PDA

View Full Version : Am I a whiny player?



Tyger
2007-03-24, 09:59 PM
Okay, we're playing in a great D&D campaign, the GM is fantastic, game's great, players are all great etc. I'm playing the sole wizard in a group composed mostly of warrior types (ranger, psychic warrior, crusader, cleric, scout and me) and we get occasional downtimes in between our adventures, which is great. For every three weeks of DT that you don't have anything specific planned, the DM has a random table of minor adventures you go on all by your self. They can be very lucrative. One player, over his two "adventures", earned about 2k gold, a suit of enchanted full plate, an ioun stone and a wondrous figurine... which is almost as much magical loot as the entire party split after our last adventure. Note that there is no RP or playing of these DT adventures, the GM just tells you what happened and then gives you the spoils.

However, as an arcane caster, I spend pretty much all downtime researching spells. The DM does not allow buying scrolls, and didn't care for the DMG researching rules, as they didn't factor in skills, access to libraries, etc. So he and I came up with a system (it's in the spoiler for those who'd like to know).


Spells require a number of "points" to learn.

Level one: 3
Level two: 6
Level three: 9
Level four: 15
Level five: 30
Level six: 60
Level seven: 120
Level eight: 240
Level nine: 360

Points are earned thusly:
1 / five ranks in Spellcraft
1 / five ranks in Knowledge Arcana
1 / day spent in research
1 / 100GP invested in materials of research
1 / 100XP spent
1 / 1000GP value of library used for research
1 / 1000GP value of alchemical lab used for research

Minimum time to research is one day.

I am currently level 7, with 10 ranks in both Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana. Thus I have a base of 5 points automatically (2 for ranks in Spellcraft, 2 for ranks in Knowledge and 1 for the base day spent) so level 1 and 2 spells basically take a day or two tops. A level 4 spell on the other hand will take 11 days of research unless I want to spend gold or XP or have access to libraries.

As a general rule, I will not have access to libraries, as the DM wants me to build my own collection.


In a nutshell, level 1 and 2 spells take almost no time, but anything above that takes a week or more (level 9 spells will take months). And then I have to pay to scribe the spells into my book.

After this most recent adventure, I came out of the DT with less gold that I went into it, having added 6 level one spells, 3 level two and 2 level threes. I am currently level 7. I have yet to get a magic item. One of our warriors (the psychic warrior) snagged a Ring of Protection +2, a masterwork mighty bow, a masterwork longsword, and then got the aforementioned ioun stone, figurine and suit of plate (which he sold to the cleric).

I know that wizards are always going to have money sinks as we learn spells, and I can accept this, but it just seems that I am being forced to choose between advancing my spellbook or advancing in any other way. Am I just being petulant, or is this a legit beef?

kamikasei
2007-03-24, 10:07 PM
Downtime is downtime. If you have to use that time to learn new spells and the others are getting free loot instead, you're already being gimped. If it's also been made harder/more expensive for you to learn those spells, you're doubly gimped.

I would say it's a legitimate beef, especially given that there is no way it's fair for a player to be getting rewards for downtime without playing through it with commensurate risk. Adventuring for any reasonable amount of treasure is meant to be risky. If you want to get money during downtime without needing to go on a dangerous adventure, make a profession check.

Zincorium
2007-03-24, 10:10 PM
Well, you're not being petulant but you do seem to be somewhat obsessive about gaining more spells as opposed to actually adventuring. I can see a few legitimate reasons why the DM would want things to be this way.

One, he wants to restrict the number of spells you have to a reasonable level that he can remember you have and thus adequately plan for.

Two, he's aware of the stupidly high level of power wizards have by around level 13-15 and is trying to slow you down a bit so you don't outshine everyone else.

Three, he doesn't want you to spend all of your downtime scribing spells, as you have been, so he made it a less-attractive option on purpose. Have you gone on any of the adventures? I can't say much about the magic items bit, that seems either an oversight or nerfing, but if everyone else is getting good rewards, he may be attempting to convince you to go on a few.


Also, being able to buy any magic item is by DM's discretion, while there are guidelines for what should be available, they're not hard rules and they're not for player's use anyways. If you can't buy scrolls, are they available through adventuring? If not, that is a gimp, or possibly they're on all those side quests you haven't been going on.

Krellen
2007-03-24, 10:12 PM
OTOH, he's a wizard in a group full of non-spellcasters, and has reached the level where wizards start "winning"; it could be the DM is one of the folks that don't think wizards should dominate high level play and is "gimping" the spellcaster purposefully to accomplish that.

You should probably talk to him about it, see what's up. It might be you should just ask to play a different character, if he really doesn't like wizards and other full casters enough to hamper their development.

