-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Would reducing spellscribing costs break anything?
- Thread starter Black Omega
- Start date
Rel
Liquid Awesome
Since we are firmly in the realm of House Rules, I feel fine giving my solution.
IMC, I dropped the cost (but not the time) to 10% of normal (10GP per page). This represents the cost of "special ink". This ink is not magical, but it is waterproof. That is fine with me since there are a lot of other ways to destroy spellbooks.
BUT, I also dropped the "free" spells the wizard gets by the Core Rules. They must find or trade for every spell they want. No longer do spells just appear in their spellbooks when they advance a level.
By contrast, Sorcerers can pick up any spells they want (of the appropriate levels of course) and get full access to the new spells introduced in the class books.
I'd love to say that this is exhaustively play tested, but it isn't. So far, nobody has wanted to play a Wizard in the campaign. That tells me that it isn't too overpowered.
IMC, I dropped the cost (but not the time) to 10% of normal (10GP per page). This represents the cost of "special ink". This ink is not magical, but it is waterproof. That is fine with me since there are a lot of other ways to destroy spellbooks.
BUT, I also dropped the "free" spells the wizard gets by the Core Rules. They must find or trade for every spell they want. No longer do spells just appear in their spellbooks when they advance a level.
By contrast, Sorcerers can pick up any spells they want (of the appropriate levels of course) and get full access to the new spells introduced in the class books.
I'd love to say that this is exhaustively play tested, but it isn't. So far, nobody has wanted to play a Wizard in the campaign. That tells me that it isn't too overpowered.
We just dropped the scribing costs from 100gp to 50gp. We havent had much of a chance to implement it yet, but the majority of the party felt that 100gp/page was just too steep for our low level, moderate money/item campaign. Dropping it to 10gp or 1gp seems to trivialize scribing, which is important, but going from 100 to 50 isnt really breaking the game.
kreynolds
First Post
Rel said:
Could be that they DO realize it's overpowered. Or it could be that playing a wizard won't be as much fun. I've played a wizard before, and personally, I had a blast with the advantages/disadvantages of the class. The wizard class really makes you think, as opposed to the standard "run in and hack everything to death" mentallity of a fighter. Although, I've been playing fighters ever since, so....
The scribing cost is only an issue in low to moderate wealth campaigns.
If you are going to run a cash-poor campaign, then adjusting the scribing costs would be appropriate.
In a normal campaign, it's not needed, and in a high wealth campaign it really won't matter if you reduce them or raise them, because the characters are probably going to have access to all the cash they need.
If you are going to run a cash-poor campaign, then adjusting the scribing costs would be appropriate.
In a normal campaign, it's not needed, and in a high wealth campaign it really won't matter if you reduce them or raise them, because the characters are probably going to have access to all the cash they need.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
kreynolds said:
I have pretty open lines of communication with my players and I even discussed this house rule with them. I can say with a fair degree of conviction that they don't believe it is overpowered. But they don't tend to be powergamers anyway.
As for the advantages/disadvantages of the class, I don't think any of my players would contend that being utterly at my mercy when it comes to what spells they get is not a disadvantage. My campaign has been a little on the cash poor side so far and there is nowhere to conveniently buy scrolls anyway. So any Wizard (and like I said, I don't have one in the game right now) would have to just hope that they run into an arcane spell caster who scribes scrolls, hope they defeat him, and hope they defeat him before he uses all his scrolls against the party.
At the moment, they are getting their butts kicked by a pack of Kobold Sorcerers and Rogues. So that doesn't promise a whole lot of scrolls as treasure either.
If anything, I would guess that the reason nobody is playing a wizard is not because it wouldn't be a challenge. It is probably because they think I'm too much of a Rat-Bastard DM (tm) and too stingy with the scrolls.
kreynolds
First Post
I understand, Rel. I personally don't like playing in low cash games or even high cash games. Mostly, it's because a DM has to adjust prices on the fly for all the goods and they usually suck at it. "I'm looking for a bandolier." DM says, "OK. The shopkeeper has one for 15,000 gold pieces."
I don't even RUN low or high cash campaigns. I just stick with the basic cash and treasure system because modifying all those prices takes my attention away from other things that really require it.
I don't even RUN low or high cash campaigns. I just stick with the basic cash and treasure system because modifying all those prices takes my attention away from other things that really require it.
