PDA

View Full Version : [3.5]DM/Adventure stopping me from learning new spells. :(



Caeldrim
2009-01-06, 08:32 PM
Hi gang,

My DM is making it a real headache for me to learn any new spells. I'm an 8th level wizard, and I have precisely the number of spells in my book granted by the '2 per new spell level' rule.

No opportunities to buy arcane scrolls in stores, a blanket ban on 'copying from other wizards' books' - even for a fee - and no scrolls turning up as treasure.

Even if I did have these opportunities, there's never any time between the action for me to actually do the scribing time.

Ideas for a workaround? Ideas for good 'polite' ways to present the argument to my DM that I should be able to learn more spells?

At the moment I kind of feel like a sorcerer that doesn't get spontaneous casting.

Rei_Jin
2009-01-06, 08:45 PM
Well, its one of those things that can suck as a Wizard. I've not encountered a situation where I had no scrolls available to buy, but what I'd do is look to take advantage of the situation, and corner the market on scrolls for sale.

Start making scrolls, and offer them for sale. If the buyer is a wizard, offer them an exchange for a spell you don't have.

Alternatively, get in touch with the local School of Magic or Guild of Mages. They should have wizards there who can help. I mean, it's a bonus feat that all Wizards get, why would they not be using it?

If your DM won't let either of these things fly, I'd recommend looking into the Mage of the Arcane Order Prestige Class. It gives you some more flexibility, and will add two more spells to your known list when you get to levels 5 and 8 (1 at each point)

If he won't go with that, then hit him over the head with a shovel ask him why he won't allow you to learn more spells, and try to negotiate with him. If he won't budge, ask to play a Sorceror instead.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-01-06, 08:49 PM
Get shadow conjuration/evocation for efficiency.

Prometheus
2009-01-06, 08:49 PM
If you were overshadowing the other party members, and/or your DM had the perception that wizards were ridiculously unbalanced compared to sorcerers to begin with, than it is likely that the DM nerfed you, and you directly. If that's what is going on, you could a) say you will behave if he gives you his spells back b) offer to roll up a new character or c) suggest an alternative nerf that lets you keep your variety of spells. On that last note, perhaps find a Prc that makes you lose spellcasting progression and deadvances your power or perhaps you could craft enough items for your fellow teamates that you are a level or two behind the rest (and they are magically enhanced). If your DM wants a fluff justification come up with one (we could help), but it doesn't sound like the justifications have to be particularly strong to get past him.

Alternatively, if it appears the ban on spells is temporary or work-around-able, than he really just wants to challenge you for a little bit. It sounds pretty much like a fiat and not something you can work around (although should be able to).

Mushroom Ninja
2009-01-06, 08:58 PM
Oh yeah, and if you're a gnome, go shadowcraft mage.

Grail
2009-01-06, 09:05 PM
IME as a player and DM, wizards who dump their charisma have more of a problem getting new spells than those that don't. It's easier to encourage another wizard to exchange spells with you if you're not a foul-mouthed, uncouth, unwashed buffoon.

If you do have a high Charisma, start trying to encourage the DM through the game mechanics.

If he is just being intransigent, then there's not much you can do. Just play a sorcerer instead.

Caeldrim
2009-01-06, 09:12 PM
I don't think the DM is trying to nerf me at all, since I haven't had many major chances to 'shine' so far.

His justification for the 'no copying from other people's books' ruling is that wizards spend years of effort and research gaining this knowledge, so they're not going to just give it up for a few GP. I'm ok with this, as long as i can get new spells from SOMEWHERE.

I suspect it's more that he hasn't DM'd for a wizard before, and doesn't quite get that it's a bit of a convention that wizards should have access to a broad range of different spells.

I'm a whisper gnome. What book is shadowcraft mage from? Sounds tasty.

edit: Charisma score 13, so it's not a dump stat. I like the idea of using my cross-class ranks in diplomacy etc to try and convince some people to teach me some new stuff. Thanks!

Mushroom Ninja
2009-01-06, 09:17 PM
I'm a whisper gnome. What book is shadowcraft mage from? Sounds tasty.

edit: Charisma score 13, so it's not a dump stat. I like the idea of using my cross-class ranks in diplomacy etc to try and convince some people to teach me some new stuff. Thanks!

Races of Stone.

NeoVid
2009-01-06, 09:23 PM
I'm a whisper gnome. What book is shadowcraft mage from? Sounds tasty.



I believe it's from Races of Stone, the same book as the whisper gnome. Since you clearly have access to the right book, look it up now. Shadowcraft Mage is epic win.

Considering there's an entire handbook on the WotC boards of how to make The Killer Gnome using that class, you will not be disappointed with what it can do.

Myou
2009-01-06, 09:37 PM
There are feats that add your Int mod to spells learnt per level, one is Spellbook Mastery from Ultimate Feats is one.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-06, 10:02 PM
His justification for the 'no copying from other people's books' ruling is that wizards spend years of effort and research gaining this knowledge, so they're not going to just give it up for a few GP. I'm ok with this, as long as i can get new spells from SOMEWHERE.

I suspect it's more that he hasn't DM'd for a wizard before, and doesn't quite get that it's a bit of a convention that wizards should have access to a broad range of different spells.

Yeah, I'd say that's reasonable. The latter part that is. The former? Well, most areas have some sort of friendly organization for wizards to congregate and exchange knowledge. Heck, where did you learn your first spells from?! Nearly all wizards had a mentor or went to a college of magic; right there is at least one connection for spell-trading, unless you left on bad terms.

As a stickler about realism, I'd also like to point out that letting you magically get two new spells out of thin air (where's wizard dear learning that from?) is more unrealistic than occasionally running into friendly wizards who are up to exchanging spells. At least for payment or maybe a short side-quest-type favor! OK, you'll need to put that to him more sweetly, but you see the point: His realism angle is not entirely justified (though nice effort- more than many DMs put in, I admit).

So, yeah, I might talk to him about the solidarity which many wizards share and perhaps looking into an opportunity to join some sort of magic society or guild which would give you access to other spellbooks. Collaboration is good, even necessary, for those of your class.

Caeldrim
2009-01-06, 10:21 PM
There are feats that add your Int mod to spells learnt per level, one is Spellbook Mastery from Ultimate Feats is one.

Ultimate Feats doesn't sound like a WotC book - anyone know of a similar feat from a Wizards' book?

Mage of the Arcane Order looks damn good for this purpose - but it does look like a lot of book-keeping. Anyone have any first hand experience with one?

tyckspoon
2009-01-06, 10:25 PM
Ultimate Feats doesn't sound like a WotC book - anyone know of a similar feat from a Wizards' book?


There's Collegiate Wizard for an extra free two per level, and I think the Elven Generalist subsitution levels also increase your free spells per level. They're both 1st-level-only things, tho, and the Elven Generalist levels require you to be an Elf (naturally), so they're probably out of reach now.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-01-06, 10:37 PM
Cast Secret Page, right out of the PHB, to turn any spell in your book into any other spell you want it to be. It doesn't have to be a spell that you already know, but be sure its something that you can make the Spellcraft check to have knowledge of. Now that a new spell is in your book (and only takes one page regardless of level if you replaced a 1st level spell) you can learn it. The number of new spells you can gain is only limited by how much time you want to spend preparing and casting Secret Page. This is a very liberal interpretation of the spell, but it may be your only choice.

Mobey_Wee
2009-01-06, 10:50 PM
I would try to work something out with the DM. It really seems like he's singled you out. I understand, that with all the different books that are out for 3.5, wizards can do a lot of crazy things (as can most classes), so I could see him wanting to approve certain spells, but that's easy, the library doesn't have that spell, sorry.
Unless there's a reason this place outlawed wizards or something, spells shouldn't be that hard to come by.
You are playing a wizard, not a sorcerer, you should be able to add to the spellbook, that's the point. If he won't budge, I would ask very nicely to maybe play a sorc instead, saying that you misunderstood how the wizard was to be played.

Zeful
2009-01-06, 10:50 PM
He could be internet savy and have read things like the Shadow Miracle trick, the Tippy Society, Incantrix cheese, Infinite free spells, and has adjusted the setting so that the above are impossible or really freaking hard. It's not hard, requiring some small changes, that individually would go unnoticed my most players but together make wizards "unplayable" by hardcore optimization standards. The Op would have more luck spending time to research new spells rather than trying to get the NPCs to be more helpful.

SadisticFishing
2009-01-06, 10:54 PM
Why wouldn't the NPCs trade? That sounds like DM... meanness to me.

Mage of the Arcane Order and spell research are good ways to deal with this, imho.

Zeful
2009-01-06, 11:05 PM
Why wouldn't the NPCs trade? That sounds like DM... meanness to me.
What reason do they have to trade? After all there are only a couple of spells worth taking every level according to the optimizers. Wizards are smarter than most people, so they obviously make the optimal choice. So they should have all the spells they'll ever need. What can they get from you that would help?

Caeldrim
2009-01-06, 11:31 PM
That use of Secret Page looks... cheesy at best.

I'm 90% certain he'd rule that I could only use it to make a page of 'spell x' look like a page of another spell i already know.

The DM knows well and good that I'm not trying to create some pun-pun/tippy/whatever monstrosity. I just want to be the party's swiss army knife (not even really a batman per se) and have a little more versatility. I created the character at level 5, and having never played a wizard before this one, didn't put heaps of thought into choosing my known spells, thinking i'd be able to learn new ones all over the joint.

I'm not asking for any spells that aren't in PHB or PHBII, and I'm always the first to limit myself in the name of fairness.

I don't even know if the DM realises what's happening, I think it's just more of a case of the campaign moving from one 'hurry hurry hurry' situation to another, and we don't get a lot of opportunities for 'city time'.

My character is supposed to have been working as a magical beast handler for the government of a magocracy before he joined the group, so if I can just convince the party to go 'home' for a week or so I should have no problems.

I suspect I might just have to wait until there's an appropriate 'breather' in the campaign. My only concern is that I might be waiting a long time.

MeklorIlavator
2009-01-06, 11:43 PM
What reason do they have to trade? After all there are only a couple of spells worth taking every level according to the optimizers. Wizards are smarter than most people, so they obviously make the optimal choice. So they should have all the spells they'll ever need. What can they get from you that would help?

A) Strawmen arguments aren't nice.

B) There are alot of useful spells, especially if splats are allowed, so unless you take Collegiate Wizard(only available at first, doubles your spells per level) its impossible to get them all simply form your 2 per level, and even then it wouldn't be likely. Also, most of those arguments assume that you will have access to scrolls.

C) Really? Strawmen arguments?

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-06, 11:50 PM
ultimate feats is 3rd party pretty sure mongoose publishing.

the biggest issue is that the idea of "buying anything you need" is virtually a 3e mentality. you shouldnt expect the automatic capacity to buy any scroll or item you need. however the flaw of the spellbook is the theoretic balance between the wizard and the spont caster. easiest way to break it to the dm is that it makes you less useful to the party to not be able to buy/steal any spells of any other being. even just the basic rule on using other wizards books is meant to give a player a reasonable shot to learn more spells if there is no logical area for them to learn more spells. it has been since older editions. even lower level enemy book toters should be able to flesh out your spellbook. baring that if the dm somehow blocks that as being unreasonable,
edit somehow posted before finishing sentance...

then take absurd spells that make absolutely no sense. take breath weapon substitution as a 5th level spell to teach to sorcs and dragons in exchage for some other knowledge. or gutsnake.

Zeful
2009-01-06, 11:51 PM
A) Strawmen arguments aren't nice.

B) There are alot of useful spells, especially if splats are allowed, so unless you take Collegiate Wizard(only available at first, doubles your spells per level) its impossible to get them all simply form your 2 per level, and even then it wouldn't be likely. Also, most of those arguments assume that you will have access to scrolls.

C) Really? Strawmen arguments?

What Stawman is this? I was responding to the thought that wizards have no reason not to trade, which depending on setting can be right, or wrong.

Caeldrim
2009-01-07, 12:06 AM
@Noneoyabizzness

yeah i'm not trying to 'buy whatever i want'. I'd be happy enough if I could just say 'ok we're in a city, i go to a store that sells scrolls, what scrolls do they have on hand?' and then the DM can decide what they've got and what they don't. Simple and painless.

esorscher
2009-01-07, 02:12 AM
Cast Secret Page, right out of the PHB, to turn any spell in your book into any other spell you want it to be. It doesn't have to be a spell that you already know, but be sure its something that you can make the Spellcraft check to have knowledge of. Now that a new spell is in your book (and only takes one page regardless of level if you replaced a 1st level spell) you can learn it. The number of new spells you can gain is only limited by how much time you want to spend preparing and casting Secret Page. This is a very liberal interpretation of the spell, but it may be your only choice.

Also, you could prepare a scroll of the spell you're replacing and recopy it into your spellbook.

Thrud
2009-01-07, 02:26 AM
*Learning spells stuff.*

I have something pretty similar in many of my games. I have pretty much always run my games that way, as have most of the DM's I have played with. This is why I have never run into any of the problems with wizards taking over the game that are bemoaned all over the web. It might just be that he is preventing anyone from getting to the point where they will control the game simply because they are a wizard. Just because there are lots of people who play the game a different way that does not make it the 'correct' way to play. It is just another way to play. He may loosen up a bit over time, but perhaps not.

Just ask youself if you are having fun in the game. It may well be that you cannot do everything that you have read online about what wizards 'ought' to be able to do. But also ask youself whether that character would be any fun to play any more. If you aren't having fun then ask the DM if you can make a new character and play something different. If you are having fun then roll with it, try to remember being part of a team here, instead of being a one man show.

His attitude seems pretty sensible to me, but then everytime someone talks about the batman wizard it just makes me cringe in horror that any DM would ever allow that to happen in the first place.

And no I don't wish to rehash that old argument again. It has been done to death.

Curmudgeon
2009-01-07, 02:38 AM
Cast Secret Page, right out of the PHB, to turn any spell in your book into any other spell you want it to be.
...
This is a very liberal interpretation of the spell, but it may be your only choice. This is actually a nonsense interpretation of the spell.
Secret page alters the contents of a page so that they appear to be something entirely different. The text of a spell can be changed to show even another spell. Explosive runes or sepia snake sigil can be cast upon the secret page. Yes, Secret Page can be used to alter a page to show something different. There's nothing in this low-level spell that says it must create the content to fulfill your dreams. You can create the contents to show another spell -- if you know that other spell. If you don't know something you can't cause it to appear with Secret Page.

Waspinator
2009-01-07, 03:34 AM
What kind of enemies does your group fight? If you ever fight another wizard, grab his book.

Epic_Wizard
2009-01-07, 03:45 AM
What kind of enemies does your group fight? If you ever fight another wizard, grab his book.

Yeah this is a common way to make the party Wizard happy. Just stuff a spell book as treasure in with some other stuff. With high level spells the value can add up pretty fast and since no one else needs and or wants it the Wizard takes that as his share of the loot.

Talk to your DM about this as a possibility and give him a short list of spells that you would like to have access to and he can pick which ones to give you as treasure.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-07, 04:30 AM
Mage of the Arcane Order

I was about to suggest that, too.

Roderick_BR
2009-01-07, 07:30 AM
I don't think the DM is trying to nerf me at all, since I haven't had many major chances to 'shine' so far.

His justification for the 'no copying from other people's books' ruling is that wizards spend years of effort and research gaining this knowledge, so they're not going to just give it up for a few GP. I'm ok with this, as long as i can get new spells from SOMEWHERE.

I suspect it's more that he hasn't DM'd for a wizard before, and doesn't quite get that it's a bit of a convention that wizards should have access to a broad range of different spells.

I'm a whisper gnome. What book is shadowcraft mage from? Sounds tasty.

edit: Charisma score 13, so it's not a dump stat. I like the idea of using my cross-class ranks in diplomacy etc to try and convince some people to teach me some new stuff. Thanks!

Ask him how all those wizards in official WotC timeline get spells then, since the core books suggests that you could make business with other wizards to learn new spells. Other than that, do as people say, ask him why he is forbiddng you from getting more spells, cause that's just nerfing you unjustly.

Epinephrine
2009-01-07, 07:48 AM
I somewhat agree with the DM's perspective - mages shouldn't just be handing out their spells to anyone. Spell use requires responsibility - your mentor likely picked you for this trait (among others), but arriving at some wiazrd's house and asking for a copy of a spell that can be used to harm/control/inconvenience others is a bit odd - why should he give away such a power to another person he doesn't know?