Tyger
2007-03-24, 10:24 PM
With regard to the 'maybe he's trying to rein in the power of wizards' category, it's quite likely. We've had talks about the Polymorph spells (which I don't have as of yet) and he's limiting them a bit, which is great. He's moved Teleport to level 8 and added an XP cost to cast it, and Greater TP to level 9 with an even higher XP cost (comparable to Wish). So yeah, he's got some limits there, which I happen to agree with. Some of those spells are game breakers. And he really likes to have the journey to the actual adventure as a big part of it, thus the nerf to TP, again, which I agree with.

As for finding scrolls, so far, we've found one scroll. A scroll of Planar Binding. We're holding onto it for now, until either a) and emergency or b) I can afford to buy it from the party to scribe it into my spellbook.

marjan
2007-03-24, 10:26 PM
Well your DM obviously thinks Wizards need nerfing. But by the way you describe it it is a little too much. I mean however you want to count your points he practicaly counts 1XP worth 1gp which is kind of insane if you ask me. And if I understood the guys who "go" on those solo adventure get magic items at no risk of anything bad happening to them. You should speak with your DM about this a bit. If he wants he can let the other guys "go" on these adventures while you scribe spells into your spellbook and it will give them a little advantage over you.
And wizard at lvl7 without magic items is usualy not as near to other party members.
If your DM for some reason doesn't want to change those rules you are better of as sorceror. Nerfing casters a bit is good to keep balance and help other party members shine, but nerfing them too much hurts them more than it helps.
BTW does this sort of thing only apply to Wizards or do Clerics have some nerfing too?

lacesmcawesome
2007-03-24, 10:26 PM
I think you're being rather reasonable, and that the DM shouldn't be so harsh on your class. Not whiny at all.

On the other hand, the game is for the most part at the DM's discretion, and his rules go. Yea, that doesn't mean he should abuse his power, but I also think he's probably got reasons. If you ask him what's going on, or why you can't do some of the stuff, he'll, in all likeliness, answer you.

Logic
2007-03-24, 10:28 PM
When a wizard needs nerfing, you don't punish him by not leting him get anything, you remove spells that you find troublesome from the game, before anyone decides to play a wizard.

What your DM has done is unfair.

Tyger
2007-03-24, 10:29 PM
BTW does this sort of thing only apply to Wizards or do Clerics have some nerfing too?

Wizards only at this point. Our cleric hasn't been effected as far as I can see.

marjan
2007-03-24, 10:39 PM
That probably means that he has bad experience with wizards only but it is not realy excuse for this kind of nerfage. Buy reducing some of the most game breaking spells effectivness he has done good amount of balancing wizards. But you are not the only one capable of breaking game with your spells and the way he does things you realy won't be able at all to do it. Talk to him and see reasons behind this. Balancing game can be done without nerfing wizards if the player who plays it is reasonable about using spells.
And paying an XP cost all by yourself just to cast teleport and save your party members is bit too much.

You already said that you like traveling without using spells if possible so I don't realy see why he does that kind of nerfing to spells you obviously won't use anyway.

clericwithnogod
2007-03-24, 10:49 PM
If someone came into the forum and wrote, "My DM cuts the players with a steak knife to simulate the wounds our characters receive in combat. I don't want to complain, but I'm getting a little lightheaded lately and almost passed out on the way home from our last session..." we'd see at least one each (and likely several) of the following:

1) Your DM has a good reason for it.
2) It's the DM's game and he can run it anyway he wants.
3) It's your fault for your character getting hit so much instead of...

marjan
2007-03-24, 10:54 PM
If someone came into the forum and wrote, "My DM cuts the players with a steak knife to simulate the wounds our characters receive in combat. I don't want to complain, but I'm getting a little lightheaded lately and almost passed out on the way home from our last session..." we'd see at least one each (and likely several) of the following:

1) Your DM has a good reason for it.
2) It's the DM's game and he can run it anyway he wants.
3) It's your fault for your character getting hit so much instead of...

That's pretty nice interpretation but unfortunatly not correct.

1) Not every DM has good reason, although most of them do.
2) It's not DM's game it's everybody's game.
3) I won't even say anything about this one.

Tyger
2007-03-24, 10:56 PM
With respect Clericwithnogod... what's your point? Are you suggesting that I a) suck it up, b) quit the game, c) cut someone with a steak knife? :)

I'm sure there is sarcasm and irony in your post, but that doesn't come across well in an electronic medium. If you have an opinion on the actual question though, I'd be happy to hear it.

asqwasqw
2007-03-24, 11:04 PM
I say talk with the DM about this situation. Could you lower the days needed to research a spell or research more spells for the same number of days?