Black Omega
First Post
Thanks guys, this has helped alot. I realized this acted as a break on the wizard scribing every spell in existance into his spell book. This isn't a issue in the game, since arcane magic is so rare in this area. He's not going to be able to go into most towns and find a wizard a trade with. Or find a wizard at all, for that matter. i'll give this some more thought, but I'm probably dropping the cost. Just not sure how far yet.
One thing it really adjusts is the value of spell books that are captured as loot.
A spellbook is an awesome find for most parties. The wizard can copy just the few spells they really want, then sell the book for oodles of cash. If scribing is cheaper, then spellbooks as loot are worth a lot less.
The scribing costs in our games very quickly becomes a non-issue to the wizard. But the value of the spell books we find is really great.
So actually, reducing the scribing cost actually COSTS the party much more in lost loot, than it gains in cheaper scribing.
A spellbook is an awesome find for most parties. The wizard can copy just the few spells they really want, then sell the book for oodles of cash. If scribing is cheaper, then spellbooks as loot are worth a lot less.
The scribing costs in our games very quickly becomes a non-issue to the wizard. But the value of the spell books we find is really great.
So actually, reducing the scribing cost actually COSTS the party much more in lost loot, than it gains in cheaper scribing.
I may have taken the extreme position here: I've lowered the cost of scribing to spell 1 gp per spell level.
I can only see a couple of reasons for the "by-the-book" costs:
1. To constrain the wizard's spell selection. He might have a large pool of spells from which to choose, but has to choose carefully, since he can't afford them all.
2. To reduce a wizard's money, treating spellbooks as an item just like a fighter's sword.
Here's my approach to each of these:
1. As DM, _I_ constrain my campaign's spell availability. In our campaign, magic as a "rare and wondrous thing". There are few stores that sell magical items, and they typically don't have more than a few outrageously overpriced low level scrolls. PC wizards treasure spells because they're hard to find, not because they're expensive. Even if a wizard does find stacks of scrolls, he still needs to find time to scribe them, and needs to be in a large enough city to buy the special inks and materials.
2. Personally, I don't find that "forcing" a wizard to spend most of his wealth to cast spells to be equitible. Yes, fighters need equipment, but there's a huge difference of degree here. A fighter can buy off-the-shelf armor and weapons, and still contribute significantly. A wizard without a spellbook is basically crippled. Does this increase the power of a wizard over a sorcerer? Maybe: it results in more equal wealth across classes to spend on other items, potions for the party and so on. In our campaign, the end result has been the wizard taking item creation feats and crafting weapons for the rest of the group.
In a nutshell, I think there are many, many other ways to control player wealth, and limit a wizard's known spells. Over-inflating the cost of his most basic tools seems, well, silly. A spellbook should be valuable for the knowledge it contains, not the cost of the ink.
Of course, as others have eloquently stated, this decision depends heavily on your campaign, levels of wealth, spell availablilty and so on. It's worked well for us though.
--shaele
I can only see a couple of reasons for the "by-the-book" costs:
1. To constrain the wizard's spell selection. He might have a large pool of spells from which to choose, but has to choose carefully, since he can't afford them all.
2. To reduce a wizard's money, treating spellbooks as an item just like a fighter's sword.
Here's my approach to each of these:
1. As DM, _I_ constrain my campaign's spell availability. In our campaign, magic as a "rare and wondrous thing". There are few stores that sell magical items, and they typically don't have more than a few outrageously overpriced low level scrolls. PC wizards treasure spells because they're hard to find, not because they're expensive. Even if a wizard does find stacks of scrolls, he still needs to find time to scribe them, and needs to be in a large enough city to buy the special inks and materials.
2. Personally, I don't find that "forcing" a wizard to spend most of his wealth to cast spells to be equitible. Yes, fighters need equipment, but there's a huge difference of degree here. A fighter can buy off-the-shelf armor and weapons, and still contribute significantly. A wizard without a spellbook is basically crippled. Does this increase the power of a wizard over a sorcerer? Maybe: it results in more equal wealth across classes to spend on other items, potions for the party and so on. In our campaign, the end result has been the wizard taking item creation feats and crafting weapons for the rest of the group.
In a nutshell, I think there are many, many other ways to control player wealth, and limit a wizard's known spells. Over-inflating the cost of his most basic tools seems, well, silly. A spellbook should be valuable for the knowledge it contains, not the cost of the ink.
Of course, as others have eloquently stated, this decision depends heavily on your campaign, levels of wealth, spell availablilty and so on. It's worked well for us though.
--shaele
Similar Threads