We treat the PHB as pretty standard spells, other spells are harder to access. Wizards are more willing to part with their less special spells. Less obviously destructive/nasty spells are easier to get than destructive spells.

Obviously, there should be a way for them to get new spells. Many utility spells from the PHB should be available as scrolls - they're the things nobody wants to memorise, but everyone likes to have around now and then.

Many magical campaigns will have brotherhoods of wizards, who recognise each other by telltale phrases and gear, and thus have a way of knowing that the PC has been vetted, and truly is the pupil of So-and-so. This gives the PC a way to get connections, but also provides a DM hook when needed - these pbrotherhoods sometimes enter into conflict with one another, not all brotherhoods get along, and your brotherhood may call on you as their only member in an area to deal with something.

only1doug
2009-01-07, 09:05 AM
ask the GM to have NPC's offer spells as quest rewards.

Look for wizards of equal or lower level to yourself and offer to swap spells with them.

Look for Evil NPC wizards and convince the party to beat them up and steal their stuff.

Hire Rogues to steal other spellbooks.

Find Libraries and gain permission to copy from the old spellbooks there.

create a large string of replacement wizards, as each gets killed off the party keeps the spellbook and your next wizard has many spells to choose between.

Kesnit
2009-01-07, 09:10 AM
@Noneoyabizzness

yeah i'm not trying to 'buy whatever i want'. I'd be happy enough if I could just say 'ok we're in a city, i go to a store that sells scrolls, what scrolls do they have on hand?' and then the DM can decide what they've got and what they don't. Simple and painless.

Have you told your DM this? It's possible he's afraid letting you get extra spells now will lead to a slippery slope. ("What do you mean I can't buy scrolls of Time Stop and Wail of the Banshee? You let me buy Orb of Fire and Cone of Cold!")

lord_khaine
2009-01-07, 09:22 AM
its not like you really need those additional spells, if you pick the 2 spells per level that you get wisely.

Person_Man
2009-01-07, 10:31 AM
Although it can help tremendously, you honestly you don't need a broad selection of spells.

1: Enlarge Person, Mage Armor, Shield, others based on your Int
2: Shatter, Invisibility
3: Ray of Exhaustion, Phantom Steed
4: Shadow Conjuration, Solid Fog
5: Shadow Evocation, Dominate Person

An Invisible flying Wizard is ridiculously difficult to kill. You can Summon, which doesn't count as an attack, which doesn't dispel your Invisibility. Your familiar can hold a touch spell for you, letting you cast 2 attacks on the first round.
There are also feats and PrC that expand your spell list, and reserve feats that might help as well.

Yes your DM is nerfing you. Next time play a Sorcerer. But seriously, you're still fine.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-07, 10:50 AM
Caeldrim:scrolls are magical items, they are made for the most part not for profit purposes they are made because an item is needed the reason why it tends to be treasure is because the person who needed it died before it could be used. if you go into a store that has magic items, there is no guarrentee they have scrolls. or blessed books. or a magical silver sword. or anything in mithral. if the dm says "no scrolls" there are no scrolls. that in and of itself is not nerfing.

however the point of wizard schools is to have access to learning spells and transcribing from one spellbook to another. now yes the fact he isnt even allowign that is where it seems like the dm isnt beign fair to you. you shouldbe able to get spells from acadamies, other wizards, dead enemies, etc. if academies dont exist, then each wizard may not have the same spells your spell choice will allow one to be willing to trade what you dont have for what he dont have. then it becoms fun and interesting because it is how many low magic settings run with wizards. in most cases,they are rare protective of their own research, but will go for any chance to expand their repetoire.

if the dm doesn't give in soon, summon monster a demon start bartering for spells. the campaign may get twisted but it will really be the dm's fault sicne the standard avenues have been blocked. especially when you sacrifice the party paladinto your new benefactor, the rest of the party will either resent him for leaving you one real channel to get use of a class feature or you for not playign a beguiler instead.

kamikasei
2009-01-07, 10:59 AM
if the dm doesn't give in soon, summon monster a demon start bartering for spells. the campaign may get twisted but it will really be the dm's fault sicne the standard avenues have been blocked. especially when you sacrifice the party paladinto your new benefactor, the rest of the party will either resent him for leaving you one real channel to get use of a class feature or you for not playign a beguiler instead.

No, the party will resent you for doing something as obnoxious as derailing the game into demon-dealing and PvP sacrifices.

If you want your DM to give in you're doing something wrong. If you can't bring him around to your point of view or at least persaude him to compromise on this issue then you either put up with the way he plays, or decide that you can't and walk. Trying to make him change is pointless.

OP: My suggestions, in order, would be:
1 - talk to your DM about the fact that you feel you don't have enough spells and the reasons for this. See how much of it is due to balance concerns and how much his idea of the world's flavour. Assure him that you will not abuse wider spell knowledge for cheese, and try to adapt your character to the way wizards work in his world.
2 - if he wants a setting of secretive, spell-hoarding wizards, see if you can associate your character with a magical guild or society as suggested by others. This gives you more spell access, and him plot hooks. If he likes the flavour but doesn't want to work NPCs who will trade with you or react to your affiliation into the campaign, see if you can do it "off screen" and change your first-level feat to Collegiate Wizard to represent greater access to spell resources.
3 - if he's okay with the idea of scrolls being available for purchase in settlements, see if he'll give you more opportunities to find them and a little input into which ones you want to track down. If not, ask him to include more scrolls or spellbooks in encounter treasure.
4 - in any case, you will need downtime to scribe spells into your book and also to make scrolls for utility and versatility. This is a key component of a wizard's usefulness, so it's no huge concession for a DM to let you take a few days here or there to keep your repertoire current.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-07, 11:45 AM
If you want your DM to give in you're doing something wrong.

with the words "a blanket ban" means the dm doesnt seem to be in the compromising mindset. you cant address it as an issue that is merely just an oversight or something that is compromising to meet halfway when the dm is outright preventing all method byond the 2 spells per level. this isnt just no scrolls while we are stuck in a dungeon, high markup from wizards who jealously guard their secrets nor willing to trade their own only for soem that a pc has, this is a stonewall in spite of reason that requires a break from what the person is doing to allow at least some avenue or spell acquistion that the op is being denied unreasonably. with that point, the dm in question actually needs to give in on this.

metagaia
2009-01-07, 12:10 PM
Kamikasei has hit the nai, upon the head I think. If you try and 'beat' the GM over this he will feel perfectly justified for making spells difficult to obtain in the first place. Secret page nonsense will only serve to irritate the GM, thus inevitably descending into an adversarial match that at best no-one else enjoy and at worst shatter the game entirely.

It is still not clear from the thread if the DM is beyond compromise or not. I am getting the impression that you did not know this before you created the character, which certainly gives reason to explain this is impairing your enjoyment and could one of Kamikasei's suggestions be implemented. If it were a balance issue, then clerics and druids would surely be hampered as well, but there is no evidence of that.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-07, 12:10 PM
Just because there are lots of people who play the game a different way that does not make it the 'correct' way to play. It is just another way to play.

Just ask youself if you are having fun in the game. It may well be that you cannot do everything that you have read online about what wizards 'ought' to be able to do. But also ask youself whether that character would be any fun to play any more. If you aren't having fun then ask the DM if you can make a new character and play something different. If you are having fun then roll with it, try to remember being part of a team here, instead of being a one man show.

His attitude seems pretty sensible to me, but then everytime someone talks about the batman wizard it just makes me cringe in horror that any DM would ever allow that to happen in the first place.

To your first point: No arguments there. I agree there is no "correct" way to play, however there is a "better" way to play based upon the preferences of your group.

Since, as you say next, it is about having fun! I do not think the player here is having fun since he seems very concerned about this and finds it stifling. You might have fun in this situation, but he is not (and I don't think it's an unreasonable feeling, either, just as I could understand someone being fine with it). The DM's attitude is not sensible because, as I pointed out earlier, it is not all that realistic and the player is not having fun.

Comparing this to a batman wizard strikes me as silly, frankly. I am far more lenient than this DM, but I would never have a player get close to batman wizard. Why? Because there is a difference between moderate freedom and exceessive opportunity.


Mages shouldn't just be handing out their spells to anyone .

Well, yes. I don’t think you will get any disagreement there.


Obviously, there should be a way for them to get new spells. Many utility spells from the PHB should be available as scrolls - they're the things nobody wants to memorise, but everyone likes to have around now and then.

Many magical campaigns will have brotherhoods of wizards, who recognise each other by telltale phrases and gear, and thus have a way of knowing that the PC has been vetted, and truly is the pupil of So-and-so. This gives the PC a way to get connections, but also provides a DM hook when needed - these pbrotherhoods sometimes enter into conflict with one another, not all brotherhoods get along, and your brotherhood may call on you as their only member in an area to deal with something.

Precisely. The DM doesn’t need to just let the PC meet up with any random wizard to take spells, but he is unreasonable if he allows for no opportunities at all. Again, a world where wizards do not cooperate at all is far more unrealistic (and less PC-friendly) than one where some decent roleplaying or joining an arcane brotherhood could get you access to additional spells (and this is still far from the freedom necessary for batman’ing).



Hire Rogues to steal other spellbooks.

I wouldn’t recommend this one, simply because the DM might react poorly. Even if not, all good wizards are very protective of their spellbooks. All of your other ideas were quite solid though!

Krrth
2009-01-07, 12:16 PM
After reading through this, something occurs to me. Perhaps there is indeed a "brotherhood" of wizards, and the GM is expecting the player to ask about joining. Perhaps not, but is this were the case, it could go a long way towards explaining the issues.

If there isn't, a quick ret-con with the GM would also explain all the issues....

Rhuadin
2009-01-07, 12:52 PM
Hmm, you could just work within his system. Here's how I envision it.

If wizards are entirely unwilling to share their life's work, well, you can start scribing scrolls and will have the MONOPOLY on scroll sales. If no one is willing to sell spells for ANY amount, you should be able to make a fair bit of profit selling them at all, whatever your price.

This can lead to several outcomes
1) Wizards see how much money you're making and relent their ban
2) You continue to make phat lewts
3) The 'Wizards mafia' decides that you shouldn't be sharing all that arcane, forbidden knowledge with the unwashed masses and sends some wizard goons after you... at which point you kill them and take their spellbooks. :) (Or knock them out and ask them where their spellbooks are after tying them securely)

lisiecki
2009-01-07, 01:03 PM
Ideas for a workaround? Ideas for good 'polite' ways to present the argument to my DM that I should be able to learn more spells?


Explain to him politely that one of the class features of the wizard is the ability to learn new spells.
Not allowing you to do that, is like not letting a rogue sneak up on people, or a fighter not getting nicer swords. The things that a Wizard can do, are baised around the assumption that your going to be getting more than 2 spells per level.

If he dose not want you getting more than 2 spells per level, ask him if you can re stat your character to be a sorcerer or a warmage (battle mage?) where you can only have X spells, but there are benefits in exchange for it.

Simanos
2009-01-07, 01:10 PM
Choose a spell and always cast it in every situation. Best candidate is Fireball (use metamagic). The barkeep looked at you wrongly? Fireball him. Kill first, speak with dead later.

For best results get fire immunity and start casting the fireball centered at yourself while laughing maniacally. If you manage to kill your teammates and loot them then you win the game. Winning is everything.
http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=1

kamikasei
2009-01-07, 01:41 PM
with the words "a blanket ban" means the dm doesnt seem to be in the compromising mindset... with that point, the dm in question actually needs to give in on this.

No, the DM does not need to give in. "Giving in" implies defeat, surrender, concession. What would be nice for the OP is if the DM is persuaded of his concerns' validity and either changes his mind on the ban or compromises to see if both parties can find what they're after. Failing that the OP has the option of either sucking it up or leaving. What is not desirable is making it some kind of contest to fight the DM for what he wants until eventually the DM crumbles and caves.


Comparing this to a batman wizard strikes me as silly, frankly. I am far more lenient than this DM, but I would never have a player get close to batman wizard. Why? Because there is a difference between moderate freedom and exceessive opportunity.

:smallfrown: Really, we need a new term here so people stop beating up on the poor Batman wizard.

Dervag
2009-01-07, 02:01 PM
I don't think the DM is trying to nerf me at all, since I haven't had many major chances to 'shine' so far.

His justification for the 'no copying from other people's books' ruling is that wizards spend years of effort and research gaining this knowledge, so they're not going to just give it up for a few GP.If that is true, then logic suggests that they'll be open to an exchange in kind. If it's so hard to gain a spell, then offering a wizard a new spell would be much better than offering them money. They should be willing to trade a spell you don't know for a spell they don't know, or a magic item for a spell they don't know.

And there's always the traditional route of killing a wizard and/or stealing his spellbook. Yes, there are risks, but it can be done, right?

It sounds like your DM is willing to be reasonable about this and you haven't really explained your concerns to him coherently. Tell him what you've told us, and I suspect things will be OK.


edit: Charisma score 13, so it's not a dump stat. I like the idea of using my cross-class ranks in diplomacy etc to try and convince some people to teach me some new stuff. Thanks!Since you're not a diplomancer, you're best off if you make a good, convincing offer that people would normally accept, then use the Diplomacy check to make them more likely to accept the deal.


I have something pretty similar in many of my games. I have pretty much always run my games that way, as have most of the DM's I have played with. This is why I have never run into any of the problems with wizards taking over the game that are bemoaned all over the web. It might just be that he is preventing anyone from getting to the point where they will control the game simply because they are a wizard. Just because there are lots of people who play the game a different way that does not make it the 'correct' way to play. It is just another way to play. He may loosen up a bit over time, but perhaps not.Thing is, there's a line between keeping wizards from controlling the game (which is good) and keeping wizards from being fun to play (which is bad).

Restricting spells to 2/level and no more, ever, is on the wrong side of the line.


Caeldrim:scrolls are magical items, they are made for the most part not for profit purposes they are made because an item is needed the reason why it tends to be treasure is because the person who needed it died before it could be used. if you go into a store that has magic items, there is no guarrentee they have scrolls. or blessed books. or a magical silver sword. or anything in mithral.It's not unreasonable, but it's kind of harsh. Scrolls are (relatively) common magic items. They're very useful to casters, including wizards. Like potions, it's not surprising that they'd be hanging around in enough quantity that a person who wanted one badly enough could just buy one. Specific or very rare, valuable magic items should be almost impossible to trade for. Scrolls and potions? Not so much.

Waspinator
2009-01-07, 02:46 PM
On a side note, I can't help but think that this wouldn't be a problem in Dragonstar. That setting has Wizards using handheld computers as their spellbooks and an online spell-sharing network exists that can be subscribed to. Also, there's a setting called Dragonmech that has a "College of Constructors" that a fair number of Wizards belong to that again, is a method of sharing spells.

I'd say there are two routes in your situation to getting more spells: kill another wizard (probably an evil one) and take his book, though you'll want to be careful about checking it for traps, or try to find some wizard organizations to join. In most settings, since wizardry is a skill that takes a lot of learning and practice, there are usually organized groups around teaching it that could help you get spells (though they might want to copy your spells in return or send you on quests or something as repayment).

kamikasei
2009-01-07, 03:10 PM
On a side note, I can't help but think that this wouldn't be a problem in Dragonstar. That setting has Wizards using handheld computers as their spellbooks and an online spell-sharing network exists that can be subscribed to.

Open sorcery?

only1doug
2009-01-07, 03:15 PM
I wouldn’t recommend this one, simply because the DM might react poorly. Even if not, all good wizards are very protective of their spellbooks. All of your other ideas were quite solid though!

it would be worth considering, basically depends on GM's reaction, Player should know how his GM is likely to respond before attempting.



It's not unreasonable, but it's kind of harsh. Scrolls are (relatively) common magic items. They're very useful to casters, including wizards. Like potions, it's not surprising that they'd be hanging around in enough quantity that a person who wanted one badly enough could just buy one. Specific or very rare, valuable magic items should be almost impossible to trade for. Scrolls and potions? Not so much.

True, My gish is carrying 3 scrolls he made (for non combat situations), I'm going to invest in more utility scrolls asap.

monty
2009-01-07, 03:20 PM
Open sorcery?

Push button. (http://www.instantrimshot.com/)

Waspinator
2009-01-07, 03:25 PM
Open sorcery?

