Any ideas on making an illiterate wizard not be handicapped?

[Rfkannen]

So I was building my campaign and I have a set of goblins loosly based on pathfinders goblins. And while those that live with other cultures are pretty civilized, most live in wild tribes and have taboos against reading. The problem I just realised is that if anyone wanted to play one of these wild goblins as a wizard they would be severally handicapped as they would have limited spells. Can you help me think of a solution to make a goblin wizard feasible?

[Fwiffo86]

So I was building my campaign and I have a set of goblins loosly based on pathfinders goblins. And while those that live with other cultures are pretty civilized, most live in wild tribes and have taboos against reading. The problem I just realised is that if anyone wanted to play one of these wild goblins as a wizard they would be severally handicapped as they would have limited spells. Can you help me think of a solution to make a goblin wizard feasible?

Make them Sorcs or Warlocks instead. Just because humans call the wizards doesn't mean that's what goblins call them.

I liked BECMI Wokani personally. Basically, wizard monsters.

[Mathis]

No comment on why this is a bad idea. But I do have a solution. The goblin may have learned to study magic through artwork instead. He draws his spells into his spellbook but can never learn spells from other wizards' spellbooks. His spells are shapes, figures and geometric designs. Personally I'd never let a character like this advance beyond 2nd level spells before learning how to read.

[Demonic Spoon]

So I was building my campaign and I have a set of goblins loosly based on pathfinders goblins. And while those that live with other cultures are pretty civilized, most live in wild tribes and have taboos against reading. The problem I just realised is that if anyone wanted to play one of these wild goblins as a wizard they would be severally handicapped as they would have limited spells. Can you help me think of a solution to make a goblin wizard feasible?

Why do you want an illiterate goblin wizard to be feasible? The class is pretty specifically geared towards literate, studied creatures.

Why not just use a sorcerer or warlock?

[MrUberGr]

...shaman of some sort, or druid.

A wizard typically spends half his life studying.

[Rfkannen]

Why do you want an illiterate goblin wizard to be feasible? The class is pretty specifically geared towards literate, studied creatures.

Why not just use a sorcerer or warlock?


Well just in case someone liked the class mechanicly and wanted to play it.

[Mandrake]

I don't understand why forum is against illiterate wizards.

There were numerous mentions in previous editions of wizards who don't actually read. Or wizards that use spellbooks. They might use tattoos, artwork, different line-shapes, markings on tree barks etc. The fact that they cannot read alphabet means nothing.
Even more so you might consider that there might be humans so separated culturally that they can't read Common or Elven, but are literate in some other language. Would you stop them from being wizards too?

Just pick the way you want magic to appear, and use the RAW rules otherwise. If the PC encounters some stuff he might use but need to read (for example, some spell scrolls), you can either judge that he has means of deducing the magic, that some other PC reads it for him, while he writes it down in sand, or that he simply cannot access it (heh).

Play around it, don't outright ban it and go for another class that seems more fitting. Since if you go there, you might just ban Rogues from wild tribes because those wild people don't have any proper locks or mechanical traps.

Hope this helps, have fun!

[AugustNights]

I like the idea of a rune based magic language that the goblin intuits, rather than reads, the arcane language. Would work well with tattoos as spell book for a goblin wizard.

[archaeo]

Well just in case someone liked the class mechanicly and wanted to play it.

How about this? The tribe's shaman picks out infants via communing with nature and performs a trepanning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning) on the child, opening the mind to the whispers of ancient goblinoid spirits. These goblins grow up under the tutelage of their ancestors; instead of "reading" in any conventional sense, these marked out goblins are instead "read to" by the spirits riding in his or her head.

Honestly though, I would just tell any player that wants to play a goblin wizard to choose a background involving being one of those city goblins and leave the tribespeople warlocks and sorcerers, as others have said.

[GungHo]

There are also alternate concepts of "literacy" you could consider. As someone else noted, the goblin could use pictures, iconography, symbology, hieroglyphs, tattoos, even combinations of them into a sort of logogram in order to formulate his spells and magical concepts. He might be a bit handicapped when it came to reading and studying another wizard's spellbook, but it might be that he could learn through observation and oration.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

He might be a bit handicapped when it came to reading and studying another wizard's spellbook, but it might be that he could learn through observation and oration.

Hence the Spellcraft check to decipher spells in another wizard's spellbook. No problems here, he simply ignored the words in the wizard's spellbook and figured it out from the incidental illustrations and diagrams in the appendix.

[WickerNipple]

As someone else noted, the goblin could use pictures, iconography, symbology, hieroglyphs, tattoos, even combinations of them into a sort of logogram in order to formulate his spells and magical concepts.

Such a character would not be illiterate.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, I don't see the issue. Other than learning new spells, an illiterate goblin doesn't play any differently. You're essentially a sorcerer - limited to 2 new spells per level, but with wizard class abilities instead of sorcerer. Instead of writing your spells into a spellbook, you carry around your magic mcguffin that you can't memorize new spells from if you lose...

