a wizard could cast a spell from a spellbook as a scroll. Does a wizards spellbooks have any use for a sorcerer?

I don't remember this rule. Am I losing my mind here?

-Ryan
 


Ran said:

Of course there are no restrictions, but since a wizard is much better than a sorcerer and he already has some versatility, he will probably have more benefits from the wizard class than from the other one.
"Wizard is much better than a sorcerer" ?

:rolleyes: Not that again.

The wizard's main strength is his great variety of spells, allowing him to tailor his selection to any given day. If he knows he's going up against a goblin army, he doesn't bother with any demon-hunting spells.

The sorcerer is more specialized. Within a given sorcerer's chosen expertise, his greater spells per day give him more raw power than the wizard. In a stand-up fight, a battle sorcerer can deal out more damage than a wizard Evoker. When it comes to demons, a demon-hunting sorcerer can outclass a wizard Abjurer. And so on.

The two classes are simply different, and which one is "better" depends on the circumstance. You may as well say that the druid is "better" than the cleric, or that the ranger is "better" than the fighter, because each of those have their particular strengths as well.
 


Sure! Why not?

Greetings!

In my campaigns, I allow any mage (generic arcane caster) to cast spells from a spellbook as if it is as scroll. This includes Sorcerers and Bards (although I use Monte's variant, so they can't in that case). When they do it this way, the spell is burned from the book, erased, and therefore is gone for good.

I did this because I strictly enforce the rules for putting a spell into a spellbook. It takes one day plus one day per level to learn a spell. It also costs 100 gp per page and takes like 2x spell level in pages. (Or whatever it is. Straight from the PH.)

I ran a campaign where there were six players, sometimes seven, and there were two wizards. I couldn't believe how well these rules worked! I thought the mages would have tons of spells and be hard pressed to choose which ones to memorize.

Nope. Not even close.

Some levels of spells the wizard only had the 2 free spell a wizard gets. Other levels might have had a few more. 1st to 3rd level had maybe ten spells a piece.

I couldn't believe it.

Just by simply enforcing those rules, the wizards had to choose VERY carefully which spells they wanted. In fact, it was interesting to see them fight for the "right" to choose a free spell! They didn't want to each have the same spell, and therefore waste the potential between them, but the players wanted certain spells for their character.

Two big reasons for this. First of all, they struggled with money for a while and so the 1400 gp cost to scribe a 6th level spell when you want to do it for five spells, it adds up! Also, taking six days to scribe one 5th level spell is a lot. Two, with regards to the scribing time, the other players wouldn't let them. They refused to sit around for a month, even with no deadlines from an adventure, for a month while the mages scribed a spell. Even though it would be done in minutes!! ("okay, a month passes as they scribe their scrolls and now . . .") I was amazed.

So, why do I mention all of this? Well, when you consider that there isn't XP cost in the book but there is a lot of money, my players were *very* hesitant about burning a spell from their book. In the same campaign, it might have happened twice, in a very dire emergency, that they needed the spell and needed it now. In those instances, they cast the spells, knowing it was lost and they might not find it, or get the time to scribe it.

btw, it was also VERY good role playing. One wizard always cast certain spells and the players knew to be near him when he cast Mass Haste and some others. The other mage, the players knew would cast the more offensive spells. It was a very nice contrast!

YMMV

edg
 

But how long would it take to cast a spell from a spellbook. It must be more than one action as a spell in a spellbook is several pages long as opposed to a scroll.

I agree that it might not break anything to allow it, but I don't think it's allowed by the rules.

IceBear
 



Remove ads

Top