Wow. I can't believe I set that up and missed doing it myself. Bravo!

The counterpoint, of course, is the system in Xcrawl where, if I remember right, a Wizard who invents a new spell sets one of the "material components" to be a certain number of gold coins that get sent to a special box that Wizard has anytime anyone else uses the spell. Yes, you understood correctly. It's spellcasting with licensing fees.

Thrud
2009-01-07, 07:58 PM
*Stuff about my stuff*

*More stuff about my stuff

You both make pretty much the same point so I will address you together.

Sorry, It was late at night and my train of thought wasn't particularly clear to all of you non-telepaths. Ahem. I was trying to say that eventually the DM might change his mind after he has gotten a feel for people's playing styles. But I was also trying to encourage the OP to think of it as a challenge and decide if he was actually having fun with the game. It is quite possible that just because of the posts about what a wizard 'ought' to be allowed to do he might be feeling that he 'ought' to have some of the same allowances, without thinking about how possible it is to have fun in the game even with those restrictions.

If the DM is that restrictive of spells it seems likely that he will be similarly restrictive of many other facets of the game, so the power level of the entire game will be brought lower. It is kinda hard to comment on this particular stiuation when the entirety of the game isn't known. I don't want to leap to any conclusions here. I just think that if you lean back and stop trying to overcome the DM's playstyle just because you have read about other playstyles online, and try to enjoy the game for what it is, then you will have a lot more fun.

Now, if the DM is allowing all the other insane power boosting stuff available in 3.5 and still restricting the wizard, THEN the OP has something to complain about.

Khanderas
2009-01-08, 03:51 AM
I think the best solution here would be letting a scroll or three be found in the loot in your adventurers.
That way, he has control on what spells you learn, you won't have to run to town and you won't have to barter with other wizards (he may be afraid that will spin out of control and you suddenly have dozens of new spells).

Alternative, if exploring old ruins of ancient civilizations, perhaps decipher ways of magic / spells from murals and such.

Simanos
2009-01-08, 05:43 AM
...
Sorcerer without spontaneous casting...

Asheram
2009-01-08, 01:05 PM
Well.. seems to me like you've got three choices.
1. Start researching spells. It costs xp, but that's one way of getting them. (DMG p198)
2. Steal/Buy/Ask to borrow scrolls from other spellcasters.
3. If Everything else fails, ask your GM to homebrew a "Reverse engineer" feat that lets you use spellcraft to attempt to learn spells from items and continous effects, since you can't learn new spells in any other way.

Mikeavelli
2009-01-08, 01:31 PM
Hmm, you could just work within his system. Here's how I envision it.

If wizards are entirely unwilling to share their life's work, well, you can start scribing scrolls and will have the MONOPOLY on scroll sales. If no one is willing to sell spells for ANY amount, you should be able to make a fair bit of profit selling them at all, whatever your price.

This can lead to several outcomes
1) Wizards see how much money you're making and relent their ban
2) You continue to make phat lewts
3) The 'Wizards mafia' decides that you shouldn't be sharing all that arcane, forbidden knowledge with the unwashed masses and sends some wizard goons after you... at which point you kill them and take their spellbooks. :) (Or knock them out and ask them where their spellbooks are after tying them securely)

Do this.

Alternatively, I had a DM who thought like this once too, it's not that he had read the internet optimization boards, he just didn't think wizards would go give out their hard-won knowledge for mere gold.

"Then I'll trade some of my spells for other spells!"

"Who would do that?"

"I WOULD!"

"But, if people did that, what's to stop wizards from just trading each other for every spell in the game?"

"That's kinda've the point. There's no logical reason why this shouldn't happen. That's also the reason why there are gold piece costs for buying scrolls to learn spells from them, They're in there as a balanced way for wizards to use their money to gain more spells, same as a Fighter can use the money they get adventuring to buy a magic sword to hit things harder with, same way a cleric can buy wands of cure light to heal things better with, same way a rogue can buy stealth items to hide better with. Buying magic items is an integral part of the balance in D&D, for all the classes!"

I guess what I'm saying is, if buying magic items of any sort exists in your campaign, then you should be able to buy scrolls. If it doesn't? Then the rest of the party is even more nerfed than you are.

Heliomance
2009-01-08, 01:43 PM
Hmm, you could just work within his system. Here's how I envision it.

If wizards are entirely unwilling to share their life's work, well, you can start scribing scrolls and will have the MONOPOLY on scroll sales. If no one is willing to sell spells for ANY amount, you should be able to make a fair bit of profit selling them at all, whatever your price.

This can lead to several outcomes
1) Wizards see how much money you're making and relent their ban
2) You continue to make phat lewts
3) The 'Wizards mafia' decides that you shouldn't be sharing all that arcane, forbidden knowledge with the unwashed masses and sends some wizard goons after you... at which point you kill them and take their spellbooks. :) (Or knock them out and ask them where their spellbooks are after tying them securely)

DM: No-one buys your scrolls.

Dervag
2009-01-08, 02:11 PM
DM: No-one buys your scrolls.At that point, the internal logic of the game is getting stupid.

Now, it's possible that this DM is so blindly committed to his crusade to limit wizard spell lists that he'll turn all logic and human nature upside down and inside out in order to make sure that wizards cannot buy or sell scrolls. And that they can't find scrolls or spellbooks.

But it isn't likely unless this DM is a complete ass. We have no evidence to suggest that this DM is a complete ass. So I don't think that's a likely outcome.

Tacoma
2009-01-08, 02:44 PM
Yeah I would definitely talk with the DM separate from the rest of the players, before or after the game, or preferably just in person on a different day if you san swing it. Tell him that by restricting Wizard spells like this it's a game balance issue, since you're effectively running a Sorcerer with fewer spells per day and no spontaneous casting. Ask if this is a game balance thing he's trying to do or if it's really just a roleplaying thing.

If it's game balance, you're not going to get any spells ever so just drop it. Pick up those fancy classes and feats that give you lots of extra spells at level-up. Or just play a Sorcerer. Assemble a wizard's library and start researching your own spells.

But if it's for roleplaying, which makes sense according to everything that came through before 2E and including the original source material (The Dying Earth series), then you can be clever. I'd propose that since there aren't any large organizations of wizardry out there you can be the first to do a lot of things.

Research a cool spell that's powerful but attainable in level. Fourth would be good. Something that the current crop of spells just won't do. Or a missing elemental effect. But make it something that other Wizards would want. You now have a spell with trading value. You can approach a Wizard and say, look, I have this new spell I researched. I'm willing to trade it for three spell levels of my choice (so three first level spells, or one third). He might not have the spells you want, but he's surely going to want to get his grubby hands on your unique spell. And you're asking for less in the trade than what he would get, even if his spells are PHB and yours are unique.

Now find a second Wizard. Research a couple other spells along the way but keep them to yourself. See if this second Wizard wants to trade. Rinse and repeat.

You may find that at some point the DM doesn't want to let you keep selling the same spell. His response will likely be "no, I already got that spell from Tim the Wizard already" and you know you sold it to Tim a few weeks ago. This flies directly in the face of his "Wizards don't trade" rule, but then again you're also kind of breaking the business out yourself so you can't complain. Here's what you do to make sure you get maximum value.

There's a kind of auction that composers used to use. Beethoven might say he has a symphony in mind, describe the orchestra, and what kind of music it is. He says if he gets 10,000 whatever he will produce the symphony and make it available to the donors regardless of how much they put in. They can do whatever they want with it after that. The money goes into a bank account controlled by a lawyer or something, and if Beethoven doesn't get the full amount all the money is returned to the donors and he doesn't produce the symphony.

You do the same thing. Contact various Wizards and let them know you have this new spell. It's finished. It's a fourth-level spell that does "insert simple description". You put out a list of spells that you want - say two spell levels per Wizard gathered there. If you gather 10 Wizards, you demand twenty levels of specific spells. Maybe eke out an extra spell if you're feeling brash. Tell them if, among them, they can get you those spells, anyone who put up a spell will get a copy.

Now these Wizards have a dilemma. If one of them refuses and walks away, then for the price of a second-level PHB spell he could have gotten a fourth-level unique spell. It's a rare opportunity he's passing up. Furthermore, he knows that if he waits and hopes to trade with another Wizard for it later, he's quite unlikely to get such a good deal. And maybe he won't even be invited back for the next auction.
And any Wizard who decides to just steal your idea and make the spell himself will have to go through all the time and money to research the spell. It's far cheaper to just cough up a Mirror Image scroll. And his newly-researched spell won't even be valuable to the community because they'll all have your original spell anyway.

Keep it up, researching new unique spells and gathering conferences of Wizards to auction them off. Eventually you should establish a stronghold and gather apprentices that you can train. They can wander the relatively safe lands picking off small monsters and gaining XP while you're off adventuring. Get them to spend time researching new level 1 spells and cantrips, which you provide funding for. You then distribute the new spells in exchange for exanding your ever-growing libraries. Your apprentices will stay on beyond first level because you offer them the protection of your whole adventuring party (if one of them gets mugged, the mugger can expect to be flayed alive and thrown in a vat of feces) and also all the low-level spells you provide them with.

Pretty soon you've broken the strangehold of secrecy. All of your apprentices leave at third level or so with a spellbook of 20 first level spells and 10 second level, with five third level scribbled in at the back by someone else even though they can't use them yet. And their scientific culture demands sharing and trading of knowledge, not for free, but certainly making it available.

Plus along the way you end up with every PHB spell and a ton of uniques, for cheaper than if you had gone out and bought all the PHB spells alone.

Zeful
2009-01-08, 03:42 PM
At that point, the internal logic of the game is getting stupid.How?


Now, it's possible that this DM is so blindly committed to his crusade to limit wizard spell lists that he'll turn all logic and human nature upside down and inside out in order to make sure that wizards cannot buy or sell scrolls. And that they can't find scrolls or spellbooks.Again how? Wizards could be distrustful of their own because they suspect a trap. Explosive runes or a Sepia Snake Sigil could be covered with a secret page and Nystul's Magic Aura to look like a scroll, so that you could disable a wizard and steal his book, which is a large investment. Wizards could fear some powerful megalomaniac that wants to be the Big Man on Campus and kills the competition (read: 20th level wizard using Scry-and-Die Tactics on other wizards), so Wizard Colleges don't exist. Paranoia is a powerful force on human nature.


But it isn't likely unless this DM is a complete ass. We have no evidence to suggest that this DM is a complete ass. So I don't think that's a likely outcome.We also have no evidence that this is a "normal" setting either.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-08, 03:51 PM
Wizards could be distrustful of their own because they suspect a trap. Explosive runes or a Sepia Snake Sigil could be covered with a secret page and Nystul's Magic Aura to look like a scroll, so that you could disable a wizard and steal his book, which is a large investment. Wizards could fear some powerful megalomaniac that wants to be the Big Man on Campus and kills the competition (read: 20th level wizard using Scry-and-Die Tactics on other wizards), so Wizard Colleges don't exist. Paranoia is a powerful force on human nature.

Yes, but then how do any wizards gain their spells? I mean, these two spells that they just randomly get at each new level- I thought wizards could only get spells from others or through research. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the PH states that it is assumed these are learned off camera, but in the same way other spells are. You just don't have to pay the extra time and money to get them.

Paranoia is indeed a strong force, but either wizards are rare and must research most of their own spells (and would not realistically then get the usual free-two-per-level-gained) or else... the DM needs to readjust his outlook.

Tacoma
2009-01-08, 04:07 PM
Also, the threat of a rogue Wizard (not one who has Sneak Attack, by the way, I just use the common word) who attacks other Wizards would be a unifying force among other Wizards. If they knew someone was killing Wizards, all the Wizards would kill him.

Also, what Wizard would attack someone who was anywhere near his power level? The target might have hidden contingency (again, just a word) plans and guardians the scrying didn't catch.

Plus, your Wizard Tower had better be made of concrete mixed with lead dust, a layer of lead paint on the outside, and a thin sheet of lead on the inside. If not, your Wizard Tower is as impregnable as the easiest girl at prom.

Tacoma
2009-01-08, 04:09 PM
Also, as for hidden dangerous magics, how about a targeted Dispel Magic on the materials three times a day for a week before handling and inspection?

Also, for higher level Wizards, pop up an Antimagic Shell and read the scroll in there. The spells on the scroll will be suspended but you can still check to make sure it's a legitimate scroll. This would also hide any Secret Pages while revealing any inscribed Symbols of Incredible Death.

EDIT: Had to add another "also".
:/

Zeful
2009-01-08, 04:10 PM
Yes, but then how do any wizards gain their spells? I mean, these two spells that they just randomly get at each new level- I thought wizards could only get spells from others or through research. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the PH states that it is assumed these are learned off camera, but in the same way other spells are. You just don't have to pay the extra time and money to get them.Nothing in the spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#spellbooks) entry indicates this. The writing a new spell in a spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#writingaNewSpellintoaSpellbook) entry also has no indication of this as well, so it's up to the player to determine how he get's those 2 spells every level. I like to think inspiration personally.


Paranoia is indeed a strong force, but either wizards are rare and must research most of their own spells (and would not realistically then get the usual free-two-per-level-gained) or else... the DM needs to readjust his outlook.I don't think so. I'm a DM who puts limits on when a Wizard can get spell outside of level up, but then I like running settings where Wizards are feared and hated on top of being antisocial.


Also, the threat of a rogue Wizard (not one who has Sneak Attack, by the way, I just use the common word) who attacks other Wizards would be a unifying force among other Wizards. If they knew someone was killing Wizards, all the Wizards would kill him. They could try to kill a 20th Magic Jaring wizard, but would not be very successful.


Also, what Wizard would attack someone who was anywhere near his power level? The target might have hidden contingency (again, just a word) plans and guardians the scrying didn't catch.A paranoid one. Why let anyone possibly become a threat to you. If worked for the Githyanki lich queen.


Plus, your Wizard Tower had better be made of concrete mixed with lead dust, a layer of lead paint on the outside, and a thin sheet of lead on the inside. If not, your Wizard Tower is as impregnable as the easiest girl at prom.I don't recall ever saying where this hypothetical wizard would be hypothetically based, and I certainly never mentioned a tower.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-08, 04:25 PM
Nothing in the spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#spellbooks) entry indicates this. The writing a new spell in a spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#writingaNewSpellintoaSpellbook) entry also has no indication of this as well, so it's up to the player to determine how he get's those 2 spells every level. I like to think inspiration personally.

I don't think so. I'm a DM who puts limits on when a Wizard can get spell outside of level up, but then I like running settings where Wizards are feared and hated on top of being antisocial.

Well, first off, it looks like we have a fundamental disagreement on how we think wizards get those spells. I appreciate you citing that entry; it is good to be clear that I do not in fact have official backing for my view (nor does anyone else). It's just a personal flavor opinion that if wizard spells are entirely based on research and training, the idea of them spontaneously figuring spells out for free (whereas researching a new spell is very, very costly and complex) strikes me as a bit silly. I'm happy to agree to disagree on that.