The limitation of never being able to read another spellbook/scroll would prompt me to use the Eidetic Memory trick from Kirthfinder, wherein you don't use a spellbook, but simply memorize your entire spell list. Again, it basically becomes a sorcerer but with wizard abilities. Certainly not OP in the least, but pretty flavorful for representing the PF goblin and their abhorrent view of writing anything.

[emeraldstreak]

unique talking spellbook

[Somebloke]

Honestly? An understanding DM is all you're going to need to make this work.

[Abithrios]

Such a character would not be illiterate.

They could still be unable to record mundane ideas, thus couldn't write a journal about their day. If they made up the symbols they use, they would have no way to communicate with others in writing. There is also no reason that a one-person written language would be consistent enough for it to be possible to teach someone else (i.e. a necessary component for reading it is remembering what you meant when writing it).

More generally, a "spell book" just serves the purpose of keeping track of what spells the wizard "knows" while letting them expand that list and letting other wizards prepare spells from it if they find it. Whether it looks like a book with magic writing or a telepathic rock matters very little. There can even be compatibility between the types. The rock could have strong enough telepathy to communicate to a book-wizard if they make a check. The rock wizard could have mental powers strong enough to directly access the magic in the book (once again, with a check). Keep in mind that an int 20 goblin has just as much raw mental power as even the smartest human and if they are not spending any of their mental energy on written communication, they could channel it somewhere else.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

unique talking spellbook

Make it your item familiar to boot. Magic mouth is, what, 1,800 gp? And it's less powerful than even a masterwork weapon. Eventually it will become sentient when you have enough money to upgrade it.

[TheOOB]

Saying someone is an illiterate wizard is a lot like saying someone is an illiterate computer programmer, it just doesn't make sense.

There are 4 other full spellcasters, and another class with access to 9 spell levels, I don't think you *need* to make an illiterate wizard in order to have spell casting goblins.

Further, NPC's don't follow PC rules, just give the monster a few spells and call it good.

[Kaiisaxo]

Saying someone is an illiterate wizard is a lot like saying someone is an illiterate computer programmer, it just doesn't make sense.

There are 4 other full spellcasters, and another class with access to 9 spell levels, I don't think you *need* to make an illiterate wizard in order to have spell casting goblins.

Further, NPC's don't follow PC rules, just give the monster a few spells and call it good.

I second that, an illiterate wizard is an oxymoron. And that is why all other spellcasters are for. Not to mention it undersells sorcerers even more than they are in this edition.

[Theodoxus]

How do you have a sorcerer that is specialized in Abjuration, with the Arcane Ward feature? How is your warlock going to be an illusion master, with Improved Minor Illusion? How can that bard be the master of transmutation without his transmuter's stone?

The classes are far more unique than 'uses a spellbook' vs 'uses innate magic' vs 'has a patron'. If it was fluff, no one would care. But there are class mechanics that might actually matter to OP - and blowing him off saying 'hur dur, use another class' isn't helpful.

[Graustein]

People are really tied to their fluff here. I've played a wizard whose "spellbook" was a pattern of tattoos, all over his body, that he drew power from. It worked perfectly fine. He wasn't illiterate, but it would have made no difference to the character, really. Couldn't get the "spellbook" taken away, but we never did the whole "locked up in jail without our stuff" thing, so for us it worked. Learning from other spellbooks etc. was covered with the Read Magic spell, which our DM ruled would let my wizard interpret the spell in a visual form that he could draw and later have tattooed onto his body.

Edit: come to think of it, I would very much now like to try out an autistic wizard who cannot read or talk, but can express themselves in their own written visual "language" as well as through liberal use of Minor Illusion. A wizard would be a much better exploration of this concept than a sorcerer or warlock could be.

[Falka]

Well just in case someone liked the class mechanicly and wanted to play it.

Because the mechanics try to replicate a character archetype. An illiterate erudite is kind of an oxymoron.

[DCraw]

Well, various cultures have developed visual systems for recordings stories that do not reflect a given language. An obvious example would be the various Indigenous Australian dot painting formats. This is of course acknowledging that there are hundreds of indigenous Australian cultures, many of which developed their own set of symbols and interpretations for their artwork. In general, though, they have an agreed symbol for pretty much everything that could be relevant, and the painting as a whole tells a story. None of these are based on language, however, apart from a simple noun -> thing relationship.

Whole stories can be told with a single painting. Surely, then, the basics of a spell could be recorded graphically.

[Theodoxus]

Not grokking that the wizards mechanics are in no way actually tied to literacy is oxymoronic, sans oxy.

The closest you're gonna get is the Savant ability, making it cheaper to copy spells of your school. Well, if you can't read, and would get your hands chopped off and your eyes poked out by the goblin gestapo if they caught you doing that (and really, a Pathfinder goblin wouldn't think about learning to read - it's so anathema to them, it'd be like you suddenly being really interested in knowing what the mites that live in your eyebrows are thinking about) - you're not gonna worry about copying new spells...

So, can we stop that line of argument yet?

