Wizard and spellbooks

[Praeden]

This confusion arises from trying to force all the classes into the same set of mechanics. They obviously felt that they needed to keep the wizard's spellbook, and I'm glad they did, but in doing so they took the wizard outside of the framework used to design the other classes. Which indicates that the basic 4E class framework is pretty limited, and it only takes a small amount of non-conformance before it starts to break.

This issue was one of the first things I noticed when I read the books (long-time wizard player you see), and I assume that someone ran into this during playtesting. I wonder why no clarification or explanation was issued...?

 

[Blackeagle]

But it is not a matter of just forgetting one. It is a matter of the Wizard puts a new spell in his spellbook and another spell strangely vanishes from the spellbook. That does not make it a use it or lose it kind of thing.

I suppose the spellbook is "magical" and you could potentially say that the writting is "magical". When you learn a new spell you incorporate it into your spellbook and it transfers some of the arcane energy from the spell you are "forgetting" or "transforming" into the new spell that you are writting and that is why it vanishes.

Don't think of spells literally disappearing from the wizard's physical spellbook. Instead, think of three categories of spells: Spells a wizard has written down in his spellbook, but hasn't cast in ages and is really rusty at. He could only cast one of these spells after spending a substantial amount of time reading his notes, practicing the spell, etc. (this is simulated by retraining a power when you level). Next are spells the wizard has cast fairly recently, but hasn't concentrated on enough to cast at the drop of a hat (this is simulated by the three spells per slot in the spellbook). Finally, there are spells that the wizard went over in great detail while the rest of the group was eating breakfast this morning which he can cast with a snap of the fingers (these are the wizard's readied spells).

The key is to mentally separate the spellbook as game construct from the physical book the wizard is carrying around with his arcane notes in them. The spellbook as game construct just represents the spells the wizard has been practicing enough recently that he can cast them from memory after spending a few minutes going over his notes.

Really, this is no different than the fighter. A 30th level fighter probably hasn't totally forgotten his 1st level encounter and daily powers, he just hasn't been practicing them enough lately to pull them off in the middle of combat.

 

[Assallya]

Gah.... that means those concepts where a magician goes about learning every spell they possibly can is gone?

I've had so many players in my games that like to compete over who has access to more spells and the thicknesses of their books.

 

[Ahglock]

I have a harder time rationalizing why a rogue suddenly forgets how to twist a blade in someones wound, and an even harder time rationalizing why he can only do it once per encounter.

At least with a wizard i can say poof its magic. And I do like the explanation given that its not gone from the book, just that he is way out of practice with it. So I will probably use Blackeagle's explanation, it works really well IMO.

 

[Zulithe]

I think there is something intrinsicly wrong about the way abilities work in 4e that we have to work so hard to rationalize it. I agree that the system is easier, and trims down what players can do so that they can decide what to do faster, etc., but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Skill atrophy is a very poor explanation IMO when your character is constantly using those abilities each day and gaining a level in 'game time' is usually takes only a week or so in a typical campaign. You're telling me that they forget THAT easily? Come on...

I still look forward to running 4e, but there are a lot of sacrifices in doing so, and this is one of the big ones.

 

[Blackeagle]

I think there is something intrinsicly wrong about the way abilities work in 4e that we have to work so hard to rationalize it.

I don't know if it's necessarily more difficult to rationalize, it's just that new rules need new and different rationalizations. The old rationalizations from 3e (and previous editions) are so ingrained we don't even have to think about them. A character with evasion is standing in a 10 foot wide and tall hallway when a ball of flame bursts out to a 20 foot radius right next to him, but he takes no damage at all. That takes at least as much work to rationalize as most of the 4e stuff, yet we hardly even think about it.

Skill atrophy is a very poor explanation IMO when your character is constantly using those abilities each day and gaining a level in 'game time' is usually takes only a week or so in a typical campaign. You're telling me that they forget THAT easily? Come on...

Speaking of rationalization, at that rate characters are going from callow youths to demigods in about 30 weeks, and what bothers you is the fact that they've forgotten the attack they did last week?

 

[Zulithe]

"Speaking of rationalization, at that rate characters are going from callow youths to demigods in about 30 weeks, and what bothers you is the fact that they've forgotten the attack they did last week?"

Well, I think that is different. In legends and epic novels and films, we see nobodies turn into the greatest heroes in a short period of time. Even modern-day soldiers can turn from wet behind the ears into weathered veterans with a lifetime of stories pretty quickly. What we don't see are these same heroes forgetting the signature tactics that have served them well and helped them attain those heights of greatness.

 

[Blackeagle]

Well, I think that is different. In legends and epic novels and films, we see nobodies turn into the greatest heroes in a short period of time.

We see them turn into heroes, but demigods usually takes a little longer.

 

[Zulithe]

Well, that's true. I did say there were other issues I had. Some bother me more than others. That doesn't particularly bother me. Afterall, many groups don't enjoy playing into the epic levels (which by the way, characters having abilities that powerful has existed in prior editions, it is not a 4e "problem" as I would suggest the ability atrophy in 4e is)

If characters gaining such incredibly powerful nearly dragonball-esque powers is an issue, campaigns can happily stop around 20th level, as they had in prior editions.

 

[Ahglock]

Since people advance in level when I say so, and not by a XP chart I'm not worried by what the rules say about advancement. But, I will say the default speed of advancement is faster than I will use. But, so was 3e. Where as 2e and earlier editions were slower than what I used.

I do not know why but I am thinking about the Lawrence Watt-Evans novel with a single spell, where the hapless apprentice learns only one spell a fire starting spell before his master dies. He goes on to learn powerful magic in a time warped extra dimensional castle. What does he slay the dragon with, his starter spell because it was the only spell he had the mats for. Its not the only novel I have read where the hero survives by pulling out the oldy but goldy trick from the past.

I'd be tempted to allow players to use "forgotten" powers through the stunt system if i could figure a way to wrangle it.