Again, I too am a DM who limits opportunities for players based on what is realistic. In this case, it is getting in the way of a player's fun, and not in any unreasonable way (since the rules you cited even state a player may "At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards’ spellbooks to her own," suggesting this is a regular occurance and expected in a normal game, under reasonable circumstances). Many of the ways that people have suggested do seem reasonable, unless this is indeed a high-paranoia setting... and if it is, then there would likely be other tangible effects. I mean, wizards won't let you look at their spellbook to learn Secret Chest in exchange for a spell they don't have, but the blacksmith down the road will sell a stranger a +1 bleeding greataxe? I don't think that only wizards would be extremely paranoid and everyone else quite trusting. Just saying. :smallwink:

Zeful
2009-01-08, 04:49 PM
Again, I too am a DM who limits opportunities for players based on what is realistic. In this case, it is getting in the way of a player's fun, and not in any unreasonable way (since the rules you cited even state a player may "At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards’ spellbooks to her own," suggesting this is a regular occurance and expected in a normal game, under reasonable circumstances). Many of the ways that people have suggested do seem reasonable, unless this is indeed a high-paranoia setting... and if it is, then there would likely be other tangible effects. I mean, wizards won't let you look at their spellbook to learn Secret Chest in exchange for a spell they don't have, but the blacksmith down the road will sell a stranger a +1 bleeding greataxe? I don't think that only wizards would be extremely paranoid and everyone else quite trusting. Just saying. :smallwink:It really depends on the setting's construction. If a powerful wizard tried conquering the world and failed, then magic items won't be for sale unless you manage to convince a caster to trust you enough to build them for you. But then at that point, you could convince them to share spells.
A Wizard could have blown up the Hogwarts-esque wizard's school and escaped, and the wizards could have covered it up to save face. As long as that Wizard was perceived to be alive, there would be paranoia running around the spellcasting communities. The public, unaware of the turmoil, continues life as normal. Magic items would be scarce and very weak but not unavailable. You'd probably need some long-term relationship with a wizard in this kind of setting to trade spells, but it wouldn't be impossible.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-08, 04:59 PM
Nothing in the spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#spellbooks) entry indicates this. The writing a new spell in a spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#writingaNewSpellintoaSpellbook) entry also has no indication of this as well, so it's up to the player to determine how he get's those 2 spells every level. I like to think inspiration personally.

p 179 players handbook under "adding spells to a wizards spellbook" states plainly that the 2 per level supposed ot be research done during the downtime inthe adventure. the other two ways is to allow time for addiional research of new spells or to copy from other wizards spellbooks or scrolls.

to the idea a scroll is a common magical item, fine, but it is also a one time use item meant for emergency use. it could be given to an apprentice to offer some future learning as well as "incaseof fire, read this" but its not something that should beas available as toilet paper is tothe modern human.

now any wizard could use the gold for research. making or finding new spells isnt easy or cheap. there is no reason a wizard wouldnt be willing to allow gold to pass hands and trade a lower level spell. its in the wizards worst interest to not sell or trade access to some lower level spells. the concept of a blanket ban means that wizards either "all make lead into gold or vice versa depending on how much the economy values lead" or wizards just dont want to expand their knowledge. especially if they dont need to part with gold or exp to trade such knowledge (excep to scribe the spell they trade with the pc for into their own library)

in that, the idea of a blanket ban on npcs doing things in their own best interest is friggin clown shoes. especially if there is no school or central area of magical training many wizards may not even have the same 1st level spells. That means somehwere in the magic hating world there is a wizard who may not have burning hands. or alarm, or disguise self. or grease!

again the idea a dm is being unreasonable to do a fullout ban on allowing a pc and even an npc access to a class feature is something a dm needs to concede. it makes no sense.

Zeful
2009-01-08, 05:50 PM
p 179 players handbook under "adding spells to a wizards spellbook" states plainly that the 2 per level supposed ot be research done during the downtime inthe adventure. the other two ways is to allow time for addiional research of new spells or to copy from other wizards spellbooks or scrolls.Point. Didn't see that.


now any wizard could use the gold for research. making or finding new spells isn't easy or cheap. there is no reason a wizard wouldn't be willing to allow gold to pass hands and trade a lower level spell. its in the wizards worst interest to not sell or trade access to some lower level spells. the concept of a blanket ban means that wizards either "all make lead into gold or vice versa depending on how much the economy values lead" or wizards just don't want to expand their knowledge. especially if they don't need to part with gold or exp to trade such knowledge (except to scribe the spell they trade with the pc for into their own library)

in that, the idea of a blanket ban on npcs doing things in their own best interest is friggin clown shoes. especially if there is no school or central area of magical training many wizards may not even have the same 1st level spells. That means somehwere in the magic hating world there is a wizard who may not have burning hands. or alarm, or disguise self. or grease!Your point? Different settings have different assumptions. Criticizing one on parts you don't like is comparable to saying "England sucks because the English live there" (no offense to England or the English, It was the first country to come to mind).


again the idea a dm is being unreasonable to do a fullout ban on allowing a pc and even an npc access to a class feature is something a dm needs to concede. it makes no sense.I'm sorry, there is no Wizard class feature called "complete obedience" that controls NPC wizard actions. If there is no reason for the NPC to trade spells he's not going to, even if it's against his own best interest.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-08, 06:00 PM
I'm sorry, there is no Wizard class feature called "complete obedience" that controls NPC wizard actions. If there is no reason for the NPC to trade spells he's not going to, even if it's against his own best interest.

Well, of course. I don't think anyone here is arguing that the PC should be able to make any particular NPC out there give him spells. Also.... if it is in the NPC's best interest, that is a reason to trade. I am not disagreeing that an NPC may decline to trade even if from the PC's view it may be in the NPC's best interest (for a whole host of reasons), but I am saying that statement was confuddled. One's own interest is the best reason to do anything (OK, let's not get into a moral argument here- we're thinking in purely practical, metagame terms).

However, I think we are missing the forest for a couple of trees and just started throwing fruit at each other. We are not here to debate Zeful's setting or his competence as a DM but what our original poster should do. My assumptions seem to be based on that the DM has not set up a resoundingly complex, paranoid structure of wizards, whereas Zeful seems to think that more likely (or at least make the point that it is possible). Therefore, there is no point in throwing fruits at each other any more until we hear again from our original poster. If wizards are friendly, well-trusted dudes with fraternities and guilds, most of the suggestions people make here are reasonable. If wizards are reclusive, paranoid people or have recently gained a bad reputation, Zeful's points are more relevent.

So... any chance we shall hear an update from our original poster again soon?

Flickerdart
2009-01-08, 06:07 PM
So...how does your DM explain Leomud's Tiny Hut? Rary's Telepathic Bond? Mordekainen's Magnificent Mansion? Tenser's Transformation? These are all spells independently researched by wizards famous enough to slap their names on them. How, then, did other people learn these if not for trading of scrolls/spellbooks?

Tacoma
2009-01-08, 06:27 PM
If the Wizards are all paranoid and reclusive, has this state not been in effect for a long time? If a Wizard had wanted to kill all the other Wizards, would he not have tried it already? I liken this to a town with no laws. Such a thing would last a short time before laws were created to cover all the bad things everyone was doing. Within a year the town's laws would look just as you'd expect a hundred-year-old town to have. Murder is illegal, so is theft, and vandalism, etc.

So unless the campaign follows a huge shift that happened within the last couple months, the campaign setting is in equilibrium. Whatever disastrous social events could have happened, should have already happened. Unless something changes, the Wizard culture shoudl be the same today as it was a year ago, and it'll be the same in a year.

If the PC is a weirdo who wants to share and be friends, and nobody else does, they must have a reason. Maybe their only defense against other Wizards stealing from them is to be antisocial and always on guard. So maybe this player should just be taken advantage of a couple times until he begins to hate and distrust Wizards.

As for the Wizard being invulnerable, that only goes so far as concerns non-spellcasters. As far as I'm concerned a Wizard vs. another Wizard is a pretty unpredictable conflict. I don't buy any "Magic Jar and end of discussion" arguments. I think Wizards would be pretty universally paranoid and afraid of each other in this culture. Scrying could be blocked pretty easily, and anti-anti-scrying technology doesn't seem to exist.

If a Wizard started to become very powerful, I imagine all the other Wizards would band together to knock him down. This is how it was done in the Dying Earth series. Likewise they'd know not to just go around popping their enemies who are near them in power because the attack could easily go awry due to an unforseen defense.

This means any attempt at creating an egalitarian knowledge-sharing group would be quashed immediately by powerful paranoid and jealous Wizards. It'd be an alliance against you when you're weak because you have the probability of altering the way they live and becoming more powerful.

It means Wizards wouldn't just travel around. Too vulnerable. So why is your Wizard traveling?

Do established Wizards all take advantage of traveling Wizards who come near? It makes sense that he wouldn't want to even take the risk of interacting with the traveler. Then again an unstable person might do just about anything.

But my opinion is that if I were a powerful Wizard, or superhero, or whatever, I'd want to eliminate people who could challenge me before they had a chance to try. People go crazy, people get weird ideas in their head, and they might not want to leave me alone to pursue my own happiness in nice ways that don't concern them or anyone else. Hence the surgical strike to destroy the superheroes' preschool.

Given that, there is no survival possible in that world. A Wizard of 20th or 30th level looks into his crystal ball and notes that your ragtag adventuring group has gone from no magic items and scrabbling for food, to being decked out in a few trinkets in just a couple days of exploring a dungeon. He pops out, casts a few Power Word: Kill spells, loots you of your magic, and sends minions in to clear out your dungeon and bring back anything you might have eventually found there.

Given a scattered group of a hundred such high level Wizards, there would be no stray magic items lying around close to the surface or easily captured. You'd have to hit the second dungeon level down at least before seeing a magic potion. And the dangerous ones would pretty much just kill anyone over level 5. They control the monster populations near towns, weeding out the highest level guards. With no need to defend the town against monsters and no loose 6th level characters to engage in banditry the net level of peace would remain the same.

Wizards would run the governments, even if as shadows behind the throne. If a Wizard tells you to keep your army from invading Country X, then you recall them and you do not invade Country X. If you don't it's a quick Cloudkill and you're out.

Wizards would allow no exchange of magic items. Their minions and spies would get wind of any marketplace or shop dealing in magic, and hear of personal deals advertised at all in public places. These magic items would be swiftly captured and their owners slain for their hubris.

And people would quickly realize that these despotic Wizards run the show. If a guy found a magic item he'd act like it was contraband, turning it in to the police. He knows if he were found in possession of it he'd be dead. Like dropped propaganda leaflets in wartime.

There's no reason why Wizards this paranoid wouldn't do this. At least some of them. And all you need is some.

Caeldrim
2009-01-08, 10:50 PM
OP here.

Wow, stimulating discussion. Didn't expect this conversation to go on so long.

Long story short it hasn't been a week since I posted this, so I haven't had a chance to talk to the DM.

Basically I don't blame him for this, and don't think he's being obstructive on purpose. I just think that the way the campaign has been laid out offers pretty much nothing in the way of downtime for research/scribing/'city time'.

If things continue as they are i'll subtly ask if maybe some low level PHB scrolls could start turning up as loot, and maybe roll some gather information checks here and there to find an evil wizard whose arse I can kick.

In any case, by the end of our next session (on sunday) we should be back in the city, and I'll be able to reasonably present my argument as to why i should be able to buy some scrolls, while everyone else runs around the city buying +2 swords of arse-murder.

Thanks for all the help guys, but I don't think it's necessarily as big a deal as I initially made it out to be. Just really venting some frustration at feeling a bit like a swiss army knife with all the good tools snapped off.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-09, 12:30 AM
I'm sorry, there is no Wizard class feature called "complete obedience" that controls NPC wizard actions. If there is no reason for the NPC to trade spells he's not going to, even if it's against his own best interest.

money and/or spells for giving info a lesser level spell. an npc wizard should want more spells just like a pc wizard does. there is a perfectly valid reason no matter what the campaign setting that there should at least be lower level wizards willing to work out some deal on trading spells, if not a higher one tryign to finance an item or a spell they are researching themselves.

now is this blanket that every npc is going to do this? no. namely because some may already have the spells the pc has. but not everyone has chosen those exact spells. again the issue is that no wizard anywhere is willign to try and expand their own knowledge at the risk of expanding the one pcs spellbook by a single page. that goes from npcs having a common sense reason to guard their lore to, the world is conspirign to shaft this one single wizard.

Simanos
2009-01-09, 10:22 AM
In any case, by the end of our next session (on sunday) we should be back in the city, and I'll be able to reasonably present my argument as to why i should be able to buy some scrolls, while everyone else runs around the city buying +2 swords of arse-murder.
Weak.
Lame DM.
Scrolls should be as available as Potions.
I hate the wizard-hater fanboys in this thread and everywhere else.

Dacia Brabant
2009-01-09, 10:33 AM
Tell your DM to suck it up and let you buy more spells, otherwise you're just playing an INT-based version of a Sorcerer.

Oslecamo
2009-01-09, 11:44 AM
Weak.
Lame DM.
Scrolls should be as available as Potions.
I hate the wizard-hater fanboys in this thread and everywhere else.

Ah, but don't you see the irony? For years fighter-hater fanboys have gloated on how wizards are so mage o'mart independent since they can craft all their stuff and how it's ridiculous that fighters can buy +2 swords of their choice in any town.

And now a DM bans one single kind of item(scrolls) from his shops and who's complaining more? The wizard.

Another myth busted. Wizards need their fully stocked mage o'mart as much as the guy next door.

Now as for the OP, well, two spells per level should be more than enough for you to be more than a powerfull force. Just seek out the sorcerer guides out there to see how to do a lot with a non infinite number of spells known.

Artanis
2009-01-09, 11:50 AM
I think we should wait and see the results of the OP talking to the DM before we start levelling accusations at him.

Zeful
2009-01-09, 01:44 PM
Scrolls should be as available as Potions.Even if there is no one to make them?

I hate the wizard-hater fanboys in this thread and everywhere else.I hate Wizards. We're even.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-09, 03:26 PM
Another myth busted. Wizards need their fully stocked mage o'mart as much as the guy next door.

if and only if you deny the wizard the class feature that allows him to learn additional spells without scrolls: research and trade. otherwise they are sorcs with less spells perday.

horseboy
2009-01-09, 04:41 PM
Why wouldn't the NPCs trade? That sounds like DM... meanness to me.Trade? You're and adventurer! Kill them and take their stuff. No, seriously, I agree with the taking evil wizard spell books point. Where do their spell books go? Are they all contrived-ly kept in an extra-dimensional storage area that disappears when they die along with the water from the magic grits?

Rhuadin
2009-01-09, 05:51 PM
(How in regards to the internal logic of the game being stupid)

How?


I haven't seen anyone address this yet.


His justification for the 'no copying from other people's books' ruling is that wizards spend years of effort and research gaining this knowledge, so they're not going to just give it up for a few GP. I'm ok with this, as long as i can get new spells from SOMEWHERE.

The logic is, if the wizard in question (who is a potential buyer) doesn't see a few GP as reward enough in exchange for something they spent years of effort and research gaining, then surely they see giving up a few GP as a freaking good deal instead of having to do all that research and effort themselves.

Find out what each wizard's "few GP" break point is.
e.g.
OP: Will you sell this 3rd level spell for 100GP? What about 200GP? What about 10,000GP?
Wizard: No, no, and no, I won't give up the fruits of my hard research for mere cash.
OP: Then will you buy this 3rd level spell of mine (that you don't have) for 10,000GP, because you certainly think that that the mere cash value of 10,000GP is worth far less than having to do all those years of research yourself?

tl;dr: An NPC who says he won't sell a spell for X GP and then turns around and refuses to buy a desirable spell for X GP (assuming the OP is savvy enough to select only desirable spells for his 2/level) doesn't make any sense.

PS: Paranoia is easy enough to counter with greed. Just convince the buying wizard that since he's paying mere cash for apparently priceless knowledge that takes years of research, he can afford the additional mere cash for bodyguards (even wizard bodyguards) while he inspects the goods -- if he feels it is necessary.

metagaia
2009-01-09, 06:00 PM
Intimidate check: "Either you trade me this spell of fireball or I will come back next level with the spell researched and use it to fry your pasty wizard bee-hind!"

Simple :smallbiggrin:

Tacoma
2009-01-09, 06:19 PM
Using skill checks as a substitute for roleplaying has undesirable side effects.

Example:

"I Intimidate him into surrendering"

*Roll roll*

Okay I rolled a 12, +20. Looks like he surrenders! (Repeat many times)

"Hold on there Sofa King! I intimidate him into giving up all his lands and wealth and titles"

*Roll roll*

Yay 10, +20, plus a few other temprary buffs. Looks like I'm a king!

Simanos
2009-01-10, 06:52 AM
Ah, but don't you see the irony? For years fighter-hater fanboys have gloated on how wizards are so mage o'mart independent since they can craft all their stuff and how it's ridiculous that fighters can buy +2 swords of their choice in any town.

And now a DM bans one single kind of item(scrolls) from his shops and who's complaining more? The wizard.

Another myth busted. Wizards need their fully stocked mage o'mart as much as the guy next door.

Now as for the OP, well, two spells per level should be more than enough for you to be more than a powerfull force. Just seek out the sorcerer guides out there to see how to do a lot with a non infinite number of spells known.
I've never met a fighter-hater. I've never had a wizard who gloated about that. The DM's ban is stupid. Of course the one affected by an illogical ban is the one who will complain. What's your point? Wizards have always needed things from shops. The OP SHOULDN'T have to seek out a DAMN SORCERER GUIDE to play his WIZARD! That's idiotic.