[Falka]

Yeah, I guess it's moronic to assume that an Intelligence based-class that is depicted as a SCHOLAR that needs a BOOK in order to record and prepare their spells can't be ILLITERATE.

I am remarking these words in capitals and adding color fonts too, so maybe you can get the point. No sarcasm intended.

[Graustein]

Yeah, I guess it's moronic to assume that an Intelligence based-class that is depicted as a SCHOLAR that needs a BOOK in order to record and prepare their spells can't be ILLITERATE.

I am remarking these words in capitals and adding color fonts too, so maybe you can get the point. No sarcasm intended.

I suppose dyslexic people are incapable of being intelligent or retaining knowledge, eh?

Not to mention any lorekeepers or wise elders from any culture with an oral tradition. You know, the people who were revered and considered magical, mostly because They Knew Things most people didn't?

Honestly, the thing that (to me) always differentiated the Wizard from other caster classes wasn't that they wrote their spells down, but that they learnt their spells, rather than refining a natural talent or being granted their powers, and used mnemonics to help them use their magic. The only other class that's like that is the Bard, depending on your interpretation of where they get their magic. The classic example is the sage who writes their spells down and studies from their book, but there's really no reason for that to be the only way. Any mnemonic will do.

[Rfkannen]

People are really tied to their fluff here. I've played a wizard whose "spellbook" was a pattern of tattoos, all over his body, that he drew power from. It worked perfectly fine. He wasn't illiterate, but it would have made no difference to the character, really. Couldn't get the "spellbook" taken away, but we never did the whole "locked up in jail without our stuff" thing, so for us it worked. Learning from other spellbooks etc. was covered with the Read Magic spell, which our DM ruled would let my wizard interpret the spell in a visual form that he could draw and later have tattooed onto his body.

Edit: come to think of it, I would very much now like to try out an autistic wizard who cannot read or talk, but can express themselves in their own written visual "language" as well as through liberal use of Minor Illusion. A wizard would be a much better exploration of this concept than a sorcerer or warlock could be.

Oh nice idea with the tatoos.

[TheOOB]

How do you have a sorcerer that is specialized in Abjuration, with the Arcane Ward feature? How is your warlock going to be an illusion master, with Improved Minor Illusion? How can that bard be the master of transmutation without his transmuter's stone?

The classes are far more unique than 'uses a spellbook' vs 'uses innate magic' vs 'has a patron'. If it was fluff, no one would care. But there are class mechanics that might actually matter to OP - and blowing him off saying 'hur dur, use another class' isn't helpful.

We are answering his question, and the answer is no. If you remove the spellbook from the wizard, what you have remaining isn't a wizard. There is no rule that has to say every character concept must be valid for play.

[Graustein]

We are answering his question, and the answer is no. If you remove the spellbook from the wizard, what you have remaining isn't a wizard. There is no rule that has to say every character concept must be valid for play.

Mechanically, the spellbook feature is two things:

1) The Wizard is capable of, on encountering a spell in certain formats, learning that spell themselves, usually by spending some resource, thus giving them a means to expand their spell list beyond what they gain on levelling up.

2) The Wizard is capable of being depowered by removal of a tangible object

Is there any reason, other than fluff, why that feature can't be expressed in some way other than a book with words? Is there really something so horribly wrong with that?


Oh nice idea with the tatoos.

Thanks! It does require some DM approval since you can't remove the tattoos, but otherwise it was a lot of fun to play.

On reflection, this thread has given me tons of ideas for alternative "spellbooks". A wand, perhaps; you know all of your spells, and can learn more with ease, but all the magic is in the wand itself and you must spend each morning "loading" it with the day's spells (or "attuning" it, if you want more mystical language), to be spent when you cast them.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I sort of just assumed the stuff in spellbooks wasn't written in Common, anyway. Probably closer to math than literature, or chemistry etc. You don't need to be able to read/write in Arabic to do math.

[Theodoxus]

Mechanically, the spellbook feature is two things:

1) The Wizard is capable of, on encountering a spell in certain formats, learning that spell themselves, usually by spending some resource, thus giving them a means to expand their spell list beyond what they gain on levelling up.

2) The Wizard is capable of being depowered by removal of a tangible object

Is there any reason, other than fluff, why that feature can't be expressed in some way other than a book with words? Is there really something so horribly wrong with that?

Obviously, Graustein. What are you, a Luddite? Can't you see, once they break out the COLORS your argument becomes invalid. At this point, I'll just let the OP read and figure out for themselves if they can think outside the box and run with the ideas presented, or be strapped to the absolute rules of the game and must have a spellbook written in English documenting every legible thing about a spell and how it warps reality.

[Theodoxus]

We are answering his question, and the answer is no. If you remove the spellbook from the wizard, what you have remaining isn't a wizard. There is no rule that has to say every character concept must be valid for play.

Eh, I run with the idea that not every character concept is optimal - but there's literally no reason to make them invalid. That stifles creativity, and for what? Because some guy 40 years ago decided that wizards needed books? I don't recall Gandalf (you know, that quintessential wizard guy - despite the fact that he's not, being an angel and all) having a spellbook. But if you ask a non-gamer the first thing they think of when you say 'wizard' will either be Gandalf or Harry Potter. Staves and Wands (and sometimes potions and brooms) make wizards, not books.

