Variant Wizard Spellbook

[Tovec]

I was talking to a friend and fellow DM about the sheer number of spells a caster receives in Pathfinder (and 3.5) and about possible fixes.

In our half-baked theory we wondered what impact it would have on the game if a wizard only received one new spell per spell level for FREE. Every other spell they want to learn by copying into their spellbook would have to be researched, found and copied in. It would force wizards to actually spend their gold on new equipment much the same way as fighters do. Buying a scroll and copying it into their spellbook.

In this change, wizards will get a free spell at every odd class level when they achieve a new spell level. That new spell MUST be of their highest available spell level. Meaning they'll begin with only 1/4 the spells they started with.

As for right now sorcerers would learn spells the same way but not have a spellbook to copy into. The upshot for sorcerers would be that they get an expanded spell list too - if they work on it. I'm not sure how to properly cost or limit sorcs without completely messing with a simple system for wizards.

Also, I'm torn on what happens with specialist wizards. I was thinking possibly giving them an extra spell on the even class levels but only of their specialist school. I see no issues with their school powers so far.

The immediate problem is of course how this effects clerics and druids? (I'm ignoring the other classes in anything but the Core Rulebook for now.) They would know TOO many spells and have all that many more choices every level and every day.

I've come here looking for thoughts and suggestions on this proposed idea. What do you think? I know it would clearly change how the game operates but what pitfalls or winfalls do you see? Any obvious abuses (including from prestiges/archetypes or other material in PF)?

 

[Jester David]

I might limit the players to only core spells when buying scrolls or copying from an NPCs' spell book. But spells gained from leveling might be taken from any source. Free spells can represent some amount of personalization, it's their chance to "make" spells.

Divine casters might likewise be limited to Core spells, but might gain one spell a level from any source. Or they could be taught new rituals or prayers by clergy or as alternate rewards.

 

[Aaron L]

I think it's a seriously bad idea. You're messing with a basic, core mechanic that defines and separates Wizards from Sorcerers. Why, exactly, would you want to limit the number of spells a Wizard knows and force him to buy equipment? You're going to end up with a shallow, one-trick-pony Wizard who casts the same few spells over and over and over and over again, simply because he's only been able to acquire a few good spells... in other words, a Sorcerer.

You're idea would be robbing the player of the Wizard of one of the primary, elemental experiences of playing a Wizard: assembling your spellbook and choosing your spells for the day. That isn't a thing you approach simply or without thought, it is a very very strategic process and can be a very fun part of the game. I know it always is for me and my friends who love to play Wizards.

There already IS a class that knows only a few spells and casts those over and over and over, and it's called the Sorcerer. If, for some reason, you think that Wizards get too many spells in their spellbooks, then eliminate the Wizard class and make everyone who wants to play a Mage play a Sorcerer. Don't muck them up and unbalance Wizards in relation to Sorcerers.

There s a big, big reason for the differences between Wizards and Sorcerers, why Sorcerers get a few spells they can cast all day long but Wizards get a fewer number of spells they can cast each day but can amass a huge library of spells in their books to choose from. I have seriously NEVER encountered a problem because a Wizard "knew too many spells." Seriously, you could let Wizards know EVERY spell of a certain level, just like Clerics already do, and it seriously wouldn't impact balance or make him much more powerful because he can still only PREPARE a few of them at once.

If you do what you propose to Wizards you should also limit Fighters to only owning a few weapons, too, because it is the same thing; a Fighter can own every damn weapon in the book but it doesn't give him any advantage because he can still only use one (possibly two) at a time.


I'm sorry, I don't mean to come off as snippy or a prick, but amassing a large library of spells and making the strategic decisions each day of what spells to prepare is one of the basic pleasures of playing a Wizard, one of the reasons why I love playing them, my favorite class, and you're idea would be robbing them of that.

Hell, when I'm playing a Wizard I'll make up several daily spell lists, an Offensive list, a Defensive list, and a Utility list, maybe two or three variants of each, have those lists ready and swap out a spell here and there as needed for specific needs that are foreseen to further perfect a spell list for each day. There is a lot of strategic thinking and looking ahead for the Wizard, and that's a lot of the fun of playing them.