Even if there is no one to make them?
I hate Wizards. We're even.
I'm not a Wizard though, so how does that make us even? :smalltongue:
But then your obvious lack of common judgment shouldn't surprise us...
Who makes all the other stuff? Yeah, right...

Heliomance
2009-01-10, 07:12 AM
Ah, but don't you see the irony? For years fighter-hater fanboys have gloated on how wizards are so mage o'mart independent since they can craft all their stuff and how it's ridiculous that fighters can buy +2 swords of their choice in any town.

And now a DM bans one single kind of item(scrolls) from his shops and who's complaining more? The wizard.

Another myth busted. Wizards need their fully stocked mage o'mart as much as the guy next door.

Now as for the OP, well, two spells per level should be more than enough for you to be more than a powerfull force. Just seek out the sorcerer guides out there to see how to do a lot with a non infinite number of spells known.

Not true, it's entirely possible to get on without a mage-o-mart. In the part of the world our campaign's in at the moment, there's no such thing. We craft pretty much all our shinies.

Aquillion
2009-01-10, 07:15 AM
Of course, the most logical thing to do is to simply trade spells with other casters. If necessary, be willing to trade spells for lower-level spells, and let them copy first (choose relatively trustworthy people, obviously, but they have no reason to stab you in the back -- they can get more spells from you if they don't.) If the DM won't let you do this, chances are they're specifically nerfing you. Nothing else in this thread will help you in that case.

But anyway...

Well.. seems to me like you've got three choices.
...
3. If Everything else fails, ask your GM to homebrew a "Reverse engineer" feat that lets you use spellcraft to attempt to learn spells from items and continous effects, since you can't learn new spells in any other way.
Uh. You don't need a feat for that; it's allowed normally under the item-creation rules:

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).
A wizard can, per RAW, use a wand, potion, or any other item capable of casting a spell to satisfy the prerequisite for creating a scroll with that spell, then scribe the resulting spell to their spellbook. It costs some xp, but not much.

You can cooperate with any other caster in your party or that you are friendly with (including sorcerers and non-arcane ones, who won't have put any effort into learning their spells at all and therefore won't value them) to meet the prerequisites, too. Note that the spells produced by this are still arcane (you can get an arcane scroll of heal this way if you really want it, but it's useless to you -- you still can't cast it unless it's on your class list, which it isn't. A scroll of hold person, on the other hand, is perfectly scribable even if you used a cleric to satisfy the prerequisite necessary to make it.)

Another option: Who taught you magic to begin with? Get in touch with them. Even if they charge you, it would be fairly nonsensical for them to refuse to teach you anything else at all.

EDIT: Regarding the mage-o-mart thing... remember, at a bare minimum, a wizard can trivially learn any spell on the wiz/sorc list known by another spellbook-using caster in their group, and can fairly easily learn any spell on the wiz/sorc list that anyone else in their group has access to, or any such spell that they can get an item capable of casting.

That's... a lot of spells right there. It also takes a fairly extreme level of DM-hate to have a world where not a single other wizard out there is willing to trade their second or first level spells for your third level spells.


Again how? Wizards could be distrustful of their own because they suspect a trap. Explosive runes or a Sepia Snake Sigil could be covered with a secret page and Nystul's Magic Aura to look like a scroll, so that you could disable a wizard and steal his book, which is a large investment. Wizards could fear some powerful megalomaniac that wants to be the Big Man on Campus and kills the competition (read: 20th level wizard using Scry-and-Die Tactics on other wizards), so Wizard Colleges don't exist. Paranoia is a powerful force on human nature.But the thing is, wizards who share spells with each other are overwhelmingly powerful. Wizards who don't -- who refuse to learn a new spell from another caster even when it's offered to them, for fear it'll be a trap and bite them in the ass -- are severely weakened by their paranoia. Those wizards who are willing to share spells will become extremely powerful, and train many students, using the same philosophy. The paranoid wizards will wither and, by your logic, train nobody. It only takes a few wizards willing to trade for them to get a huge advantage over everyone who doesn't; at that point, the paranoid wizards will realize that they can either open up and take some risks, or stay closed and be completely screwed if it ever comes to a fight.

This is not random guessing. This is how real-world science works. Scientific progress depends on openness and the free exchange of ideas. There are real-world countries that have been historically open, and have traded ideas freely; and there are ones that have been paranoid and kept out all outside influence. The people that exchange knowledge always win in the end, because refusing to share knowledge is goddamn stupid and cripples you to the point of taking you out of the race in the long run.

Long story short: Wizards share knowledge because the the vast majority of who are taught how to be a wizard are taught it by people who were willing to share knowledge.

Again: Obviously, if you're going to a powerful wizard and offering to share spells, you have to play by their rules. You disarm yourself, you let them cast spells on you and inspect you to make sure you won't betray them, you go into an AMF for them to study the spell. But chances are they won't betray you (unless they're stupid), because spells are the most important things a wizard can get, and they stand to gain a lot more in the long run by playing fair with you.

A wizard who would refuse to even look at the spells you offer them for fear it could have a septa snake sigil in it -- no matter how much you offer the deal in their favor, no matter how much you offer to risk yourself with their minions holding a sword to your throat until the spell transaction is finished -- is not a wizard. At that point you're arguing that none of the other wizards in the world are even interested in learning a spell from anyone else. That is stupid.

...one last point. There is a middle ground between having access to no spells at all beyond your two per level, and having every spell 1st through 9th level sold in every town. Wizards are intended to be able to learn spells as they go, from a variety of sources, collecting them as treasure or rewards or finding them in the corners of strange shops or whatever. That's part of the fun of playing wizard. That doesn't mean that you can just go into the tower of a 20th level wizard and expect him to give you every spell in the game, or purchase any spell you want at any time.

Saying (in effect) that there are simply no arcane scrolls available in your game world at all -- which is the situation the OP seems to be describing, even if the DM didn't outright saying -- is not like saying that there's no magic-marts; it's like telling the fighter there is no weapons and armor period, and no, you're not allowed to improvise, because you have no concept of 'weapon'.

The wizard class is heavily built around the concept of scrolls as a form of valuable treasure. Playing a wizard in a world with no scrolls is directly analogous to playing a fighter in a world with no weapons, or a druid in a world with no animals.

Fizban
2009-01-10, 08:43 AM
On buying spells:

The spellcraft DC for preparing a spell from a borrowed book is trivial because you can take ten by definition (preparing spells requires a stress free environment after all), so any wizard past 2nd level will always make the check. This means that you can use a looted book immediately, so if the DM is willing to toss in even a lower level wizard, you can get back on track by the next day. It also means that any serious wizard shop should be selling copies of spells alongside spell component patches, generic item crafting materials, and scrolls. Scribing a spell doesn't cost xp, so it's something a crafter could believably do to make money over a long period of time. Adventurers are often in a hurry, so it'd be a good idea to keep some copies of useful spells on hand for sale at a markup if they don't have time to copy it themselves. Consider that a wizard won't want to let someone copy out of his personal book, so he'd make a few extra copies of spells he expects people might want, and then if you don't want to wait you can just buy it now. Come to think of it, this is probably how most wizards do trades anyway, so as to avoid leaving themselves open for 8 hours in a stranger's house. Agree to the trade beforehand, each scribes a copy, show up and swap pages, no mess.

The default cost to copy is 50gp/level, plus 100gp/level for writing materials. Depending on how you chose to mark it up, that could mean a price anywhere from 150gp/level (the cost of copying and scribing, meaning the shop offers the pre-written copies at no markup), to 250gp/level (charging twice the material cost as one might for a magic item), to 300gp/level (just doubling the price in exchange for saving time), to 350gp/level (treating the scribing process as if it was a craft skill so that the writing materials are 1/3 of the market price, and adding a 50gp/level premium for choice of spell). No matter how much they get marked up for being readily available, it's still going to be cheap, and considering that the price increases linearly instead of geometrically, as item enhancements do, you're getting off easy.

Finally, don't buy into the hype about Blessed Spellbooks. Sure, they can hold 1,000 pages and don't have scribing costs. How likely is it you'll actually need 1,000 pages? You won't make up the cost until you've scribed over 100 pages into it (that's not counting your level up spells), and you'll still have to pay the copying fee along the way. If you must buy a fancy spellbook, get the neclace thingy from Explorer's Handbook. It holds half as many spells, but it makes it so you don't spend a week writing 7 pages of spell, and you get to prepare them from a HUD. How cool is that?

Teron
2009-01-10, 09:19 AM
Using skill checks as a substitute for roleplaying has undesirable side effects.

Example:

"I Intimidate him into surrendering"

*Roll roll*

Okay I rolled a 12, +20. Looks like he surrenders! (Repeat many times)

"Hold on there Sofa King! I intimidate him into giving up all his lands and wealth and titles"

*Roll roll*

Yay 10, +20, plus a few other temprary buffs. Looks like I'm a king!
If you don't like that, you need to look for a new RPG, because, fallacious assumptions about the compatibility of rolling and role-playing aside, that's how D&D works. In any case, this isn't the thread to complain about it.

Starshade
2009-01-10, 09:31 AM
I understand both sides, but, how about the power balance for the team? A mage with total of 10 spells isnt any issue, if he's able to function. Id personally favour a middle road, id think if i'd disallowed buying scrolls or copying from friendly wizards in cities and had no wizards guilds in my world, id probably make up for it by giving access to scrolls or defeated evil spellcaster books.

My sugestion:

- Sugest the cities now allow buying "safe" scrolls, from disallowing it, or something simmiliar. Spells as Sleep, Hold, Unseen Servant, Light, Mage armor, etc. Untility and defense.

- An option, could be to introduce scrolls who do not got any "spell" equivalents. Scrolls who cannot be "learned", just used by any mage, and made by those who know the secret of making them. Fun, improve the useability of mages, and do not destroy balance. Exellent for trowing gold on. :smallsmile:

- Sugest Mages Guilds as places to learn spells. But if the DM protests of cheese, sugest making it dark. Let the old spellcasters keep their secrets, and only give out the power in exchange for services as quests and adventure rewards, as payment for fetching rare and unusual components, tomes of theories of rare and strange topics of interest for him/her(and noone else, not spellbooks).

The Neoclassic
2009-01-10, 09:34 AM
If you don't like that, you need to look for a new RPG, because, fallacious assumptions about the compatibility of rolling and role-playing aside, that's how D&D works. In any case, this isn't the thread to complain about it.

I find this statement to be rather inaccurate, bordering on haughty. Sessions of D&D can be played with very few dice rolls because roleplaying comes before dice-rolling. It's all in style of play. D&D is like the pirate's code; it's more like "guidelines" than actual rules; every group makes use of it differently. Of course, Tacoma's example is a gross oversimplification of Intimidate and not at all representative of how skill checks should be used. :smallsmile:

Epic_Wizard
2009-01-10, 12:01 PM
Guys less hate all around please. Lets wait and see what the player says his DM said and not turn this into another Wizards are... hate fest.

Dacia Brabant
2009-01-10, 12:53 PM
Ah, but don't you see the irony? For years fighter-hater fanboys have gloated on how wizards are so mage o'mart independent since they can craft all their stuff and how it's ridiculous that fighters can buy +2 swords of their choice in any town.

And now a DM bans one single kind of item(scrolls) from his shops and who's complaining more? The wizard.

Another myth busted. Wizards need their fully stocked mage o'mart as much as the guy next door.

Now as for the OP, well, two spells per level should be more than enough for you to be more than a powerfull force. Just seek out the sorcerer guides out there to see how to do a lot with a non infinite number of spells known.

Scribe Scroll is a level 1 feat that all Wizards get for free. Got that? Every single Wizard in the game world can scribe scrolls of spells that they know. Given that at minimum they can be sold for twice the cost it takes to make them, and the experience investment in making them is trivial, this would be a highly lucrative way to make money and get more spells that every Wizard in the game can do and would know that they can do.

Denying that is pure DM fiat in contravention of the basic mechanic of the class. Might as well make them all spontaneous arcane casters, which is cool, I like spontaneous casting, but let's not pretend that it's a by-the-book Wizard anymore.

SSGW Priest
2009-01-10, 01:09 PM
What reason do they have to trade? After all there are only a couple of spells worth taking every level according to the optimizers. Wizards are smarter than most people, so they obviously make the optimal choice. So they should have all the spells they'll ever need. What can they get from you that would help?


A) Strawmen arguments aren't nice.

B) There are alot of useful spells, especially if splats are allowed, so unless you take Collegiate Wizard(only available at first, doubles your spells per level) its impossible to get them all simply form your 2 per level, and even then it wouldn't be likely. Also, most of those arguments assume that you will have access to scrolls.

C) Really? Strawmen arguments?

Um, yeah, that is not a Strawman argument. Zeful did not present his view as someone else's argument, nor did he then attack the misrepresented argument as someone else's real argument. Even if one accepts that he is presenting his argument as a misrepresentation of the hypothetical wizards' position, he still did not complete the second half of the Strawman by attacking the argument.

All Zeful did was present a rational and plausible opinion of why the wizards might not be amendable to trade.

Paul H
2009-01-10, 05:28 PM
Hi

Depending on your character's background, why not multi-class?

If you're an Elven Wizard, then try one level of Warmage or Beguiler. Both classes 'know' their entire spell list. Next level take Ultimate Magus, so you can expand your reportoire quickly.

Problem is that you really need a background in something shifty, or Illusion/Enchantment (Beguiler), or military (Warmage).

The UM PrC allows you to add spells from your Wizard class to your spont class. You can also scribe spells fronm your spont class into your spellbook as usual.

Note that Sorcerors don't get many spells known, and need a good Cha stat like Warmages. Beguilers, using Int, is your best bet.

Cheers
Paul H

Rhuadin
2009-01-13, 01:14 AM
So do we get an update? :) How'd it go?

shadowfox
2009-01-13, 10:41 AM
If it's not too late for my two cents...

He says that other wizards spend years researching the spells, and don't want to give away their hard work for a few GP... So why not "research" your own? You spend some time and money, and research and equivalent to "Fireball" or "Magic Missile," or whatever it is you're interested in.

Also, how did you become a wizard in the first place? Obviously, if wizards are willing to train apprentices, they're willing to share their "secrets."

Finally, in any case, talk to your DM. Not allowing you to gain spells is like not allowing a fighter to get his bonus feats, or not allowing a rogue to use any Sneak Attacks. You are not having any fun (or as much fun, at any rate), and have not had a chance to really shine. It is unfair and his logic of why you can't learn spells is flawed, and he has given you no alternative to copying from a spellbook. Try to convince him to let you learn spells, or draw up a new character. He's being terribly unfair.

Kesnit
2009-01-13, 11:55 AM
Scribe Scroll is a level 1 feat that all Wizards get for free. Got that? Every single Wizard in the game world can scribe scrolls of spells that they know. Given that at minimum they can be sold for twice the cost it takes to make them, and the experience investment in making them is trivial, this would be a highly lucrative way to make money and get more spells that every Wizard in the game can do and would know that they can do.

Denying that is pure DM fiat in contravention of the basic mechanic of the class. Might as well make them all spontaneous arcane casters, which is cool, I like spontaneous casting, but let's not pretend that it's a by-the-book Wizard anymore.

You missed the point. Oslecamo pointed out that everyone says Wizards are so self-sufficient, but the OP's example shows they are not. (Or rather, not as self-sufficient as everyone claims.)

Oh, and there is NO requirement for a DM to allow Wizards to scribe scrolls into their book. The only spells Wizards are guaranteed are the 2 they get at level up. Is it expected that Wizards get additional spells? Obviously, since that is the topic of this thread. But a DM is completely within RAW to say "no."

On those same lines, if a DM is running a pre-written campaign and the Fighter takes Improved Grapple, is the DM suddenly supposed to add grapple chances to encounters? (If chances are already there, that's one thing.)

Heliomance
2009-01-13, 12:24 PM
Erm, it's kinda hard to remove grapple chances from combat. Unless every single combat is at range with no way to close the distance, or is with huge gribbly beasties too big to grapple, then there's no way to stop him grappling, other than by giving every single enemy a rong of Freedom of Movement.

Kesnit
2009-01-13, 12:43 PM
Erm, it's kinda hard to remove grapple chances from combat. Unless every single combat is at range with no way to close the distance, or is with huge gribbly beasties too big to grapple, then there's no way to stop him grappling, other than by giving every single enemy a rong of Freedom of Movement.