Zincorium
2007-03-24, 11:10 PM
If someone came into the forum and wrote, "My DM cuts the players with a steak knife to simulate the wounds our characters receive in combat. I don't want to complain, but I'm getting a little lightheaded lately and almost passed out on the way home from our last session..." we'd see at least one each (and likely several) of the following:

1) Your DM has a good reason for it.
2) It's the DM's game and he can run it anyway he wants.
3) It's your fault for your character getting hit so much instead of...

Well, that's because it's impossible to hear both sides of the story from just one person. If we could ask the DM questions, we might be able to say something concrete, but until then supposition is all we can do.

And your example is kind of extreme, but honestly, if someone is cutting you with a steak knife and all you do is go on a forum to ask people's opinions, you're beyond help.

Tyger
2007-03-24, 11:32 PM
Yeah, given the feedback here, I am going to talk to the GM about it. I probably should have included this in the original post, but the reason that I posted this at all was not because I am incapably of making my own decisions, but because I haven't played D&D since the Expert set (remember that shiny blue book!? :smallsmile: ) so wasn't sure if it was considered normal that wizards would really be expected to concentrate most, if not all, of their time and resources on getting their spellbooks up.

For the record, I have a whooping total of 8 second level spells, 6 third and 2 fourth in my spellbook... its not like I am trying to get the whole Compendium into the book. :smallcool:

clericwithnogod
2007-03-24, 11:34 PM
With respect Clericwithnogod... what's your point? Are you suggesting that I a) suck it up, b) quit the game, c) cut someone with a steak knife? :)

I'm sure there is sarcasm and irony in your post, but that doesn't come across well in an electronic medium. If you have an opinion on the actual question though, I'd be happy to hear it.

With the same due respect, if you're a native speaker, you're being deliberately obtuse in your interpretation of my post. But I'll spell it out. It's apparent that you are quite evidently getting the shaft from your DM, Regardless of that, quite a few people are going to come up with excuses for your DM and would regardless of how badly your DM was treating you.

Artemician
2007-03-24, 11:44 PM
Going from what you're saying, no , I don't think you're being whiny at all.

Your DM has made things comparitively more difficult for you than the other players, and while some people would whine and complain, you have tried to see things from his point of view. Bravo to you!

In this situation, I feel that the DM may be coming down a bit too harshly on your character. You could, as suggested above, try to talk to your DM about reducing the nerfs on your character or allowing for more access to libraries. In any case, you should not throw a temper tantrum about a reduction in power loss. But from what you're typing, you haven't been, so good for you.

Tyger
2007-03-25, 12:01 AM
With the same due respect, if you're a native speaker, you're being deliberately obtuse in your interpretation of my post. But I'll spell it out. It's apparent that you are quite evidently getting the shaft from your DM, Regardless of that, quite a few people are going to come up with excuses for your DM and would regardless of how badly your DM was treating you.

Without getting into a flame war... its not obvious. As noted, that could well have been a different kind of sarcasm.

But thank you for clarifying.

clericwithnogod
2007-03-25, 12:09 AM
Without getting into a flame war... its not obvious. As noted, that could well have been a different kind of sarcasm.

But thank you for clarifying.

No flame war, but what other kind of sarcasm?

Tyger
2007-03-25, 12:25 AM
Ahh. It could have been taken as a "gee, suck it up, and quit your complaining, we hear these every day" or a "why not grow a spine and talk to your DM who is obviously screwing you hard with a corkscrew!" sort of thing. Turns out is was sort of the second variety, without the... metaphors.

:smallsmile:

Again, thanks for clarifying.

PnP Fan
2007-03-25, 12:31 AM
Tyger,
Yeah, I don't think you're being whiny. Your GM is actually taking away one of your class abilities (2 new castable spells per wizard level) in his adjustment to the game. Probably because he's had problems with wizards in the past. I'd sit down and talk with him away from the table.

Tyger
2007-03-25, 12:49 AM
Oh, I should qualify that. I am getting my two freebies each level. Those spells gained remain unaffected.

Zincorium
2007-03-25, 12:57 AM
Tyger,
Yeah, I don't think you're being whiny. Your GM is actually taking away one of your class abilities (2 new castable spells per wizard level) in his adjustment to the game. Probably because he's had problems with wizards in the past. I'd sit down and talk with him away from the table.

If the DM is taking away the 2 castable spells per level, that would be seriously gimping. But Tyger hasn't mentioned the DM doing that, as far as I can see, so he should still be getting them.

