Wizard's new spells each level

[Kershek]

It won't matter soon anyway. I've seen the new writeup on the book, it's significantly different from the current one.

Excellent!

I have a person in my campaign who just purchased one and put 5 spells into it for free. I wonder if retrofitting will be necessary.

 

[Quidam]

So....

I take it this means there are no established variant rules for allowing a wizard more flexibility in choosing his spells when he takes another level in wizard?




Sorry. Couldn't help it. This is not a real post- you just failed your Will save, is all.

 

[bret]

Don't you read the News Page?



WotC boards, and no, not yet

-Hyp.

The news page was the first place I checked after you mentioned it. Didn't see it there at that time, guess they didn't put your scoop up fast enough HyperSmurf.

Anyways, thanks for the information.

 

[Pielorinho]

For one, Monte isn't a WotC employee anymore. Ergo, no matter WHAT he says on ANY topic, it's not Official D&D™ anymore.

Please tell me you realize that this point is totally and completely irrelevant -- otherwise, I can't help but think you've not read this thread.

For two -- go open your copy ofSword and Fist. Look at the credits -- see how Monte is credited there?

Notice (if your printing is early enough) how the Halfling Outrider has no BAB column in it's level-benefits table.

Remember, if you can, how WotC said -- when, IIRC, Monte was still with them -- "oh, yeah, um ... we meant to do that, yeah, really we did!" ... only to, later, put the BAB column back IN, via the errata ... at the full fighter-class +1/level rate!!! (Specifically, the V2 errata for Sword and Fist, bottom of page 4 to top of page 5).

IOW, it is entirely possible (and IMO probable) that Monte is merely taking the "pathof least resistance" and CLAIMING, now, that his badly-worded description of the BBB was, after all, meant to be the misinterpreted, munchkinish nonsense people assert it is, today.

It's happened once with a book Monte worked on; why couldn't it have happened MORE than once? [/B]

Lemme get this straight: your reasoning here is:
1) Monte isn't the main writer on a book, but he's got one of the book's credits.
2) The layout people screwed up a table in the book, and the editors didn't catch the screwup. Never mind that Monte is neither in layout nor editing.
3) When the book came out, the PR flaks tried to cover their butts about it. Never mind that Monte isn't a PR flak.
4) Therefore, Monte is responsible for the mistakes of the editors, layout people, and PR flaks.
5) Therefore, when there's an ambiguous passage that Monte wrote, you conclude that he took the path of least resistance by explaining that the passage uses a less-common meaning of the ambiguous word. You conclude that he continues to take the path of least resistance by insisting on this interpretation even after his not-entirely-friendly parting from the company, and even after he's posted errata to his self-published books very regularly on his messageboards.

Dear friend, please stop bogarting the hookah.

Daniel

 

[Rel]

Are there any arcane rules (FR or somesuch) that allow a wizard to, instead of getting two spells of whatever level they like when they level, get a number of spell levels equal to two times the highest level they know? I know this would be easy enough to house rule, but wondered if it'd been thought of before by a designer. Doesn't seem too imbalancing to me, but I don't recall seeing it anywhere before.

Quidam, I don't know of any official rule that allows that. I will say that in my games, you wouldn't need a feat to do it because I have no problems with taking the equivalent value in lower level spells instead of a higher level spell. I think it is balanced.

On the other hand, I should probably mention that the scribing rules are my single biggest pet peeve with the core rules and I have changed them significantly in such a way that the issue you raised as well as the BBB argument are obviated.

I don't intend to post those rules unless you want me to, Quidam. Any further hijacking of this thread might cause a rip in the fabric of space-time.

 

[Quidam]

Re: Re: Wizard's new spells each level

Quidam, I don't know of any official rule that allows that. I will say that in my games, you wouldn't need a feat to do it because I have no problems with taking the equivalent value in lower level spells instead of a higher level spell. I think it is balanced.

On the other hand, I should probably mention that the scribing rules are my single biggest pet peeve with the core rules and I have changed them significantly in such a way that the issue you raised as well as the BBB argument are obviated.

I don't intend to post those rules unless you want me to, Quidam. Any further hijacking of this thread might cause a rip in the fabric of space-time.

Thanks, mate. I didn't think there were, either, but don't have the elephantine memory that some denizens of this board are purported to have. Scribing costs are probably my biggest pet peeve, too- partly due to the fact that the first PC I played in 3E (after years of hiatus) was a wizard. A wizard who ended up taking item creation feats just so he could sell items just so he could earn gold just so he could actually scribe the scrolls the party kept finding into his spellbook.

Sure wish Andy were a bit more forthcoming about the scribing changes in the next rev...

 

[Caliban]

Re: Re: Re: Wizard's new spells each level

Thanks, mate. I didn't think there were, either, but don't have the elephantine memory that some denizens of this board are purported to have. Scribing costs are probably my biggest pet peeve, too- partly due to the fact that the first PC I played in 3E (after years of hiatus) was a wizard. A wizard who ended up taking item creation feats just so he could sell items just so he could earn gold just so he could actually scribe the scrolls the party kept finding into his spellbook.

Sure wish Andy were a bit more forthcoming about the scribing changes in the next rev...

I think you will like them.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Andy Collins has said that the scribing rules are changing, "Much to the wizard's glee". That suggests scribing is going to be cheaper.

-Hyp.

Good, they were too expensive. I said it form the begining I don't think they really worked out how expensive the scribing cost was at levels 1-10. Pastlevels 10 your expected money jumps up so much its almost irrelevent, but elvels 1-10 even moderate useage of scribng puts you at about 50-75% the equipment of your companions. And that's just way too much, they overbalnced the wizards.

I also perosnally think both BBB and the spellbook stealing rules in FR were patches to what they relaized were over the top costs.

 

[Kershek]

Good, they were too expensive. I said it form the begining I don't think they really worked out how expensive the scribing cost was at levels 1-10. Pastlevels 10 your expected money jumps up so much its almost irrelevent, but elvels 1-10 even moderate useage of scribng puts you at about 50-75% the equipment of your companions. And that's just way too much, they overbalnced the wizards.

There's still the immense amount of time it takes to write spells for higher levels.

I also perosnally think both BBB and the spellbook stealing rules in FR were patches to what they relaized were over the top costs.

What stealing rules?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I forget the term, maybe spellbook capture?

Anyhoo it lets you turn a captured/aquired spellbook into your own spellbook so you can use spells from it. Its like a DC 25+highest spell level check. Not a nig FR guru so I don't knw the specifics.