Actually, I was thinking of things like Elder Puddings, or Huge creatures with high STR. Something that technically COULD be grappled, but just wouldn't be worth it. :smallredface:

Tacoma
2009-01-13, 04:00 PM
OKAY this wizard needs to take Leadership at 6th. You know where I'm going with this.

He takes a Wizard as each of his NPC followers and each one takes a different spell that he has available to him. The cohort is a Wizard who takes his 2 spells per level, all different from what the PC Wizard has.

Suddenly the PC Wizard has every spell he would want level 0-3 and as the cohort levels up with him he gains the 2 bonus spells per level off him too. Leave the followers and cohort at home, and the PCs can feed the cohort XP to manufacture magic items instead of buying them in a shop (which the DM likely won't allow). At 6th level, with a 4th level cohort, the party should have access to whatever +1 equipment they can afford - and they can afford twice as much of it now. By the time the party is 9th or so they should have access to +2 items. This prevents the DM from screwing them over in terms of rarity of magical exotic weapons or inability to buy magic items.

Heliomance
2009-01-13, 04:51 PM
Better: Have an Artificer as your cohort. They can emulate having any spell ever for the purposes of making magical items, and that includes scrolls. He also counts as two caster levels higher than his class level for the purposes of item creation. This means he can make scrolls as a wizard two levels higher - coincidentally enough, your level.

kamikasei
2009-01-13, 05:10 PM
He takes a Wizard as each of his NPC followers and each one takes a different spell that he has available to him. The cohort is a Wizard who takes his 2 spells per level, all different from what the PC Wizard has.

The player has no control over the followers' or cohort's builds. The character is not their mind-controlling slave lord. Those low-level wizards who are drawn to his leadership and become his followers have their spells chosen before they enlist.

Also, cheese and chicanery are not going to be productive here.

Heliomance
2009-01-13, 06:08 PM
Actually, it makesperfect sense. The wizard sits down with his cohort and goes "Look, it makes far more sense for us not to overlap our efforts. If you focus your research in a different area than I do, then we'll be able to learn different spells. Then we can simply lend each other our spellbooks, and learn each other's spells. That way, we both get to learn twice as many spells. See?"

Cohort goes "Yeah, you're right. That makes perfect sense. Okay, what spells are you gonna try and learn, I'll pick something else."

Aquillion
2009-01-13, 09:07 PM
Oh, and there is NO requirement for a DM to allow Wizards to scribe scrolls into their book. The only spells Wizards are guaranteed are the 2 they get at level up. Is it expected that Wizards get additional spells? Obviously, since that is the topic of this thread. But a DM is completely within RAW to say "no."There is no requirement that the DM allow the fighter or barbarian to get any weapons or armor other than what he starts with, either. The DM is free to run a world in which no weapons or armor exist. There might not be a single arrow in the world, either; maybe it's a world where arrows are strange and valuable items that nobody would share -- sucks to be the bow-oriented ranger, but that's how things go.

Obviously, a perfect DM can adjust everything in their world so that every class is balanced. The question here is really whether or not houseruling away the wizard's ability to acquire new spells completely outside of their level-ups is balanced or not.

kamikasei
2009-01-14, 03:52 AM
Actually, it makesperfect sense. The wizard sits down with his cohort and goes...

Yes, after a follower or cohort is recruited, the wizard can suggest he learn certain spells. He can't magically attract only those followers who already know the spread of spells he wants, though.

Heliomance
2009-01-14, 04:26 AM
So take a level 1 cohort and let him ride the XP gravy train until he catches up.

Or go with the Artificer idea.

Oslecamo
2009-01-14, 09:19 AM
There is no requirement that the DM allow the fighter or barbarian to get any weapons or armor other than what he starts with, either. The DM is free to run a world in which no weapons or armor exist. There might not be a single arrow in the world, either; maybe it's a world where arrows are strange and valuable items that nobody would share -- sucks to be the bow-oriented ranger, but that's how things go.

In that case the ranger simply picks skill ranks in craft:arrows, and supplies himself, and then asks the party's cleric/wizard to buff his father's bow he has wielded for ages. Hardly crippling.



Obviously, a perfect DM can adjust everything in their world so that every class is balanced. The question here is really whether or not houseruling away the wizard's ability to acquire new spells completely outside of their level-ups is balanced or not.

Sorcerers are considered the 4th strongest class in Core(and in my personal opinion, 2nd). Wizards are on top.

A sorceror will still know less spells than a wizard who never scribbles extra spells.

The main diference between a wizard and sorceror it's that the wizard can learn new spells ad nauseum.

So, if anything, the wizard has been brought down to the sorceror's power level, wich is still pretty damn strong. He has slightly less spells per day, but has extra metamagic feats. He has to prepare spells, but can quicken them whitout trouble. He's still pretty damn powerfull.

I really don't understand it. One minute people are saying wizards are the pwnrzt, but remove one element from the world, whitout actually changing the wizard class, and sudenly they're weaklings dragging behind the party? WTF? You're still a fullcaster who knows more spells than the sorceror! And you don't have that many spell slots to prepare anyway, so your spells known shall provide you more than enough stuff to go by the day.

Cohorts won't change anything. Because it's the DM who decides what cohort you get in the end, and how it acts, not the player. If the DM doesn't want to give out scrolls, then I really don't see him giving the player a scroll scribing machine.

Heliomance
2009-01-14, 09:35 AM
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. At no point in the description of Leadership does it say that the DM arbitrarily picks a cohort and followers regardless of the character's desires.

Epinephrine
2009-01-14, 10:05 AM
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. At no point in the description of Leadership does it say that the DM arbitrarily picks a cohort and followers regardless of the character's desires.

It doesn't specifically say that the DM chooses "regardless of the player's desire", but it is pretty clear. The player can "try" to attract a cohort of a certain type - not necessarily succeed. The DM decides what cohort the player attracts - all the details. It may not say so in the description of the Leadership feat, but the feat points to the DMG, where we see that:


The DM determines the details of the cohort.

I suppose the player could take a look at the cohort and decide, "no thanks, I'll take great cleave instead," but the player has no real say in things. The DM can even say that you simply don't get to attract a cohort - it's one of the few feats that has DM veto written right into it.

Thurbane
2009-01-14, 02:12 PM
Hi gang,

My DM is making it a real headache for me to learn any new spells. I'm an 8th level wizard, and I have precisely the number of spells in my book granted by the '2 per new spell level' rule.

No opportunities to buy arcane scrolls in stores, a blanket ban on 'copying from other wizards' books' - even for a fee - and no scrolls turning up as treasure.

Even if I did have these opportunities, there's never any time between the action for me to actually do the scribing time.

Ideas for a workaround? Ideas for good 'polite' ways to present the argument to my DM that I should be able to learn more spells?

At the moment I kind of feel like a sorcerer that doesn't get spontaneous casting.
I hear your pain. My last character was a Wizard in a Shatter Gates of Slaughtergarde mini-campaign. The real killer is the amount of time it takes to learn and scribe spells.

When we played RHoD, I remember thinking how much being "on the clock" in an adventure would hurt a Wizard (fortunately [?] we didn't have one)...

Kesnit
2009-01-14, 02:49 PM
There is no requirement that the DM allow the fighter or barbarian to get any weapons or armor other than what he starts with, either.

Yes, there is. Wealth by level.


Obviously, a perfect DM can adjust everything in their world so that every class is balanced. The question here is really whether or not houseruling away the wizard's ability to acquire new spells completely outside of their level-ups is balanced or not.

Except the DM isn't houseruling away the ability to get new spells. The OP is getting exactly what the PHB says he should get as a Wizard.

ravenkith
2009-01-14, 02:58 PM
The leadership feat SHOULD allow you to solve your problem, by picking up the artificer cohort.

If your DM continues to be an asshat, he has effectively declared war on you.

While he is the most powerful person at the table (as it must be), your DM has forgotten (or never knew) that D&D requires cooperation between all participants in order for it to function properly.

You can either:

a) declare war right back, and do your best to derail his plots through judicious application of spells, without being obvious about it. An exceptional way to go about doing this is through the use of wands or staves that you, yourself create.

Nothing does this better than teleport, without being too cheesy.

For example: OH NOES! The enemy army is invading! We have to race across the country to get word to the king.

Response: Scry the king (or his camp, or a known follower, or whatever), study the area he's in, <Teleport> to his location. 1 entire adventure defeated in 10 minutes or less.

There are so many plots that can be derailed like this, and when you do it, it is perfectly natural for your character to be doing so.

Another good one is dominate: Oh look, the viciously mad enemy fighter is tearing up the rest of the group!

Response: <Dominate>. "Now he's MY viciously evil fighter. Thank you for the expendable minion. Is that a lava pit over there? I wonder what's at the bottom of it...minion, give me your gear. Now go for a swim."

These of course, are fifth level spells. But you don't have to wait that long before giving your DM fits.

At first level: A great spoiler for dungeon crawls is mount. You summon a dog or a horse, lasts for hours a level. You send it ahead of the party as a polish mine detector. Repeat as necessary. "Trapfinding? we don't need no steenking trapfinding." This is a great way to supplement the rogue's chances to deal with traps at low levels.

At Third level: Invisibilty + Summon Swarm: Spiders. You are invisible and can summon a minion that automatically hits doing 1d6 damage + poison/round to up to 4 enemies, and they are functionally immune to normal damage. Only area of effects and magic are going to give these guys any trouble. Make sure your group is well clear, though, because the critters will attack anything.

At fifth level: Extended Rope Trick: Never worry about getting attacked while resting again. With an admantium plate welded to an immoveable rod, an unassailable fortress.

Once you get access to 6th level spells, there is a great little spell in the back of the XPH that allows you to temporarily be a psion instead of a wizard. This is great because, for the duration of the spell, you are a psion with some very specific psion abilities and you can drop all of your 'daily' powerpoints in one encounter by augmentation and spamming for the cost of just one spell.

Even better, with the appropriate use of Wild Talent, Overchannel, and/or Expanded Knowledge, you can get REALLY nasty.

However, declaring war on your DM (unless you are really subtle about it) tends to counterproductive. He just keeps pulling out a bigger stick. If you aren't confident in your ability to lead him around by the nose, or your ability to stay one step ahead with new spell combinations, it might be better to:

b) take your ball and go home. I.E. arrange to have your character killed in game, in a justifiable manner, and refuse for him to come back to life. Make a new character (such as an artificer, sorceror or, preferably, psion) that performs the same function as the wizard, but without the limitations imposed by the DM.

A Warlock might even be a good choice here, especially if you aren't getting a lot of downtime for rest & recuperation and relearning of spells/regaining of powerpoints.

Zeful
2009-01-14, 03:12 PM
Yes, there is. Wealth by level. A guideline at best. So says the Book.

Simanos
2009-01-14, 03:19 PM
Yes, there is. Wealth by level
Let them fight with gold coins then. No one makes magic weapons, just as arbitrary as no one makes scrolls.

horseboy
2009-01-14, 03:29 PM
I really don't understand it. One minute people are saying wizards are the pwnrzt, but remove one element from the world, without actually changing the wizard class, and suddenly they're weaklings dragging behind the party?
No, it's not that their dragging down the party, it's that the player and the DM appear to have very different views of the game world. The DM has failed to properly convey why no single wizard would ever trade ever. This is creating a break in verisimilitude for not just the player but several others here. Even if the only spells available were only things like mount,feather fall and shield, practical things are going to be needed and wanted therefore sold. Now if the DM was saying "There's nothing there you don't already have" or "Your character isn't licensed to have these world blowing up, reality shredding spells," that would be a completely different story. As their existence and basic, fundamental human nature has been acknowledged.

Aquillion
2009-01-14, 03:54 PM
Yes, there is. Wealth by level.
Wealth by level covers all treasure, including both scrolls and weapons. If you argue that it's fair for a DM to say that you find no scrolls as treasure, and that there are no scrolls for sale at the low prices listed in the PHB, then it is equally fair for a DM to say that you find no weapons as treasure, and that there are no weapons for sale at the prices listed in the PHB.


Except the DM isn't houseruling away the ability to get new spells. The OP is getting exactly what the PHB says he should get as a Wizard.The DM most certainly is. The PHB lists a low price for scrolls. The DM is saying that nobody sells scrolls at those prices -- not that it's hard to find, or that only a certain spells are available at any given town, or anything like that. All that would be fine. But the DM is that scrolls are never available for sale, and therefore saying that the prices listed for scrolls in the PHB do not apply in his universe, period; he's grabbing a big magic marker and crossing them out because he feels that they'd be unbalancing.

Now, that's his right as DM... but he should have informed the player of this houserule as soon as they decided they were going to play a wizard. Changing the rules to nerf a class is something you should always discuss with your players beforehand so they can take your house rules into account.

Oslecamo
2009-01-14, 04:00 PM
The DM has failed to properly convey why no single wizard would ever trade ever. This is creating a break in verisimilitude for not just the player but several others here. Even if the only spells available were only things like mount,feather fall and shield, practical things are going to be needed and wanted therefore sold.

But that it's an unsolvable problem. It doesn't matter if scrolls are sold or not, because as Emperor Tippy showed, with the D&D magic system, you can create some super society, where everything is supplied by spell traps that can be used and reused ad nausem, plus commoners using skills to get dirty rich and afford say traps.

Assuming the people's on the world are smart of course. Fortunetely, most of the habitants of the world are stupid and:
1-The BBEG doesn't teleport in the middle of the party when they're unprepared with his entire array of minions.
2-Wizards don't control the world thanks to mind controling magic.
3-Somebody still didn't start a wish chain.
Etc etc.

Why? Because the DM says so.

There are a lot of things breaking the verisimilitude on D&D. If scrolls were available, one would wonder why wizard NPCs don't rule the world, and why the other NPCs don't use all those scrolls to break economy, or who's doing all those scrolls in the first place, and why is the shopkeeper selling scrolls instead of being out there killing stuff for loot and treasure, wich is probably much more profitable time wise.

So, basically, A wizard didn't do it.:smalltongue:

Tacoma
2009-01-14, 04:08 PM
This isn't an issue of game rules though, it's about the simulated human nature. The DM isn't saying "Wizard PCs will never find a scroll of a spell" he's giving some BS reason why the Wizard probably won't, and in gameplay will never, find one. I'd be cool with it if the DM just said "scrolls don't exist, everyone just learns spells as they level up and cannot teach them to each other."

I think you don't need to go very far past this to show that the DM is being a piss-ant. Let's say the Wizard gets Leadership and says he wants a Wizard cohort. He hands the DM a list of spells the cohort has - coincidentally all different from his own list. DM says no, if you want a cohort I pick his spells and/or he won't share with you. Or you say you want an Artificer and DM says no outright when Artificers are allowed as a player class. At this point it's a good time to say, "you know what? Wizard just isn't working out for me, I'd like to switch characters."

And if he keeps this kind of thing up, just leave. Unless this is a group of friends you've been with for a while, leaving is the best response to a completely unreasonable DM.

Note that I don't consider it unreasonable to say outright that scroll don't exist and Wizards cannot share spells. Just say it as a rule rather than a social norm. Your DM isn't being lame for restricting spell trading, he's being lame for leading you on and making things ambiguous. If he told it to you straight, you probably would have picked a different class.

metagaia
2009-01-14, 07:26 PM
A lot of this thread seems really counter productive, Caldrim asked for "good 'polite' ways to present the argument to my DM that I should be able to learn more spells." and a quite sizable percentage of this thread has been critiscing a GM who is clearly not on the forums and thus able to defend themselves. Another percentage has not so much been 'workarounds' as 'ways to antagonise your GM through loopholes in the rules'

There *has* been some good justification for learning spells/aquiring scrolls, both mechanically and within the flavour of the game world, but I really feel those salient points are going to be lost in the rest of this and the poor OP will have difficulty summarising a decent case for his GM, as I am really not getting vibe so far that this GM is arbitraily deciding to nerf wizards out of spite.

Lycanthromancer
2009-01-14, 08:00 PM
You know, one would think that most wizards would be not only eager, but desperate to share their spells with others...

But only if those others reciprocated.

After all, any wizard worth his spellbook would want as many spells as he could get his spell-component-stained hands on. Knowledge = Power, after all, and how much more power can you get in a D&D world than knowledge of more spells?