[Daishain]

I sort of just assumed the stuff in spellbooks wasn't written in Common, anyway. Probably closer to math than literature, or chemistry etc. You don't need to be able to read/write in Arabic to do math.
Actually, you're right on two accounts, the written language used is normally Draconic, and spellbooks are often written with a form of cribbed formulae notation and shorthand that is described as being at least relatively unique to each wizard. The latter is a big part of why copying spells is not at all an easy task.

However, that is largely irrelevant. If it is a symbol, and it conveys meaning, then it is a language, and understanding complex ideas conveyed by it would by definition require a form of literacy. It doesn't matter if the symbols are entirely unique hieroglyphs that you came up with while stoned out of your mind and writing on the walls in cow manure, it is still a written language. (And yes, that also applies to both math and chemistry, math is in fact often described as the only universal language)

That being said, so long as the character has some other efficient means of learning and memorizing spells, the book is a formality at best. For instance, I seem to recall there being a stone found in the underdark that could record events going on around it, kind of like a magical CCTV camera. Use one of those to record the phrases and movements required to cast the spells in your repertoire, spend time studying the recording while preparing spells, and you're golden.

Come to think of it, this would give you another means of learning new spells, if your spellbookstone is in a good position to catch the details, any spell that is cast by others can be recorded for later study and experimentation.

[Jacob.Tyr]

Actually, you're right on two accounts, the written language used is normally Draconic, and spellbooks are often written with a form of cribbed formulae notation and shorthand that is described as being at least relatively unique to each wizard. The latter is a big part of why copying spells is not at all an easy task.

However, that is largely irrelevant. If it is a symbol, and it conveys meaning, then it is a language, and understanding complex ideas conveyed by it would by definition require a form of literacy. It doesn't matter if the symbols are entirely unique hieroglyphs that you came up with while stoned out of your mind and writing on the walls in cow manure, it is still a written language. (And yes, that also applies to both math and chemistry, math is in fact often described as the only universal language)

That being said, so long as the character has some other efficient means of learning and memorizing spells, the book is a formality at best. For instance, I seem to recall there being a stone found in the underdark that could record events going on around it, kind of like a magical CCTV camera. Use one of those to record the phrases and movements required to cast the spells in your repertoire, spend time studying the recording while preparing spells, and you're golden.

Come to think of it, this would give you another means of learning new spells, if your spellbookstone is in a good position to catch the details, any spell that is cast by others can be recorded for later study and experimentation.
Part of the point was that you don't actually have to Speak or read/write Draconic (or whatever you use to record these things) to use a spellbook. You don't invest a language into Magical Literacy. S'just a capability wizards have. You can read/write magical formulae without being able to speak any language whatsoever. Does said illiterate Wizard need to also be incapable of reading a scroll or his own spellbook? If not, then he can just be a plain wizard that can't read any spoken language, but is still fine with magical formulas. A sort of idiot-savant when it comes to arcane concepts, symbols, and formulas that otherwise is completely uneducated.

[HasLogic]

So I was building my campaign and I have a set of goblins loosly based on pathfinders goblins. And while those that live with other cultures are pretty civilized, most live in wild tribes and have taboos against reading. The problem I just realised is that if anyone wanted to play one of these wild goblins as a wizard they would be severally handicapped as they would have limited spells. Can you help me think of a solution to make a goblin wizard feasible?

easy enough just to reflavor a wizard.

he meditates and remembers everything his master taught him.

he gained his powers as a gift, and did not have to learn much to use them, but did have to practice to use them well

ect... you can chance the fluff of any class to fit your character, you hardly need to be feel bound to the fluff so much you have to take it as written in stone.

[Falka]

I suppose dyslexic people are incapable of being intelligent or retaining knowledge, eh?

Not to mention any lorekeepers or wise elders from any culture with an oral tradition. You know, the people who were revered and considered magical, mostly because They Knew Things most people didn't?

Honestly, the thing that (to me) always differentiated the Wizard from other caster classes wasn't that they wrote their spells down, but that they learnt their spells, rather than refining a natural talent or being granted their powers, and used mnemonics to help them use their magic. The only other class that's like that is the Bard, depending on your interpretation of where they get their magic. The classic example is the sage who writes their spells down and studies from their book, but there's really no reason for that to be the only way. Any mnemonic will do.

You are mixing traditions. Oral based sages/priests are covered by Druids and Bards (seriously, just read the fluff guys), while Wizards are very focused in escolastic traditions.

Being dyslexic doesn't mean you're illiterate, though.

The thing with tattoos and stuff, paint symbols or whatever excuse you want to make to play a vodoo witch instead of a wizard (when that's perfectly covered by a Sorcerer / Warlock) is that it would be mostly impossible for you to learn spells in a normal way. You shouldn't be able to inscribe new spells into your spellbook if you find them in your adventures (since you couldn't read them, right?). And unless you want to make me believe there is a goblin sage that has a copy of every spell known in your fancy tattoo/pictographic tradition, you ought to reconsider the concept.