What you propose is a good way of turning the Wizard into a crippled version of the Sorcerer, but not much else. If you really think Wizards end up knowing too many spells, which I still can't wrap my head around, then eliminate the class and just push Sorcerers in place of them, but please don't mangle them like you propose. They're the way they are for a reason.

 

[IronWolf]

I was talking to a friend and fellow DM about the sheer number of spells a caster receives in Pathfinder (and 3.5) and about possible fixes.

I've come here looking for thoughts and suggestions on this proposed idea. What do you think? I know it would clearly change how the game operates but what pitfalls or winfalls do you see? Any obvious abuses (including from prestiges/archetypes or other material in PF)?

I don't think it is a good idea, but if it works for your game then go for it.

I don't think that wizards get too many spells to start with. Even with a large number of spells in their spellbook they are still limited to a certain number per day which still acts as a limiter.

 

[Tovec]

I think it's a seriously bad idea. You're messing with a basic, core mechanic that defines and separates Wizards from Sorcerers. Why, exactly, would you want to limit the number of spells a Wizard knows and force him to buy equipment? You're going to end up with a shallow, one-trick-pony Wizard who casts the same few spells over and over and over and over again, simply because he's only been able to acquire a few good spells... in other words, a Sorcerer.

Yes I am messing with the basic mechanic, that's why I came on this forum to see if people much smarter than me can give me actual reasons why it might be a bad idea and what suggestions they can make as to how to improve my idea. Also, the major thing that has defined wizards from sorcerers has been (and will continue to be) spontaneous vs prepared casting as well as their school/bloodline powers. Why would I want to limit the power of wizards? Because it outshines EVERY OTHER CLASS IN THE GAME. When someone is talking about the best build for just about anything they have to at least consider if a wizard can do it as well as any combination of classes, variants, bloodlines, templates and feats. If a wizard can do that then I think they need to be re-addressed. Pathfinder made good strives at making all other classes more powerful but I think that fails to address the root problem.

You're idea would be robbing the player of the Wizard of one of the primary, elemental experiences of playing a Wizard: assembling your spellbook and choosing your spells for the day. That isn't a thing you approach simply or without thought, it is a very very strategic process and can be a very fun part of the game. I know it always is for me and my friends who love to play Wizards.

If anything it enhances the need to build their spellbook. They must actually go out, research, buy the scrolls needed in order to learn the spells in their book. As it is, they get 2 spells per level and there is virtually no effort involved except when a tough choice must be made of which spells to get this level and which to get next level.

There already IS a class that knows only a few spells and casts those over and over and over, and it's called the Sorcerer. If, for some reason, you think that Wizards get too many spells in their spellbooks, then eliminate the Wizard class and make everyone who wants to play a Mage play a Sorcerer. Don't muck them up and unbalance Wizards in relation to Sorcerers.

I think forcing wizards (and sorcerers) to pay for thier spells like a fighter pays for his equipment means that they won't be picking up spells that are useless and that they won't have the cash to buy a spell for EVERY contingency. They'll have to decide if their money should go toward knock or fireball.

There s a big, big reason for the differences between Wizards and Sorcerers, why Sorcerers get a few spells they can cast all day long but Wizards get a fewer number of spells they can cast each day but can amass a huge library of spells in their books to choose from. I have seriously NEVER encountered a problem because a Wizard "knew too many spells." Seriously, you could let Wizards know EVERY spell of a certain level, just like Clerics already do, and it seriously wouldn't impact balance or make him much more powerful because he can still only PREPARE a few of them at once.

Okay, couple of things I object to here.
First, the benefit of sorcerers is that they are spontaneous and can cast all their spells all day long. Yes there is more incentive for them to go learn spells so they have more choice but the direct benefit is the same.
Second, in my proposal BOTH wizards and sorcerers must buy any spells beyond the first free spell they get per spell level.
Third, I HAVE seriously encountered a problem with wizard knowing too many spells. I have had that same issue with clerics and so far I have no simple remedy beyond insituting a similar learning rate that wizards have.
Fourth, if a wizard can prepare ANY spell they want and there is no real balance issue that only underlines my point of them knowing too many! They have too many contingencies, options, spell lists.

If you do what you propose to Wizards you should also limit Fighters to only owning a few weapons, too, because it is the same thing; a Fighter can own every damn weapon in the book but it doesn't give him any advantage because he can still only use one (possibly two) at a time.