I could see someone who was neurotically paranoid not wanting to give out any spells he'd come up with, but then again, anyone like that would make 100% certain that he was exempt from castings of his own spells, just in case. The Fred's-spell-that-kills-anyone-not-named-Fred spell would likely be a quite popular option amongst neurotic Freds worldwide.

Amongst those that are better-adjusted, however, you'd think a guild, wizard's college, or knowledge repository would have sprang up long before now. Even the really EVIL wizards would find that belonging to such a group would have its benefits, granting knowledge and power with far less effort than it would take them, on their own, possibly years to accomplish.

Given the mechanics for adding spells into your spellbook, it makes no sense at all to not have ANY wizards ANYWHERE not to want to pool their knowledge together, unless A.) being emotionally and mentally disturbed is a prerequisite for wizardry, or B.) you're the only wizard left in the whole wide world.

Leon
2009-01-14, 08:31 PM
Talk to your DM and see why he chooses to run things as they are.
If you find that it still doesn't suit you then you have to make a choice, keep on as you are and adapt to the situation or leave.

Don't try and bring down the game as petty revenge, it'll make you look bad and will be less likely to be invited to play in future games.


Im playing a Archivist currently and am in kinda the same boat, there is a drought of Divine magic it seems.
Ive studied a bit from the University where my PC lives/works but we're rarely in town long enough to do decent study.
I'll pick up Ranger and Paladin spells eventually when those party member's start casting spells.

it was a shame that i was away for the story arc that had a Evil cleric has the BBEG but what can ya do. Im happy as it goes and not really bothered that we've encountered no scrolls of lost divine knowledge


So take a level 1 cohort and let him ride the XP gravy train until he catches up.


Or watch as the Level one Cohort becomes a gravy stain

Paul H
2009-01-14, 08:55 PM
Hi

As I said before - ULTIMATE MAGUS. Just take one level of Beguiler, then just add all the spells into your own spellbook. Beguilers, like Warmages, already know all their spells, so it's just a case of transferring one to the other.

UM also allows you to add spells from your spellbook to your Beguiler's spell list known. Even allows you to nerf metamagic feat costs.

With your Wiz 8, assuming you've already got a metamagic feat & the other prereq's:

9) Beguiler. Armoured Mage, Trapfinder, & know all 1st lvl Beguiler spells. (Sudden Empower)
10) Ultimate Magus. Arcane Spellpower1 (Increase all effective Arcane CL's by one). Add one spell of 1st lvl or lower from spellbook to Beguiler list.
11) UM. Augmented Casting. (Use spell slot to power up metamagic feats).
12) UM. Arcane Spellpower+2. Add one spell of 2nd lvl or lower from spellbook to Beguiler spell list.
13) UM. Bonus Metamagic Feat.

etc, etc.

You increase spells/day, known etc in both classes except 1st & 4th, when you have to take Beguiler. You'll only lose 3 effective levels of Wizard, (one for Beguiler, two from PrC), but you gain +4 CL's in both classes. (Will stack with Practiced Spellcaster).

What's wrong with that?


Cheers
Paul H

Kesnit
2009-01-14, 09:57 PM
Now, that's his right as DM... but he should have informed the player of this houserule as soon as they decided they were going to play a wizard. Changing the rules to nerf a class is something you should always discuss with your players beforehand so they can take your house rules into account.

Except the DM isn't houseruling anything. The player is getting EXACTLY what the PHB says his class should get. The DM didn't say "oh, wait, you only get 1 spell/level," or "I'm taking away one of your spell slots for your highest level spell," or "you don't get bonus spells for high INT."

Simanos
2009-01-15, 05:42 AM
Except the DM isn't houseruling anything. The player is getting EXACTLY what the PHB says his class should get. The DM didn't say "oh, wait, you only get 1 spell/level," or "I'm taking away one of your spell slots for your highest level spell," or "you don't get bonus spells for high INT."
Not totally true. The players expect to play in a world/setting that has the average items of the generic one in the rules. There scrolls are a very cheap magic item. If the DM wants to play in a low magic (+1 swords rare) setting world he informs the players up front. If he wants to play in a setting where scrolls almost do not exist he has to inform the players first again.

Thurbane
2009-01-15, 08:23 PM
I always find it amusing how many people assume that any DM running a "nonstandard" setting or houserules wouldn't tell the player's up front...

I would guesstimate that this only happens about in about 5% of games out there in the real world (0% in the games I've played in for 20+ years), and even then, only if the DM is a real noobie or a complete jackass. :smallfrown:

On the flipside, the internet has opened my eyes to the wonderful world of "player's sense of entitlement" that exists these days. "You must follow the books or you are a bad DM" is a concept I just can't get my head around. Speaking only for myself, I very rarely argue with any of a DMs houserules or nonstandrad campaign setting ideas. If the guy is good enough to DM for me, I feel it my duty to abide by his rules, or at the least, object in a polite manner if I think something is unfair or not working... :smallredface:

Zeful
2009-01-15, 08:47 PM
On the flipside, the internet has opened my eyes to the wonderful world of "player's sense of entitlement" that exists these days. "You must follow the books or you are a bad DM" is a concept I just can't get my head around. Speaking only for myself, I very rarely argue with any of a DMs houserules or nonstandrad campaign setting ideas. If the guy is good enough to DM for me, I feel it my duty to abide by his rules, or at the least, object in a polite manner if I think something is unfair or not working... :smallredface:

I've seen it argued (in another thread) that the ink you spend on scribing is not to be included in a Wizards WBL. Some of the arguments in this thread seem to border on the concept of "Wizards learning every spell in the book for free is a class feature, stop nerfing them you horrible, horrible DM". People have been called bad DMs for not allowing broken combinations in their games. Player entilement does more to ruin a game then the mucnhkins (people out to "Win" roleplaying games), in my experience.

Thurbane
2009-01-15, 09:10 PM
Totally agreed, Zeful.

metagaia
2009-01-16, 07:58 AM
Totally agreed, Zeful.
Seconded. Every GM is entitled to his own concept of flavour and balance.

Aquillion
2009-01-16, 08:33 AM
Except the DM isn't houseruling anything. The player is getting EXACTLY what the PHB says his class should get. The DM didn't say "oh, wait, you only get 1 spell/level," or "I'm taking away one of your spell slots for your highest level spell," or "you don't get bonus spells for high INT."As I mentioned already: The PHB lists prices for scrolls. These prices do not guarantee that scrolls are always available at those prices, or that all (or even a good selection) of scrolls are available at those prices... but they do indicate that scrolls can be bought at the prices listed.

From what I can gather, the DM in this game has definitively indicated that he does not feel that scrolls can be purchased, ever; according to what he's said, arcane scrolls are, in his game, simply priceless and never available at the prices indicated in the PHB, in any amounts, ever. Therefore this is both a houserule and a non-standard setting; it isn't a particularly terrible houserule, but going by what the OP has said, it is one that he was not informed about in advance.

It is no different than neglecting to inform the Fighter focusing on sword-specific weapon focus-style feats that you are running a setting with no swords, or neglecting to inform the druid that you are running a post-apocalyptic wasteland setting with no animals larger than your thumb. The problem is not that the DM did it (there's nothing wrong with an interesting setting); the problem is that the DM apparently neglected to inform the players that he was altering a key part of the RAW-standard D&D setting during character creation, even though it had a major impact on one of the classes they were planning on using.

As Thurbane said, that sort of thing is unusual. Normally, a DM would, during character creation, mention to their players "By the way, this setting will have no swords/scrolls/whatever for sale, at all. Disregard the section on prices for them in the SRD."

Oslecamo
2009-01-16, 09:23 AM
As I mentioned already: The PHB lists prices for scrolls. These prices do not guarantee that scrolls are always available at those prices, or that all (or even a good selection) of scrolls are available at those prices... but they do indicate that scrolls can be bought at the prices listed.

Citation needed. Nowhere in the PHB does it say there are scroll O'marts out there. The prices are directed to allow players to craft their own scrolls and for the DM to make treasure out of them. Altough by probability scrolls may never appear in the treasure.



As Thurbane said, that sort of thing is unusual. Normally, a DM would, during character creation, mention to their players "By the way, this setting will have no swords/scrolls/whatever for sale, at all. Disregard the section on prices for them in the SRD."

No, because the wizard player can still craft his own scrolls.

What's next? Must the DM who creates a custom artifact for the secret BBEG tell the player's in the first session all the details about said artifact? Must the DM who creates a custom monster wich the party is suposed to face tell them all the details of said monster beforehand?

The answer is no. The DM has the right to craft his own reality for the game, and it's no bound to give out every detail to the players, specially when it's a detail wich keeps a class from going broken whitout actually crippling it.

kamikasei
2009-01-16, 09:46 AM
What's next? Must the DM who creates a custom artifact for the secret BBEG tell the player's in the first session all the details about said artifact? Must the DM who creates a custom monster wich the party is suposed to face tell them all the details of said monster beforehand?

Okay, come on. This is totally specious.

The availability and price of scrolls is something that characters can be expected to have some knowledge of. The stats of enemies they face are not.

A DM has no obligation to tell his players how many HD and what kind of turn resistance the necromancer's minions have. If a player comes to him with a concept for a turning-focused cleric and the DM has no intention of ever including a single undead in the game, on the other hand, he would be well advised to let that player know he's assuming elements of the game that won't be there.

A DM need not "give out every detail" of his game. Of course he needn't. But no one is suggesting he should. What is being suggested is that if he makes a change to the basic assumptions of the game such that the viability and capability of the characters changes, he should let the players know enough to make informed decisions about their characters. If scrolls can't be had for love or money that's something you'd expect every trainee wizard to know and take in to account when they're learning spells. Letting a player stat up their wizard and fill out his spellbook assuming that he can pick up extra spells from scrolls later, and then telling him that no, whoops, he should have chosen better because that's what he's stuck with, is a jerk move.

Your "change anything, tell them nothing" position would excuse a DM who doesn't like dual-wielding telling the players halfway through the game "no, sorry, you can't use that in your off-hand. You all have only one arm. Didn't I tell you? Well, I wasn't obliged to, was I?"

Aquillion
2009-01-16, 06:05 PM
Citation needed. Nowhere in the PHB does it say there are scroll O'marts out there. The prices are directed to allow players to craft their own scrolls and for the DM to make treasure out of them. Altough by probability scrolls may never appear in the treasure.


From the PHB section on magic items:


Market Price

This gold piece value, given following the word "Price," represents the price someone should expect to pay to buy the item.

This implies that it is possible to buy items for the listed amount. It does not, of course, mean that they will always be available (I'm not saying the PHB calls for magic item marts!) But a DM who declares by fiat that scrolls are priceless and never available to the players at the price that the SRD says players should expect to pay for them is altering the setting assumptions made by RAW in a way that dramatically affects a class, and should tell that to the players.


The answer is no. The DM has the right to craft his own reality for the game, and it's no bound to give out every detail to the players, specially when it's a detail wich keeps a class from going broken whitout actually crippling it.Custom artifacts and custom monsters do not dramatically and permanently nerf a particular class for the entire length of the game. (If the Big Bad had a custom artifact of "This artifact is indestructible and means that Druids can never use Wild Shape anywhere in the Prime Material Plane", that would perhaps be something that should be mentioned to players during character creation, but otherwise...)

You know that it is a mistake for a DM to do something like this without telling the players in advance. You're all but admitting it here. You ended up saying what you really think: "it's a detail wich keeps a class from going broken." You see wizards as overpowered and like the idea of a houserule to nerf them; to you, the idea of someone getting nerfed without warning is totally hot because they deserve it for trying to play a wizard in the first place.

That sort of thinking is not conductive to a good game. If the DM wants to rebalance the classes, he should do so openly, by discussing it with his players first, so everyone can put the things they want out of the game on the table for consideration, and the players will know what they are signing up for when they first set up their characters.

I, for instance, mostly enjoy playing wizards because I like the idea of collecting new spells; that is the most interesting part of the class to me. It's fun to find spells as treasure, to have to use the limited selection of spells that I've come across (not ones I've selected, but what I've happened to find) to solve problems. I wouldn't really like magic item marts (because that takes away from the fun of discovery and making do with what I have), but I'd never play a wizard in a game where arcane scrolls are simply unavailable beyond what I get myself; it's not a matter of power (wizards are still fairly powerful even with just their bonus spells), it's a matter of what I enjoy about my class.

Since the ability to acquire and learn from scrolls is one of the core features of a wizard, it's something that it is reasonable for me to expect to use when I decide on a wizard in the first place; in fact, it is the only reason I'd make a wizard, because I enjoy working with a selection of spells partially defined by what treasure I come across.

Simanos
2009-01-16, 07:34 PM
I always find it amusing how many people assume that any DM running a "nonstandard" setting or houserules wouldn't tell the player's up front...

I would guesstimate that this only happens about in about 5% of games out there in the real world (0% in the games I've played in for 20+ years), and even then, only if the DM is a real noobie or a complete jackass. :smallfrown
Nice, strawman, but I didn't say that. I said the DM must inform the players up front of serious (far reaching) house-rules. Not that he would ask their permission to do it.
Maybe the OP's DM is one of the 5%. It seems so from his 1st post. Do you disagree?

Thurbane
2009-01-16, 08:26 PM
Nice, strawman, but I didn't say that. I said the DM must inform the players up front of serious (far reaching) house-rules. Not that he would ask their permission to do it.
Maybe the OP's DM is one of the 5%. It seems so from his 1st post. Do you disagree?
Um, I wasn't responding directly to your post, else I would have quoted it. It was a general comment on trends I see on these (and other) forums... :smallwink:

..and yes, it is possible the OP's DM is part of the 5% - funny thing is, sometimes 5% does actually happen. I know I roll my fair share of 1s on a d20. :smallbiggrin:

Oslecamo
2009-01-16, 09:02 PM
A DM has no obligation to tell his players how many HD and what kind of turn resistance the necromancer's minions have. If a player comes to him with a concept for a turning-focused cleric and the DM has no intention of ever including a single undead in the game, on the other hand, he would be well advised to let that player know he's assuming elements of the game that won't be there.

Ah, see this is a good example of what I mean. Let's say that instead of a wizard you play a good cleric, and we're using core only. Good clerics can turn undead. Is the DM now duty bound to throw undeads at the party for the cleric's sole satisfaction, even if said cleric hasn't spent a single feat/spell focused on turning undead? Undead can easily be created by evil cleric, so in thoery there's some evildoer out there with undead minions, just like any wizard can make scrolls. But the DM just doesn't feel like using undeads at all, and he thinks "Hey, the cleric has a bazillion spells, even if he doesn't turn anything he should still be pretty usefull".

If the player wanted so badly to use an extra option of his class wich is completely dependant of a minor element of the campaign world, he should have warned the DM "Hey, I want to be a swiss army knife, so I'm going to spend a lot of time learning new spells from scrolls. Is this allright?"


Letting a player stat up their wizard and fill out his spellbook assuming that he can pick up extra spells from scrolls later, and then telling him that no, whoops, he should have chosen better because that's what he's stuck with, is a jerk move.

Actually that's the player being a jerk to the party. If he chooses obscure initial spells and can't hold on his own untill they find scrolls and the wizard has time to learn them, he's not only being a dead weight for the first sessions, he's doing it in purpose.

What has the wizard of this campaign actually lost? He may not have the scrolls, but he has the gold and time he otherwise would have spent learning said spells. Spend them in partially charged wands and other such items if he still wants to play swiss knife man. It's also less time the rest of the party must spend. The OP himself stated that even if had said scrolls he would never have the down time to learn them!

Aquillion
2009-01-17, 03:15 AM
Ah, see this is a good example of what I mean. Let's say that instead of a wizard you play a good cleric, and we're using core only. Good clerics can turn undead. Is the DM now duty bound to throw undeads at the party for the cleric's sole satisfaction, even if said cleric hasn't spent a single feat/spell focused on turning undead? Undead can easily be created by evil cleric, so in thoery there's some evildoer out there with undead minions, just like any wizard can make scrolls. But the DM just doesn't feel like using undeads at all, and he thinks "Hey, the cleric has a bazillion spells, even if he doesn't turn anything he should still be pretty usefull".

If the player wanted so badly to use an extra option of his class wich is completely dependant of a minor element of the campaign world, he should have warned the DM "Hey, I want to be a swiss army knife, so I'm going to spend a lot of time learning new spells from scrolls. Is this allright?"There's a difference between expecting to have hordes of undead thrown at you solely for the cleric's satisfaction, and having a setting with no undead at all.