It's like playing a Blind Archer Ranger. It can be played. Doesn't mean it doesn't have such huge downsides that it's hard to explain how the character got a class level in the first place.

[koga305]

Easy. Oral tradition. Many cultures without a written language used this as a way to memorize and transmit information - there's no reason goblin wizards wouldn't have something like this.

What's more wizardly than a wizard who, rather than consulting a book each morning, simply uses his or her dizzying intellect to recall the exact formulae for each of his or her spells? Sure, that concept could be used for a Bard or Druid too, but if the player wants to play a wizard - that is, an arcane spellcaster with the capability to learn and study many different types of magic while specializing in a certain school - then why not let them play one? It would probably change the mechanics for learning spells a bit, but I think it's perfectly reasonable and believable to have them be actually taught the spell by another wizard or another spellcaster.

If anyone's read the Young Wizards series by Diane Duane, that features wizard characters from the United States who use a more-or-less traditional spellbook method to learn and cast spells. However, when they meet wizards from other cultures and species, they're revealed to use quite different - Irish wizards learn all their spells from pure memorization, while whale wizards hear the sea talk to them and teach them the magic they need.

[Warskull]

A Wizard's book documents a creature's spell knowledge, it doesn't have to be written like a book. A common solution in Pathfinder was to have the Goblin use drawings and illustrations to document his spells.

Now learning additional spells through scrolls and other wizard's books might be difficulty. However, it is feasible that some of them would include illustrations and other forms of document spells other than words.

The game is super vague about Wizards learning additional spells. Check the basic rules under "your spellbook" on page 32.


Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You
must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.

It seems to assume that all wizard utilize some degree of personal notation. It doesn't mention anywhere that knowing the language or even being able to read is required. Considering that Wizards can utilize magic, it isn't entirely unreasonable to think that they might use some sort of a magical process to learn magic. Maybe they cast a cantrip on themselves to sort of intuitively understand what is in the book without actually reading it. Maybe the Goblin wizard has a magical process where he performs a ritual and eats the spellbook/scroll and somehow learns the magic. Maybe he just smacks his face against the parchment until he has an epiphany.

It is clear that reading isn't even in the rules for learning magic, so go nuts. Heck, you should be able to learn a spell directly from another Wizard if you like. Maybe he collects the scrolls, gives them to another wizard who helps teach the goblin simply because he is amused by the goblin's efforts. The 2hrs and 50g per level seem to represent the practice and experimentation.

I say go with having him eat the paper in a ritual, it seems like it would be funny.

[Tessman the 2nd]

So you want a goblin who can't read or write, but is a wizard.
Consider that said goblin cannot read or write any languages other than the arcane symbols 'wizard' and as such still has a spellbook.

I feel that having it another way compromises the premise of a Wizard and should be a sorcerer-warlock-druid-cleric-bard etc. I don't like the interaction of other wizard with scrolls and prefer that unlearned groups don't have the access to the mechanics.

Obviously this is just my opinion, and you can create some fluff to get around it and I can see the idea of different learning methods for wizards as interesting.
That said I will remember to include a goblin tribe composed of wizards of each speciality and will be subtlety described.

[rollingForInit]

I think it's impossible to have a Wizard who's illiterate. If you cannot read or write anything, you cannot be a Wizard.

I do think it's perfectly possible to have a Wizard who cannot read or write common, Elvish, Goblin or any other normal language. As others have said, he could use pictograms or glyphs tattooed on his flesh. However, he would still have to read and write his spells in some manner, which would make him very much literate within his domain. He would just have a limited written vocabulary. He probably wouldn't have any problems learning to write Common or some other language either, if given the opportunity, since he's likely to have a high Intelligence score.

A Wizard simply cannot be completely illiterate. A limited capacity for writing, sure. Or something beyond our western norm for "writing". But not complete illiteracy.

[Balyano]

My first thought was to have the goblin first learn his spells from his mentors through hands on learning. Since he can't learn spells from other peoples books I thought instead he can learn by watching them. Basically if he sees a spell cast he can make a check to figure it out, like Goku learning the Kamehameha by watching Master Roshi use it. If someone explains the spell to him while he watches them cast it he has an easier time copying the spell. After he figures a spell out he commits it to memory through meditative practices. Any time he would need the book, like for switching, preparing, rituals, ect. he instead meditates to access the knowledge with perfect recall.