The problem is that the DM is not making scrolls available, is allowing the wizard to make up for that using a system where the wizard can copy down spells from a library or something from a nominal fee, and it's using up downtime. Meanwhile, the other PCs are getting more loot. This is a problem, but it's not the same as what you're talking about.

And yes, talking to the DM is necessary, and since the researching rules were stated as a cooperative effort, and Tyger is using them as is, the DM might not realize that Tyger still has a complaint with the system. That needs to be brought up.

Edit: Swoosh, the ninja strikes...

clericwithnogod
2007-03-25, 12:58 AM
Ahh. It could have been taken as a "gee, suck it up, and quit your complaining, we hear these every day" or a "why not grow a spine and talk to your DM who is obviously screwing you hard with a corkscrew!" sort of thing. Turns out is was sort of the second variety, without the... metaphors.

:smallsmile:

Again, thanks for clarifying.

Actually, it's neither, so it's not clarified. As, by your post count, you were new to the forums, I thought it worth mentioning that a large number of responses you were getting would be the same regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable your problem was.

If you look at my other posts, you'll see that I don't subscribe to the "suck it up and quit complaining" or "grow a spine" theories. I'm in the "try to be reasonable but don't be surprised if the DM isn't reasonable then decide if it's worth it" camp.

Black Swan
2007-03-25, 01:03 AM
You've got a fair bit of patience. More than I. I think you should probably talk with him, reason with him, get him to see that a wide spell selection is the wizard's best feature. Might help to point out that with a wider variety of spells you can do more to help the rest of the party win fights and better help keep them alive. Besides, if he's gimping you like that but not doing anything to the Cleric something's funny. IIRC clerics are more dominant than wizards at that level.

The wizard is really only overpowered, I think, when the player starts to get unreasonable. It's not broken until the player breaks it. I've seen a lot of wizards who were weak and borderline-useless because they were built and played really badly. I think he's being overly cautious. But that's just me.

Yahzi
2007-03-25, 01:04 AM
For every three weeks of DT that you don't have anything specific planned, the DM has a random table of minor adventures you go on all by your self.
I can't decide if that's retarded or brilliant.

On the one hand, he's punishing smart players who are careful and engaged.

On the other hand he's helping keep the simple-minded on equal footing.

I mean, it's basically a reward for not playing your character. "You didn't do anything this month? Here, have some random treasure!"

The solution is obvious. Stop researching spells. Spend all your downtime in random adventures. When the party is getting wiped by 9 CR monsters because you're still casting 2nd level spells... you'll suddenly find that your GM is giving you spells as loot for your random side-quests. :smallbiggrin:

Tyger
2007-03-25, 01:15 AM
I can't decide if that's retarded or brilliant.

On the one hand, he's punishing smart players who are careful and engaged.

On the other hand he's helping keep the simple-minded on equal footing.

I mean, it's basically a reward for not playing your character. "You didn't do anything this month? Here, have some random treasure!"

The solution is obvious. Stop researching spells. Spend all your downtime in random adventures. When the party is getting wiped by 9 CR monsters because you're still casting 2nd level spells... you'll suddenly find that your GM is giving you spells as loot for your random side-quests. :smallbiggrin:

:)

Actually, I kind of like it. Some of the stuff that came up involved one party member getting a new cohort (his DT adventure had him finding a Knight, turned to stone over 500 years ago, and setting him free.)

The DMs made it pretty clear that he's "helping" us get through the low levels faster, so that we can get to a higher level campaign sooner. Which we're all for. Its been a great game thus far, and I'm hoping its going to continue.

Thanks to everyone for your feedback. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't over reacting to the situation, and like I said, I don't have any D&D experience in this area, so this may have been perfectly normal. Now that I see it may not be, I've sent the DM an e-mail and we'll see what happens from here.

clericwithnogod
2007-03-25, 01:20 AM
The solution is obvious. Stop researching spells. Spend all your downtime in random adventures. When the party is getting wiped by 9 CR monsters because you're still casting 2nd level spells... you'll suddenly find that your GM is giving you spells as loot for your random side-quests. :smallbiggrin:

If you happen to get killed in the wipeout, try to come back as a wizard with an aging modifier and random adventures in the downtime of your history...40 years of random rolls on the adventure loot table before you even start.

Lemur
2007-03-25, 01:39 AM
I have one question, Tyger, and I apologize for it not quite being related to the topic at hand.

You mentioned that the party got a Planar Binding scroll as loot. Now, maybe I don't understand the loot system your party has agreed upon, but why do you need to purchase it from the party in order to scribe it?