Now... first of all, the basic usage of turn undead kind of sucks. It isn't a major cleric feature on the level a wizard's ability to add spells to their spellbooks is a major wizard feature; most clerics end up not using even when they are fighting undead.

But let's put that aside, and say that I was making a build that actually is optimized to fight undead (or let's say, what the heck, that Turn Undead was actually a major cleric feature that was useful against undead.) I wouldn't expect the DM to throw hordes of undead at me, no -- but if there are no undead in the setting period, I think that that is something that should be stated upfront when I announce that I'm going into a class who has undead-slaying as a primary feature. If I say that my Ranger is taking Favored Enemy against an opponent that the DM has decided simply does not exist, they should say so, not smile wickedly behind their screen.

Nobody here is saying that a wizard should expect that hordes of scrolls are going to get thrown at them just for their own satisfaction. But they should expect that scrolls exist in their setting, beyond the ones that they themselves create. Every indication we've had so far has been that, effectively, scrolls other than the ones the PCs create do not exist in this setting.

That is a massively, massively different situation from simply not encountering very many undead; that is comparable to running in a setting where undead do not exist period. That is the sort of major change to the game's underlying assumptions that a DM should tell their players before the game begins so they can take it into account when making their characters. It is not a detail of the adventure or the DM's plans or anything like that; it is a basic change to the entire universe in which the game is set.

Why are you opposed to the idea of players taking the overall setting and houserules into account when making their character? I am getting the vibe here -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that many people in this thread are basically saying "Well, he wanted to play a wizard, so he must've wanted to be overpowered, and therefore he deserves to be nerfed without warning."

And that is wrong for many different reasons.

PinkysBrain
2009-01-17, 03:47 AM
Actually that's the player being a jerk to the party. If he chooses obscure initial spells and can't hold on his own untill they find scrolls and the wizard has time to learn them, he's not only being a dead weight for the first sessions, he's doing it in purpose.
Yeah, because giving up a spell which is useful at higher level for sleep is really screwing his party.

kamikasei
2009-01-17, 04:25 AM
Is the DM now duty bound to throw undeads at the party for the cleric's sole satisfaction, even if said cleric hasn't spent a single feat/spell focused on turning undead?

I'm in agreement with Aquillon here. Firstly, turn undead is a more minor ability than scroll learning, and favored enemy would be a better analogy. Secondly, no the DM is not obliged to provide undead so the cleric can exercise his ability, but if some aspect of the character's powers will never be usable in the game the player should be told that up front. E.g.: before building a telepath or beguiler, I ask the DM if we'll be fighting enough enemies with minds that half my powers/spells won't be useless. When building a ranger, I make sure I've chosen favored enemies that make sense for the campaign and are likely to show up. Before building a wizard, I'd confirm the base level of magic item and downtime availability; but it's not unreasonable to assume that these will be at their standard levels, of being able to find most scrolls at PHB prices if you look in a populous place and being able to take a week between adventures to level and learn.


Actually that's the player being a jerk to the party. If he chooses obscure initial spells and can't hold on his own untill they find scrolls and the wizard has time to learn them, he's not only being a dead weight for the first sessions, he's doing it in purpose.

That's pretty unjustified and I'm inclined to agree with Aquillon that you seem to be straining for interpretations that make the player into the one behaving badly. I didn't say he was going to choose obscure and useless spells. He may simply have different priorities when he has two free per level and can spend gold and time to acquire more than when those two per level are all he gets. For example, choosing between two spells about as good as each other, he might choose to learn the one with the expensive material component as otherwise he'd have to pay for that in the cost of the scroll. If buying a scroll of the other wasn't an option, maybe he'd decide having that spell was more useful than saving the money.


The OP himself stated that even if had said scrolls he would never have the down time to learn them!

And I at least advised him to ask the DM for both a) more scrolls and b) more downtime.

horseboy
2009-01-17, 05:44 AM
And I at least advised him to ask the DM for both a) more scrolls and b) more downtime.
That is one of those things I've never understood about the "no downtime" campaigns. What do they do all winter? Owlbears are hibernating, and orcs get stuck to their weapons and armour it's so cold. It's a great time for taking care of stuff like scribing.

arguskos
2009-01-17, 06:43 AM
That is one of those things I've never understood about the "no downtime" campaigns. What do they do all winter? Owlbears are hibernating, and orcs get stuck to their weapons and armour it's so cold. It's a great time for taking care of stuff like scribing.
Some campaign arcs take very little time for the villain to complete. It's not that there is no chance for downtime, it's that taking said downtime gives the BBEG too much time to do things, and suddenly, it's all over. Some games just work that way, others have lots of downtime.

Thane of Fife
2009-01-17, 07:49 AM
That is one of those things I've never understood about the "no downtime" campaigns. What do they do all winter? Owlbears are hibernating, and orcs get stuck to their weapons and armour it's so cold. It's a great time for taking care of stuff like scribing.

Winter is what Frost Giants are for. And White Dragons. And Remorhaz.

There's all sorts of fun stuff for winter adventures, really.

hamishspence
2009-01-17, 07:50 AM
Frostburn is a pretty good collection of winter/polar monsters, spells, items, etc.

Aquillion
2009-01-17, 09:14 PM
One other thing. From the SRD section on Arcane Spells:


In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp.

...obviously, a DM is free to houserule otherwise. (That is awfully cheap.) But per RAW, in most cases wizards will let you copy spells from their spellbook for a frankly nominal fee.

As for downtime, I recall that there was some magic necklace that you could use as a spellbook, writing spells into it without the time requirement...? You could see if you can get your hands on that.

Zeful
2009-01-17, 09:56 PM
...obviously, a DM is free to houserule otherwise. (That is awfully cheap.) But per RAW, in most cases wizards will let you copy spells from their spellbook for a frankly nominal fee.If the Wizards won't sell more scrolls at greater profit for themselves, why would they let you pay them to look through their books. No offence but this situation falls outside the area of "most times".


As for downtime, I recall that there was some magic necklace that you could use as a spellbook, writing spells into it without the time requirement...? You could see if you can get your hands on that.If the DM isn't giving the player scrolls, what good is an amulet that reduces scribing times when the 2 free spells a level don't cost time to begin with?

As for the lack of downtime, Player Characters are self driven, if they want downtime they can say "we hang out in town for a couple of weeks so the Wizard can learn some more spells/craft stuff/whatever." If they want to go out looting the wilderness, there it is.

Aquillion
2009-01-18, 12:37 AM
If the Wizards won't sell more scrolls at greater profit for themselves, why would they let you pay them to look through their books. No offence but this situation falls outside the area of "most times".
What situation? If you're saying the players are just in a temporary situation, that's different, but that's not how it's described. Per RAW, wizards will in most cases simply charge a nominal fee; of course that means that there are a few individual wizards out there who might let you copy for free, or charge more, or refuse to let anyone copy at all, but if you're talking about an entire setting where nobody ever lets anyone copy their spellbook, then you're certainly dealing with heavy houseruling.

The default assumption is that most wizards will let you copy for 50 gp per level of spell. If you're running a setting where most wizards won't, that's the sort of major alteration to the game's default assumptions that should be stated before you start play, not mentioned several sessions in in an "Oh, by the way, one of your major class features is never applicable in my games" fashion.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-18, 12:41 AM
What situation? If you're saying the players are just in a temporary situation, that's different, but that's not how it's described. Per RAW, wizards will in most cases simply charge a nominal fee; of course that means that there are a few individual wizards out there who might let you copy for free, or charge more, or refuse to let anyone copy at all, but if you're talking about an entire setting where nobody ever lets anyone copy their spellbook, then you're certainly dealing with heavy houseruling.

The default assumption is that most wizards will let you copy for 50 gp per level of spell. If you're running a setting where most wizards won't, that's the sort of major alteration to the game's default assumptions that should be stated before you start play, not mentioned several sessions in in an "Oh, by the way, one of your major class features is never applicable in my games" fashion.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with this. If, say, magic swords weren't available in stores ever, I think it would merit telling the party's fighter, "By the way, the only way you will get a magic weapon is in randomly generated treasure; you can't get it in the store." Same sort of deal.

Zeful
2009-01-18, 01:01 AM
What situation? If you're saying the players are just in a temporary situation, that's different, but that's not how it's described. Per RAW, wizards will in most cases simply charge a nominal fee; of course that means that there are a few individual wizards out there who might let you copy for free, or charge more, or refuse to let anyone copy at all, but if you're talking about an entire setting where nobody ever lets anyone copy their spellbook, then you're certainly dealing with heavy houseruling.I was referring to the OP's situation. But looking back on it I didn't do a good job at that.


The default assumption is that most wizards will let you copy for 50 gp per level of spell. If you're running a setting where most wizards won't, that's the sort of major alteration to the game's default assumptions that should be stated before you start play, not mentioned several sessions in in an "Oh, by the way, one of your major class features is never applicable in my games" fashion.Just a thought: Say, in my setting, I turned NPCs wizard's Distrust-o-Meter up a few notches, so that they only trade spells with people they trust/know well/are intimate with/etcetera. Am I obliged to tell the PCs that? (Please note that I am interpreting the passage you quoted to indicate a kind of universal-wizard-fraternity-deal as the default. Which creates some really funny mental images for me.)
Further am I to blame when the PC wizard makes no attempt to contact other wizards for spells?

The Neoclassic
2009-01-18, 01:14 AM
Just a thought: Say, in my setting, I turned NPCs wizard's Distrust-o-Meter up a few notches, so that they only trade spells with people they trust/know well/are intimate with/etcetera. Am I obliged to tell the PCs that? (Please note that I am interpreting the passage you quoted to indicate a kind of universal-wizard-fraternity-deal as the default. Which creates some really funny mental images for me.)
Further am I to blame when the PC wizard makes no attempt to contact other wizards for spells?

I know I am not precisely the one addressed, but as I agree with the addressed one's points, hopefully you shall not be bothered by my two copper here.

You have every right to do that in your setting, and no, since that is a reasonable assumption and only makes things more challenging, not impossible, you need not state that explicitly in your setting. Now, if the world was mostly happy-go-lucky, kick-in-the-door, magic-swords-for-sale-everywhere from your description and then you had this detail, I'd be annoyed. But in the sort of more realistic approach I take my campaigns from, where people aren't going to trust you or help you just because you are a PC, I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. As long as your general description of the setting to your players is not radically more forgiving/free-sounding than some details that directly affect them end up being, adding realistic nuances such as that without explaining them all up front is not at all wrong.

If the PC wizard makes no attempt to contact other wizards, he is to blame, not you. As long as you provide some realistic openings for him to explore, it isn't your job to serve him new friendly spellsharers with him on a platter either.

Aquillion
2009-01-18, 02:29 AM
Just a thought: Say, in my setting, I turned NPCs wizard's Distrust-o-Meter up a few notches, so that they only trade spells with people they trust/know well/are intimate with/etcetera. Am I obliged to tell the PCs that? (Please note that I am interpreting the passage you quoted to indicate a kind of universal-wizard-fraternity-deal as the default. Which creates some really funny mental images for me.)
Further am I to blame when the PC wizard makes no attempt to contact other wizards for spells?That's trickier than how I'm reading the OP (from what the OP said, they I gather that they have either made that effort or asked if they should, and the DM OOCly told them to knock it off, it's impossible, wizards never share spells with anyone.)

Making wizards work a bit to build relationships with wizards so they can trade for more spells is a bit different, because while you may be slightly altering the default assumptions, you're still basically letting the wizard use all their class features -- what I dislike about the OP's situation is that it sounds like the world has been designed in a way that prevents a PC from ever using a key class feature, without informing them of this during character generation.

I don't think a DM has to tell the players during character creation about every single shift from their default setting assumptions, just the ones that drastically affect the class features and builds that they're considering using.

Zeful
2009-01-18, 04:43 AM
That's trickier than how I'm reading the OP (from what the OP said, they I gather that they have either made that effort or asked if they should, and the DM OOCly told them to knock it off, it's impossible, wizards never share spells with anyone.)

Making wizards work a bit to build relationships with wizards so they can trade for more spells is a bit different, because while you may be slightly altering the default assumptions, you're still basically letting the wizard use all their class features -- what I dislike about the OP's situation is that it sounds like the world has been designed in a way that prevents a PC from ever using a key class feature, without informing them of this during character generation.My scenario is how I'm reading the OP, but I'll chalk that up to my own perceptions and anit-Wizard bias, rather than you being wrong on the internet, because the internet has no place for opinions other than my own!:smallwink: The only thing alarming about the situation the OP is in are the words "blanket ban", which I agree is not a good thing, but I didn't get the impression that the OP wasn't informed about this change until after the game had begun. Heck, based on the DM's own argument, "blanket ban" isn't even the right term as while the living wizards are too paranoid/fearful/stuck up to give information to others of their lifestyle for some measly gold because they've been working almost all their lives (or all their lives in some kind of Mensa-esk wizard community, where boys practice scribbling cryptograms on their friends and girls braid secret messages into each other's hair (which incidentally is now getting dropped into my setting.)), the dead wizards can't protest the PC rifling through their spell book and appropriating the contents, now can they?


I don't think a DM has to tell the players during character creation about every single shift from their default setting assumptions, just the ones that drastically affect the class features and builds that they're considering using.I agree, there are very few instances where the DM has a right to completely screw the player over and it should be a very dire situation (Shadow Miracles and Pun-pun are examples of when DM Fait should crush the character mercilessly).


I know I am not precisely the one addressed, but as I agree with the addressed one's points, hopefully you shall not be bothered by my two copper here.Not at all, I enjoy a good discussion (as long as I don't get to enthusiastic:smallamused:)


You have every right to do that in your setting, and no, since that is a reasonable assumption and only makes things more challenging, not impossible, you need not state that explicitly in your setting. Now, if the world was mostly happy-go-lucky, kick-in-the-door, magic-swords-for-sale-everywhere from your description and then you had this detail, I'd be annoyed. But in the sort of more realistic approach I take my campaigns from, where people aren't going to trust you or help you just because you are a PC, I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. As long as your general description of the setting to your players is not radically more forgiving/free-sounding than some details that directly affect them end up being, adding realistic nuances such as that without explaining them all up front is not at all wrong.A DM still has to acknowledge that something has changed, even if it's, "I've made some changes to what the books say so don't be surprised if you encounter something new or different," after that I feel it's the player's responsibility to ask if those changes affect his hypothetical-at-this-point character.


If the PC wizard makes no attempt to contact other wizards, he is to blame, not you. As long as you provide some realistic openings for him to explore, it isn't your job to serve him new friendly spellsharers with him on a platter either.But again the PCs are self-motivated, me pointing out that there's a friendly no-you-haven't-met-this-guy-before-but-he's-friendly-anyway wizard that they have yet to meet or seek information about (unless there are signs on the road a 1/2 mile or so from the town that give the name of every item shop, tavern, noble/rich person, inn and caster in town like on the highway now, which is entirely possible) seems odd and unintuitive. I figure if the characters wanted to meet such a caster they would ask someone if he exists, and get an answer reflecting the NPC's goals, relationship to the PCs, and perception of truth in relation to the question. If there are no questions, then it's not important to them.

You know, it looks like we're arguing different sides of the same argument.

Caeldrim
2009-01-18, 09:51 PM
OP Here :-D

Wow, what a response. This seems to be something of a hot-button topic.

Ok, I think ALMOST everyone here is turning my DM into a monster. He's not, he's actually the best damn DM I've had so far. It's just that the nature of the setting and the nature of what we've been doing has made it VERY hard for me to get any new spells, NOT totally impossible.

After my last post, we had some 'city time' and I went to see what scrolls I could buy, just to see if the DM had changed his tune a bit about what was available. He rolled on some tables, and the only scrolls available were 3 that I already had in my book. I smacked my head on the table and had a bit of a quiet weep about how I want more spells. I had a brainwave, and decided to do what I always do when I have an idea for a quest I want to undertake.

A few gather information checks later we were on our way to hunt down an evil wizard who'd stolen a pair of spellbooks from my boss. One, a great book of enchantment, and the other a great book of necromancy.

Great success.

That said, whoever suggested a dip into beguiler and then ultimate magus... I'm in, and I now have a new direction for my character. WOO! :-D