[infinitetech]

hi, long time player/Dm, i practice all forms of the lost arts as well as all sciences, and this topic is perfectly reasonable, instead of having a book/art/item what they learn is "raw magic" the flows and ebbs that link all things, they would need to carry or find "key links" (items that are pure or cross road nexi for the elemental/energy/soul/other forces) instead of a written method of casting they play with and learn from the interaction of such vibrant forces, much like playing with multicolored magnetic waves all on different frequencies all making unique aurora borialis [spell check] that effect each other differently, with these methods certain things may be easier or harder to learn, the more complex a thing is or the harder to find a core nexi for a spell the higher the level maybe, making fire dance through the air after its food is easy, making a pathway that targets one thing specifically and brings it to a place while doing something to it and making it show up in a certain way from somewhere you've never been, that's hard, however each time you are "playing to remember" you may have a random magic chance and may make discoveries or mistakes, if you want more info on how I've done this before just ask and ill whip up a list again

this is based off of one of my home brew classes and actual meta-magical concepts

[rlc]

Honestly? An understanding DM is all you're going to need to make this work.

OP is the DM.

[hawklost]

OP is the DM.

Then if OP is the DM, it works. Because the DM can dictate that it does. There is no need for a discussion on why it would fail since it is a DMs right to decide something works even when RAW might disagree.

Now that we are done with that part.

Suggestions:
- Diagrams instead of words
- The Goblin isn't illiterate but instead has learned some very odd form (maybe ancient goblin?) that does not have any reference to modern languages, therefore he cannot read or write anything but his spell book. He was taught it in such a way that he does not even realize that it is a written form of a language instead of just spell notation.
- He is a mix of Class/Wizard instead of a normal Wizard, he always has Comprehend Languages as a spell so he can read other spellbooks (maybe only works for spells for some reason) (His Teacher learned this spell from and older teacher and it has been corrupted to only work on spells now? Make it a free cantrip for compensation? he still needs to change spells to his own 'writings' to get use of them though)
- He thinks he is a wizard, acts with all the restrictions of a wizard but is really a unique class that is only in the DMs world.

[Daishain]

Wouldn't it be easier to just set this guy up as a sorcerer and be done with it?

I can't really say that literacy is truly central to the concept of D&D's wizard, but diligent study to gain magical prowess certainly is. If the spells that one uses are not being researched and memorized via some means, then they're either being granted (as with divine magic classes), or are inherent (as with the sorcerer)

Perhaps you can set the guy up with a goblinoid attuning ritual of some type that will let him change spells out and mimic some of the feel of a wizard.

[infinitetech]

the method i suggested earlier takes care of the need for learning other sources from text due to how with this method it allows the study/understanding of the magic itself in its cast/active form, and there could easily be a ritual of sorts that would allow for the player to "release the magic elements from the captured parts of the original writers soul", most likely causing some wild magic effect or the spell to go off, but also giving a good chance to learn about the spell

[Freelance GM]

Pictographic, or hieroglyphic spellbook. Instead of text, it's sequential images, kind of like the ancient Sumerian Standard of Ur, or iconographic decorations on Gothic Cathedrals. Both were meant to tell stories to the illiterate masses.

So, in theory, the Goblin would just follow the movements depicted in the book, and somehow manage to cast the spell.

How the character adds new spells into the book would still be a mystery, though. Experimentation? Observation? Trial and error?

[Mr.Moron]

This is all so much thrashing about over basically nothing.

You could scrape the fluff off the wizard and replace it with something that learns spells in the form of objects with just about anything:

-Balls of various items held together with cloth and string that represent the spell's power.
-Shoes that evoke magic through ritual dance. They "Learn" with the wizard over time and can also absorb magic through scrolls or demonstration.
-Spell casting based runes with no meaning outside magic, carved in stone or bone.
etc..
etc...

If you don't mind decoupling the "Wizard" from the "Spellbook" (Object) concept and instead want to just focus it more narrowly on the intelligence/learning concept, the design space opens up even more.

Certainly I wouldn't expect such redesigns to be a part standard play or even many games. However applying most or all of the "Wizard" mechanics to something other "Book guy who books bookishly with a book, in his book", is really not serious stretch at all.

[jkat718]

It seems to assume that all wizard utilize some degree of personal notation. It doesn't mention anywhere that knowing the language or even being able to read is required. Considering that Wizards can utilize magic, it isn't entirely unreasonable to think that they might use some sort of a magical process to learn magic. Maybe they cast a cantrip on themselves to sort of intuitively understand what is in the book without actually reading it. Maybe the Goblin wizard has a magical process where he performs a ritual and eats the spellbook/scroll and somehow learns the magic. Maybe he just smacks his face against the parchment until he has an epiphany.

It is clear that reading isn't even in the rules for learning magic, so go nuts. Heck, you should be able to learn a spell directly from another Wizard if you like.

On page 112, under Scholars of the Arcane, the PHB specifically mentions that Wizards "can also lean [spells] from other wizards, from ancient tomes or inscriptions, and from ancient creatures (such as the fey) that are steeped in magic."


instead of having a book/art/item what they learn is "raw magic" the flows and ebbs that link all things, they would need to carry or find "key links" (items that are pure or cross road nexi for the elemental/energy/soul/other forces) instead of a written method of casting they play with and learn from the interaction of such vibrant forces

Also on 112, the PHB describes Wizards' magic as "drawing on the subtle weave of magic that permeates the cosmos," which is exactly what you seem to be describing. for more information about the Weave, look at page 201 and the sidebar on page 205.