You mention "using it in an emergency" but if you're the only arcane caster, then you'd be the one using it. In the long run, you, by which I mean the entire party, would be better off scribing it to your spellbook. Once you are able to cast the spell, you can scribe a scroll of it, if you really want to make up for it. Also, you're better off trying to learn new scrolls as soon as possible, since if you fail, you'll have more chances to relearn it before you get to a level that you can cast it.

Pardon me for being a busybody though, I just wanted to get that out of my system.

Aquillion
2007-03-25, 03:35 AM
As for finding scrolls, so far, we've found one scroll. A scroll of Planar Binding. We're holding onto it for now, until either a) and emergency or b) I can afford to buy it from the party to scribe it into my spellbook.Yes, this is just stupid. A party is a collaborative effort. You are the only one who can scribe the scroll, and even if someone else could manage the UMD to use it, it would be absurd to waste it on a single shot when the party could be casting it every day. And, as your DM has helpfully established, nobody is buying or selling scrolls in his world, so the party can't even sell it.

Offer to copy it, then scribe it again later if someone else wants a copy to use as a kindling or whatever.

Kaerou
2007-03-25, 05:20 AM
If you're having to buy your class feature loot of the party.. why are you even helping them? Obviously you're not getting the fruits of your own labour.. i would honestly talk about the division of items with your party.

Dark
2007-03-25, 06:04 AM
I think you need to learn how to play this system :)

You said the downtime adventures "can be" very lucrative. How consistent is this? Did the psychic warrior just get lucky, or can you count on getting items worth 9000 gp too? (That's the base value of a ring of protection +2).

I think the best strategy is to go on a few of these adventures until you collect enough loot to buy a library worth 10,000 gp. That'll give you +10 on spell research. Combined with your native bonuses, that will let you learn spells up to level 4 in one day. Because of the exponential point scale, level 5 spells would still take two weeks -- don't bother. Rely on your 2 free spells per level, and in the meantime go on more downtime adventures until you have another 15,000 gp to spend on library expansion. And so forth.

Sinking money in 100 gp increments to get a temporary bonus isn't worth it, and it sounds like that's what you're doing. The library expansion will pay off again and again. Just imagine -- after that 10,000 gp investment, the next 3-week downtime will mean you get 21 level-4 spells.

Imrix.
2007-03-25, 07:39 AM
I second Dark's method, but it's worth checking if you can buy a library that's easily accessible, otherwise you could end up adventuring too far from it to use it.

Rahdjan
2007-03-25, 08:13 AM
Dark is right on the money, if you can't work WITH the system, make the system work FOR you.

Ranis
2007-03-25, 08:37 AM
I don't think you're being too uncalled for. You're probably being very justified in many senses, just, obtaining a magic item on the actual adventuring with your party probably wouldn't be too far out of the question. I'd talk to your DM about it.

Tyger
2007-03-25, 12:50 PM
Yeah, Dark is thinking along the same lines that I am. The really funny part is that we created a Player Association to which I belong, and I've reached the level in it that I am supposed to get access to libraries as one of my benefits. And yet I have no such access...

But I am thinking the same. My next couple batches of loot are going straight into my library. If I can get it to the 10 or even 20K range, then my level 5 and under spell researches would be all but instant. I hadn't wanted to do this yet (no place to call home, so no place to store such a library) but I really think its the best idea.

kamikasei
2007-03-25, 12:57 PM
I'm a little baffled by this. He's denying you access to scrolls, which are the normal mechanism for expanding your spellbook. He's put in place an alternate system involving libraries... and he's denying you access to those too?

Tyger
2007-03-25, 01:24 PM
In a nutshell, yes. Thus the source of my frustration. :) Of course, if we ever make it to a city where I can augment my library (actually start one that is!) things may change quite a bit, but thus far we're off in the boonies. C'est la vie.

It wouldn't be so bad if he was a bad DM, or was consistently making bad calls in other areas, but other than the spell research / access he's friggin great, one of the best DMs that I've played with.

My gut feeling is that he has had experience with players who really abuse the hell out of the loopholes that magic (and wizards in particular) can take advantage of. Then along come someone like me, who actually takes the time to point out that there are certain spells that we need to look at because as written they can cause some serious imbalances, and he is still stuck in "Wizards need controlling" mode. I can certainly understand it, given what I have read on some of these boards... wizards do need either a) the right player or b) a DM who lays down some rules... I just think we need to find a happy medium. Which I am sure we will.

Yahzi
2007-03-25, 02:10 PM
The DMs made it pretty clear that he's "helping" us get through the low levels faster, so that we can get to a higher level campaign sooner.
Then stop researching spells.

The DM obviously wants you to have the stuff he wants. So just let him give it to you. Just flat out ask him - "What spells should I have for this level?" and let him make the decision. That pretty clearly is what he wants to happen. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that.