This is probably my favourite and illustrates my point. Fighters get 1 feat per 2 levels (approx). They get an extra one at first level and I'm sure something like that could be affording to wizards. (They also get bonus stuff in pathfinder, but so do specialist school wizards.) Wizards CAN own every damn spell in the book but it is going to cost them just as it would cost a fighter owning every damn weapon in the book. The difference is, that fighter gains only a limited benefit from that weapon they pick up unless they pay the extra cash to get a better one. Similary, a wizard should pay more to get better and better spells, in scroll form, to copy into their spellbook.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to come off as snippy or a prick, but amassing a large library of spells and making the strategic decisions each day of what spells to prepare is one of the basic pleasures of playing a Wizard, one of the reasons why I love playing them, my favorite class, and you're idea would be robbing them of that.

YOU STILL CAN. That is the nice thing about my rule. All spells will be available in scroll form for the wizard (and sorcerer) to pick up. They'll still learn others for free but if they want to go out and buy more then all the power to them. I realize you might be upset because I'm picking on your favourite class, but as they are not mine I hope you can understand my feeling they are very much stronger than the average class.

Hell, when I'm playing a Wizard I'll make up several daily spell lists, an Offensive list, a Defensive list, and a Utility list, maybe two or three variants of each, have those lists ready and swap out a spell here and there as needed for specific needs that are foreseen to further perfect a spell list for each day. There is a lot of strategic thinking and looking ahead for the Wizard, and that's a lot of the fun of playing them.

And? How would this change? Do you think it will change because they only get 1 spell per spell level for free? That would only be the case if a wizard doesn't want to invest their time and money into learning more. In game I would assume that they can learn many of these spells from a local mentor, wizards college, arcane library, archaic scrolls in a dungeon. Anywhere they are willing to spend the effort learning that spell and putting into their spellbook. I would just not give it to them just because they happened to level. Especially when they have the option to learning additional spells from all the sources I just listed ALREADY by the existing rules.

What you propose is a good way of turning the Wizard into a crippled version of the Sorcerer, but not much else. If you really think Wizards end up knowing too many spells, which I still can't wrap my head around, then eliminate the class and just push Sorcerers in place of them, but please don't mangle them like you propose. They're the way they are for a reason.

I don't want sorcerers in place of wizards. I have played both and there are certainly roles for both and personalities for both. I think this is a silly thing to say (if the mods will allow) as I did originally say that sorcerers would be treated the same and lose all but 1 spell per spell level for free. Sorcerers would also get the spells a level later, but that is the drawback of spontaneous casting.

I don't think it is a good idea, but if it works for your game then go for it.

I don't think that wizards get too many spells to start with. Even with a large number of spells in their spellbook they are still limited to a certain number per day which still acts as a limiter.

Well the thing, and why I posted about it here, is that I have no idea if it would work out well in my game. I realize it severely limits the power of wizards (and sorcerers) but if the ONLY it realistically changes is how strong wizards are then good. I can try it out then and get back to you.

 

[paradox42]

To me, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Wizards are versatile: that's the primary focus and strength of the class, and that alone is why Character Optimization (CharOp) people always look at them to be sure of what they're doing: the Wizard can do just about anything, if he properly prepares. That's the key factor there- the Wizard has to think ahead. If he prepares Fire spells expecting to face a White Dragon, and the dragon turns out to be a Red that was using disguises to look White, then the Wizard is SOL- but the Fighter's sword works just as well either way.

Your response to the other posters is very telling in this regard: when you state why you're doing this, your answer is not "my players always play Wizards because they're so powerful" or "one of my players has a Wizard character that has broken my game and I don't want it to happen again." Your answer is instead "because whenever people talk about builds, they always compare to the Wizard." This suggests that you have gotten worried by stuff you've read online, but you haven't actually encountered a problem in a real game resulting from a Wizard character.

If my supposition is correct, then you should be aware that your proposed rule change doesn't affect character optimization at all- and here's why. CharOp threads and boards invariably assume ideal circumstances. They don't talk about how difficult a particular combination of items and/or spells is to acquire; they just assume that the optimizer acquired them and explain how to use the combo. Your rule won't stop serious Wizard optimizers from assembling a list of spells they want; it just makes the acquisition more annoying. A player focused on optimization is going to acquire what he wants anyway- unless you use your power as GM to stop him of course, but then again, you can do that anyway without changing the existing rules set.