Then if OP is the DM, it works. Because the DM can dictate that it does. There is no need for a discussion on why it would fail since it is a DMs right to decide something works even when RAW might disagree.
*snip*
- The Goblin isn't illiterate but instead has learned some very odd form (maybe ancient goblin?) that does not have any reference to modern languages, therefore he cannot read or write anything but his spell book. He was taught it in such a way that he does not even realize that it is a written form of a language instead of just spell notation.
- He is a mix of Class/Wizard instead of a normal Wizard, he always has Comprehend Languages as a spell so he can read other spellbooks (maybe only works for spells for some reason) (His Teacher learned this spell from and older teacher and it has been corrupted to only work on spells now? Make it a free cantrip for compensation? he still needs to change spells to his own 'writings' to get use of them though)/QUOTE]

I was just thinking the same thing. Just because PF Goblins are illiterate (and this is just a societal factor), doesn't mean that yours *have* to be, too. Your setting could just have literacy restricted to Wizard Goblins. I also like hawklost's idea of unintentional literacy. If they don't count magic knowledge as "reading," then there's nothing that would turn them against it. The second workaround, I have one problem with: what if the person is in an antimagic field? I actually really like this idea, where it's a mutated/corrupted spell, but I would make it a special racial ability, where it only manifests itself in certain Goblins (recessive yer-a-wizard gene?).

[QUOTE=infinitetech;18188332]the method i suggested earlier takes care of the need for learning other sources from text due to how with this method it allows the study/understanding of the magic itself in its cast/active form, and there could easily be a ritual of sorts that would allow for the player to "release the magic elements from the captured parts of the original writers soul", most likely causing some wild magic effect or the spell to go off, but also giving a good chance to learn about the spell

The whole idea of magic-as-personal imprint is really appealing to me, especially because it works well with the concept that the Weave is being "vibrated" or manipulated in some way in order to create magical effects. A powerful arcanist (or someone using Detect Magic) could pick out the faint vibrations remaining after the spell has occured.

EDIT: The specific removal of Barbarians illiteracy leads me to believe that, in going with the theme of "bonuses, not penalties" (eg. the lack of alignment restrictions), illiteracy shouldn't be the default state for any race/class/background/other.

[infinitetech]

On page 112, under Scholars of the Arcane, the PHB specifically mentions that Wizards "can also lean [spells] from other wizards, from ancient tomes or inscriptions, and from ancient creatures (such as the fey) that are steeped in magic."



Also on 112, the PHB describes Wizards' magic as "drawing on the subtle weave of magic that permeates the cosmos," which is exactly what you seem to be describing. for more information about the Weave, look at page 201 and the sidebar on page 205.

[QUOTE=hawklost;18187448]Then if OP is the DM, it works. Because the DM can dictate that it does. There is no need for a discussion on why it would fail since it is a DMs right to decide something works even when RAW might disagree.
*snip*
- The Goblin isn't illiterate but instead has learned some very odd form (maybe ancient goblin?) that does not have any reference to modern languages, therefore he cannot read or write anything but his spell book. He was taught it in such a way that he does not even realize that it is a written form of a language instead of just spell notation.
- He is a mix of Class/Wizard instead of a normal Wizard, he always has Comprehend Languages as a spell so he can read other spellbooks (maybe only works for spells for some reason) (His Teacher learned this spell from and older teacher and it has been corrupted to only work on spells now? Make it a free cantrip for compensation? he still needs to change spells to his own 'writings' to get use of them though)/QUOTE]

I was just thinking the same thing. Just because PF Goblins are illiterate (and this is just a societal factor), doesn't mean that yours *have* to be, too. Your setting could just have literacy restricted to Wizard Goblins. I also like hawklost's idea of unintentional literacy. If they don't count magic knowledge as "reading," then there's nothing that would turn them against it. The second workaround, I have one problem with: what if the person is in an antimagic field? I actually really like this idea, where it's a mutated/corrupted spell, but I would make it a special racial ability, where it only manifests itself in certain Goblins (recessive yer-a-wizard gene?).



The whole idea of magic-as-personal imprint is really appealing to me, especially because it works well with the concept that the Weave is being "vibrated" or manipulated in some way in order to create magical effects. A powerful arcanist (or someone using Detect Magic) could pick out the faint vibrations remaining after the spell has occured.

EDIT: The specific removal of Barbarians illiteracy leads me to believe that, in going with the theme of "bonuses, not penalties" (eg. the lack of alignment restrictions), illiteracy shouldn't be the default state for any race/class/background/other.


well if you want for me to expand on my description id be happy to, and yes, in a way its very similar to the weave, except that effectively this is bypassing the weave and using the raw magic, i know, scary thought, but it makes it for good story and fun slight differences in play, but yeah, with the system i designed everything that exists in this magic art's view point is a form of spell, from rock to person to arcane bolt, some are just far more complicated than others, to create a fully fledged person would take like a level 75 arch mage of the art of mystic inter-connectivity and nexi fusion :smallbiggrin:

[Sir_Leorik]

So I was building my campaign and I have a set of goblins loosly based on pathfinders goblins. And while those that live with other cultures are pretty civilized, most live in wild tribes and have taboos against reading. The problem I just realised is that if anyone wanted to play one of these wild goblins as a wizard they would be severally handicapped as they would have limited spells. Can you help me think of a solution to make a goblin wizard feasible?