ThunderEagle
2007-03-25, 02:13 PM
If you want to carry your library around with you, you could always get a portable hole (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#portableHole) to keep it in. As soon as you get downtime, pull out your portable hole library and research spells. you could even do some of the required research while you were adventuring, or even on a random adventure, to help get your share of the shiny loot while still keeping a viable spell book.

Tyger
2007-03-25, 02:14 PM
Well Yahzi... that sort of flies in my "I like to determine my own path, inasmuch as I am able" mentality... and I daresay that most people would fit into that category.

Unfortunately, you are half right, I do need to stop researching spells. Until I can, as Dark put it, take advantage of the system with a bigger library, researching anything over level 2 is just not wise. I hope that is a trigger for him, if he notices that I am no longer looking for new spells because its not practical for me to do so, in spite of the fact that it will adversely effect my versatility in game.

Yup ThunderEagle, I was thinking about the hole, or even a Haversack, but both cost gold (the hole in particular is 20K, or 10K to craft) which I am sadly lacking. And its a chicken / egg argument. If I buy the books with no where to put them, I'm sol. If I buy the sack / hole, then I have no money for books. :) In time, this will all even out though, I'm sure. So for now I am just going to try patience. Its not my strong suit though... so I just have to remember to breathe. :)

Clementx
2007-03-25, 02:20 PM
Your DM is definitely being unfair with one of his systems, probably the DT loot one, since there is already an established system for getting rewards- you have to actually do something! It is all well and good that he has created a specific system for research, but in the midst of things he has screwed you twice over. He is denying you the assumed opportunities to scribe new spells in your book- found and bought scrolls, and the library you are supposed to get from your association. You didn't mention anything about captured spellbooks or paying wizards to copy from theirs- both of which have a given and assumed cost. Research is supposed to be for new or rare spells- he has made all spells rare in this setting!

Enter Boning the Second. A wizard spending downtime on the default systems of spell acquisition and crafting (or even his research system if he was actually applying it correctly) is balanced against long-term skill checks and such, but by NO means his DT rewards. If he wanted to be fair, he would let you take one and hit 9,000gp in scrolls like everyone else gets AC items worth that much. He is spending so much time nerfing you that you will never be as useful as the rest of the party.

That being said, I like his research system. He forgot he should be letting you get spells in the other 3 ways as well for common ones. How many times has Scorching Ray been cast against your party? If it has been more than once, he has absolutely no ground to deny that it is a common spell and you should be able to find its scroll or it in a spellbook any day of the week in a city.

Tyger
2007-03-25, 03:43 PM
Well, we have yet to actually encounter an enemy wizard of substance. A cannibal druid, an evil cleric and a gnoll warlock, but to date no wizards as such. In our last adventuring session, we did come across our first wizard though, and my character is already scouring the town (abandoned and cursed) for his home to ransack it for books and, hopefully, spellbooks. I have hope that there may be something there. That said, the DM allowed me a Spellcraft check when examining his components, and determined that the caster had no components for spells over level two... so no spells of power in his book, but hopefully still some good ones!

Here's hoping.

And yeah, I like the system too. I think it accurately reflects what he wanted to achieve. Hell, I designed most of it myself. The catch of course was that I designed it with the mistaken belief that his wish to see wizards benefit from personal libraries would mean that I would have the opportunity to build one! Or at least to access the ones mentioned in my character's Association. So far, no dice.

But I have faith that now that its been brought to his attention, we can work something out. I don't think he's unreasonable at all... something tells me that he just hasn't really thought of the impact that this is having on my character, in contrast to the obvious success of the others. Only time will tell.

The Valiant Turtle
2007-03-25, 04:15 PM
I somewhat like the research system. I really see the biggest problem being the massive free awards the other players are getting. If he wants the party to advance faster he should just give out more straight up experience, and such huge awards for no risk is just unwarranted.

I totally agree with Aquillion about the one scroll you have gotten, you shouldn't have to buy that from the party under any circumstances. That's just wrong. His limiting you buying and selling scrolls is a little off as well, unless it's just a temporary thing based on the locale you are in. I don't think I agree with upping the level of the Teleports, but giving them a slight xp cost does sound like a good idea.

On the whole it sounds like he is a decent GM who probably has had some bad experiences with wizards in the past, but it sounds like you will probably be able to come to an agreement.

Lemur
2007-03-25, 05:04 PM
I don't think not having any scrolls available for purchase is off at all. It doesn't sound like this is a high magic world, so I see no reason for magic to be up for sale. Unless other magic items have been bought by party members so far, it fits in with the world.