In the meantime, your proposed rule change will make life more difficult for players who have Wizard characters who are not trying to optimize them or break the game. Inexperienced players, or players who prefer to focus on roleplaying and story over Getting The Most Plusses, will be badly crippled by this rules change, but they're precisely the type of player who wouldn't have broken your game anyway under the old rules system.

This is why the responders so far have been largely against your idea.

 

[kalgani]

I have thought about it, my concept is that a fully non spontan-caster (wiz, wit, cle, dru) should have a limited number of max. 4 schools available, the rest he can´t use!

Another limitation is the att-bonus, you can have only a much schools as your att-bonus is giving, so a att 16 spellcaster can only use 3 schools, but when he get the +4 bonus he can choose the 4th school. att 20+ would change nothing more there.


For all other casters I would allow up to 5 schools, because they have a limited range of known spells, but the att limitations is still in use! so a CHA 17 Oracle can also only choose from 3 schools, but can hae with att 20+ up to 5 schools.

 

[Tovec]

Your response to the other posters is very telling in this regard: when you state why you're doing this, your answer is not "my players always play Wizards because they're so powerful" or "one of my players has a Wizard character that has broken my game and I don't want it to happen again." Your answer is instead "because whenever people talk about builds, they always compare to the Wizard." This suggests that you have gotten worried by stuff you've read online, but you haven't actually encountered a problem in a real game resulting from a Wizard character.

My problem is when players do end up making wizards they invariably fall into the same trap of having too much power compared to the non-casters in the party. I have been burned by premium built wizards, but the same goes for premium built fighters, rogues and even monks. The difference is when a high leveled wizard gets angry he lays waste to a planet. When a high level fighter gets angry he lays waste to an army. At the very least my proposed rule will limit access to higher level spells.

Granting them only 1 free spell per spell level ensures that they don't have immediate access to every spell under the sun. They can still decide if they want to be a specialist wizard, seeking out spells of one school or another and using their free spell to grab something harder to find. Or they can be a generalist wizard and put their money into everything they find but have less resources available for higher level spells. Either way it means that both the wizard and the fighter will have to spend money on their equipment instead of just getting it for free.

In the meantime, your proposed rule change will make life more difficult for players who have Wizard characters who are not trying to optimize them or break the game. Inexperienced players, or players who prefer to focus on roleplaying and story over Getting The Most Plusses, will be badly crippled by this rules change, but they're precisely the type of player who wouldn't have broken your game anyway under the old rules system.

The types of players I have that are the issue will have to work at getting spells. The ones who roleplay to find them will have a much easier time in acquiring scrolls to learn.

Oh and in the case of that dragon, yes if they have fireball facing a white they'll still be set. But in my version they may not have fireball, granting the rest of the party a chance to fight the dragon as opposed to the wizard taking it down in the first turn.

 

[BriarMonkey]

The solution you propose still doesn't fix the issue you believe is an issue.

If a Wizard hunts down every single spell in the game - he is still as powerful as if he didn't hunt down every single spell in the game. The only difference is the amount of money spent.

Now, I didn't say he's as versatile, as that he's not. Your solution only affects a Wizard's versatility in his spell selection. Nothing else (barring the whole financial mess).

On a complete aside, when I wandered in here, I was expecting a discussion on alternative methods for Wizards' spell books. Like, instead of great tomes, the use of staves as their spell book... Stuff like that...

Oh well.

 

[gamerprinter]

Since my gaming group does not consist Character Optimizers, none of the CharOp problems even exist. Our gamers recognize the power of spell casters, yet out of a group of six players, generally only one is ever an arcane caster. When I play, I always play martial characters or martial/casters like Ranger, Paladin, Magus, but I never play straight out spell caster ever. I don't care for that niche - it's got nothing to do with power.

Yeah, in total agreement with the responders to your OP, weakening access to spells for spell books or increasing the limit of spell acquisition is just a bad idea. And while, yes, Sorcerers are spontaneous and Wizards are not, the real difference is not being spontaneous but having more spells to use daily is the real difference.

I was hoping this thread was about alternate types of spell books, which I have suggestions for. But limiting spell acquisition - not interested in the topic. It would only destroy my game.