Use a stick, carved with runes, stones painted with symbols, or have the Goblin sing a mnemonic song to prepare his spells. As for learning new spells, the Goblin will need to study under a shaman of his tribe, a Hag or find a sacred bog and train with a wise old Kobold.

[infinitetech]

Use a stick, carved with runes, stones painted with symbols, or have the Goblin sing a mnemonic song to prepare his spells. As for learning new spells, the Goblin will need to study under a shaman of his tribe, a Hag or find a sacred bog and train with a wise old Kobold.

enthusiasm apreciated, but for the last one... he is making a a wizard not a bi polar
psionic *insert sarcastic look of "im watching you" showing up as a glowing blue head*

[hachface]

Reading intricate pictographs or runes is literacy.

Just be a sorcerer!

[Kaiisaxo]

Reading intricate pictographs or runes is literacy.

Just be a sorcerer!

I agree, that is my personal problem with wizards want it or not they have a very specific story that people like to think is generic.

[infinitetech]

see my earlier posts, studying doesnt mean reading, you can learn without text of any kind, after all, how were the spells discovered in the first place

[hawklost]

see my earlier posts, studying doesnt mean reading, you can learn without text of any kind, after all, how were the spells discovered in the first place

Either they were probably found by someone with innate magic like a sorceror who started to study how magic worked

Or

They were something found out from someone observing the world and noticing certain aspects of magic worked a certain way. Afterwards they figured out a formula that worked to reproduce the effect. It wouldn't really be different than how we understand Physics or any other hard science.

But just like those sciences, a single person who does not study anyone elses work at all and tries to come up with their own formulas will not get nearly as far as someone who can use the work that came before to increase their knowledge.

[Kaiisaxo]

see my earlier posts, studying doesnt mean reading, you can learn without text of any kind, after all, how were the spells discovered in the first place

You are confusing studying with learning. Yes you can learn without reading (and with no study). For many people studying means one thing only: studying as in school, from a book, memorizing and hoping your brain can keep the data long enough. Yes of course there is too the studying sense as in first hand observation, but short of that you need books or a mentor to hold your hand while you do it, and if you cannot read you will miss a lot regardless of any tutor involved and you are doomed to reinvent the wheel everytime.

:smallbiggrin: And I believe that wizards discover spells by dissecting magical creatures (and sometimes by vivisecting them.) and seeing how they work. And this includes humanoid magic creatures such as gnomes and sorcerers. They just don't tell the nasty bits to outsiders....

[Sartharina]

Maybe he records his spells in a refluffed spellbook as fancy images that, instead of conveying discrete meaning, provokes an emotional response from the wizard and gets him in a magic-spellcasting mindset and he can prepare spells from there. He can still use(And must use) Read Magic (Is that a thing in 5e?) to learn new spells, and others can use the same spell to learn his spells, because Magic, not Literacy, is the important part.

Saying a painting/drawing is a language is absurd.

[Jacob.Tyr]

:smallbiggrin: And I believe that wizards discover spells by dissecting magical creatures (and sometimes by vivisecting them.) and seeing how they work. And this includes humanoid magic creatures such as gnomes and sorcerers. They just don't tell the nasty bits to outsiders....
Maybe this goblin works like Sylar from Heroes, but then I'm sure someone will tell me he's "brain literate".
Edit: I'm now imagining a spellbook that is just brain rubbings. He can also use wizard's brains like scrolls.

[Kaiisaxo]

Saying a painting/drawing is a language is absurd.
Actually as a card-carrying bachelor degree graphical designer I can tell you paintings/drawings are actually expressions of a language. (Yes visual language literacy is a thing, and not something absurd, while it may be somewhat obtuse, Kandinsky's books are a good place to start.)


Maybe this goblin works like Sylar from Heroes, but then I'm sure someone will tell me he's "brain literate".
Edit: I'm now imagining a spellbook that is just brain rubbings. He can also use wizard's brains like scrolls.

You know, that kind of makes sense... and it is cool, in a gruesome and disgusting way, but pretty cool actually. Instead of capturing a spellbook this goblin would open the wizard head and search the brain for possible new spells...

[infinitetech]

i personally try to rediscover everything i can in my madder moments, so im always surprised it takes folks the time it does to discover things, but then im always the odd one, and i was assuming that these wizards were probably the brightest of the brightest, also i have to like the brain idea, and i never said that those base elements in my method were just stones, some may be a bit more... sticky

[Objulen]

The setting material for Dark Sun's wizards has a list of non-traditional methods for recording spells. Art, tattoos, arrangements of colored beads, pictographs, crude "flutes" which play notes with magical meaning, etc.

[infinitetech]

if you are willing to go third party the call of Cthulhu also has some fun ways