If arcane casters are rare in this world, then it makes things a bit more difficult for wizards, but it also makes the talents they do have more valuable. If your party is intent on making you buy scrolls found from the pool, then make it clear that your services potentially come at a price. For example, party members who want buffs from you should pay any material component cost the spell has. Don't charge for non-buff spells with costly components, though, and I wouldn't go this route if you can convince your party that you deserve any arcane scrolls/spellbooks found at no charge, though.

I'll agree with Dark. For the moment, try to learn how to play with this system. See if things get better, and if they don't, talk with the DM to see what his thoughts are. If your ability to build a library is going to be highly impeded, and other party members are clearly outshining you, then you have a real problem. Ideally, everyone should be able to equally contribute, so while you shouldn't try to out-do other party members, it's not fun being left behind.

kamikasei
2007-03-25, 05:18 PM
I don't think not having any scrolls available for purchase is off at all. It doesn't sound like this is a high magic world, so I see no reason for magic to be up for sale. Unless other magic items have been bought by party members so far, it fits in with the world.

If there are enough magic item crafters around to make

a suit of enchanted full plate, an ioun stone and a wondrous figurine... a Ring of Protection +2
then I think it's not out of line for the wizard to find or buy a few scrolls.

The larger problem, though, seems to me to be that an effective wizard relies on using downtime to sink time and money into learning new spells, scribing scrolls, and crafting items. In this game, even if the wizard had the opportunity to do those things, the other players would be gaining wealth during that time - with no risk! That seems to run rather counter to the idea of downtime.

Variable Arcana
2007-03-25, 05:41 PM
The only real problem with the Down-Time system you describe is that it blows the heck out of the Risk-Reward ratio inherent to the system.

You gain level-appropriate experience and loot for facing level-appropriate challenges, with level-appropriate risk of character-death and even TPK.

Why would any of you choose to adventure at all? Just go on DT quests, roll for random loot, fame, followers, and even experience... Save the adventuring for when you've gained a few levels -- sixth and seventh level spells are fun...

Of course, if there's a chance that the DM will tell a player, "Sorry... your character went on a quest to rescue a knight who was turned to stone five hundred years ago -- but failed a saving throw and was turned to stone himself. Perhaps the party will manage to rescue him in a few more levels when the wizard wants to go on a DT quest to find the scroll of "Stone to Flesh" that you were going to waste on a single casting to rescue the silly knight..." If there was a chance of that, then the system would be balanced. Otherwise... just hand out loot, or grab a Deck of Many Things and disregard bad rolls...

Tyger
2007-03-25, 07:03 PM
Yeah, its not a low magic world, and there is at least one major mage guild in the world (think Crown influencing power), and as noted, the rest of the party has a decent amount of magic items thus far...

To be honest, I am not so worried about not having magic items (though the ranger did give me a wand of Magic Missile (level 3 and 29 charges) that he found during his DT), so much as I am about the overall imbalance. Eventually I'll be able to make my own magic items, but at this rate, I'm not likely to have the GP to do it. For now, I'm sort of stuck buying any books I can get my hands on, in order to expedite my research. Then I need to buy something to haul said books around in. Then, maybe, I can start using my gold to create magic items.

To be honest, at this point, I am seriously considering charging the other party members close to retail prices for their magic items when I do start. Seems fair, if they are running off and having DT fun and profit...

Jeez, the more I think about this, the more bitter I get. :smallmad: Then again, I am a bitter old curmudgeon by trade, soo... :smallwink:

Clementx
2007-03-25, 08:10 PM
Actually, considering you expend resources equal to 70% of the market price when making items (between base materials and 5gp/xp conversion), and you are losing all your downtime, sounds like you need to only give them things at market-price. Also use the spell-casting services guideline for every spell you cast for them. You will find their attitude changing right-quick. Either they will slavishly shower you with gifts to avoid ala carte costs, or kill you and let you reroll a character your DM doesn't get a hard-on from persecuting.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-03-25, 08:29 PM
Your spoiler system is actually better than standard research at every level with a decent library and maxed skills time and money despite being unable to purchase scrolls. It looked like your wizard is learning low level spells in under a week and occassionally more than one a day unless I am mistaken.

You should have lots of spells using that system. Starting with level 3 spells you should really start coming into your own. I missed the post saying how many spells you have and admit I am curious how many spells your wizard has so far in the campain?

Quietus
2007-03-25, 08:47 PM
Another way to equalize these things is to use the most cheesy combinations you can. If your DM is going to continually nerf wizards to the max, then you NEED to maximize your cheesetacular potential to make up for that. Use your two spells every level to get the most breakable spells in the game. Cast save-or-X exclusively. Forget buffing, unless your party wants to pay for it. And if they DO want you to buff, then they have to find/buy the scroll for you to memorize the spell before you'll do it. Oh, wait scrolls are all but nonexistent in this world, that's right. Oh well, you have more important spells to learn and cast on yourself than Mass Bull's Strength.

kamikasei
2007-03-25, 08:52 PM
Another way to equalize these things is to use the most cheesy combinations you can. If your DM is going to continually nerf wizards to the max, then you NEED to maximize your cheesetacular potential to make up for that. Use your two spells every level to get the most breakable spells in the game.

That seems like exactly the route not to go down. If the DM wants to nerf wizards then he'll nerf any attempt you make at cheese. If you demonstrate you have no interest in cheesing up the place he might be less inclined to nerf you.

Tyger
2007-03-25, 09:33 PM
Yeah, I am not really interested in trying to break anyone's fun. Just not going to happen.

And CASTLEMIKE, how is this better than the existing system? There isn't really a formal system, other than the ones on page 199 of the DMG. One is relating to when you want to make your wizard actually research the spells that they get on level up (one day per spell with a cost of (10GP per level of spell x caster level) x2 so a level 1 spell takes one day and 20 GP. A level 9 spell takes one day and 3060 gold) which is a lot faster than the system we're using, as it doesn't factor in spell level in the time. The other is for researching original spells, which isn't really relevant here, as that is to create brand new spells which do not currently exist in the game. And on that note, no, the system has a built in "minimum one day per spell" to be researched. If it could get down to more than one spell a day, that would likely be unbalancing.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the new system. I like the idea that I can do the research, that I have so many options to come up with the spells. Heck, like I said above, I did design the system, according to what the DM wanted. That's not my issue. My sole issue is that because of the time it takes, and the lack of library materials at this time, I am lagging far behind the other PCs in terms of material wealth. That in and of itself isn't a problem, its that the lack of wealth is a viscious cycle... no gold = no magic item purchases or creation and no research library = less survivability and longer research time = less gold...

:smallsmile:

TOAOMT
2007-03-26, 01:35 AM
I think I'll apply the following logic which was used to explain an imbalance in another game.

You're a wizard, your allies are warrior types. In DT you guys do things on your own, no risk, decent reward. Your allies always go adventuring because that's all that they can do as warriors, that or sit on their bums and drink ale. I like ale, but that's irrelevant.

So we have your friends who, during downtime have the following option.

1. Adventure
2. Drink Ale (which I am pro)

You however, have the option (which you choose to take) of forfeiting loot in exchange for more spells added to your spellbook. The rules for it are fairly harsh, BUT it's an option. So your options are:

1. Adventure
2. Ad spells to spellbook.
3. Drink Ale (still pro)

So you see, you're not actually at a disadvantage because you have to forfeit something to take an action that your other players do not have at all (ask the fighter if he would accept the money sink in exchange for extra feats.) The only thing your DM seems to have done in this to balance out the Wizards winning is he's given everybody who didn't have an option besides drinking ale ('cause not everyone has my tastes) during DT an option, but he gave it to you too.

But no, you're not being a whiny player, I bet the majority would perceive things as you do as well. It's a very common misconception of balance.

Quietus
2007-03-26, 01:48 AM
It's only balanced if, while the Wizard has to spend his DT scribing scrolls, the Fighter has to go out and spend his DT learning new feats, the Ranger has to practice his Favored Enemy, the Bard has to learn new stories, the Monk has to train at a monastary, and the like.

TOAOMT
2007-03-26, 02:00 AM
You have a point. And a very valid point, though I do have a counter. When you level up, you get spells immediately (2/level I believe, check Spells under the wizard description). HOwever, you have the OPTION of learning any other spells during downtime. Now the inherent balance of only getting two spells immediately is questionable, I agree.

Still, you DO get some spells for free and you DO have the option of not learning the new ones. Mr. Fighter does not.

Zincorium
2007-03-26, 02:02 AM
It's only balanced if, while the Wizard has to spend his DT scribing scrolls, the Fighter has to go out and spend his DT learning new feats, the Ranger has to practice his Favored Enemy, the Bard has to learn new stories, the Monk has to train at a monastary, and the like.

Not in the slightest. The only way that a fighter will get more feats is by leveling up, and the same for the rest of those classes. A wizard not only gets more spells by leveling up, they can take time to increase their repertoire beyond that. This guy is getting his guaranteed spells as a class feature, same as everyone else is getting their class features. What he is not getting is free extra spells, he's paying for them in opportunity and gold cost.

The wizard does not have to spend his downtime scribing scrolls to stay at the same level, he has to spend his downtime scribing scrolls to expand his abilities beyond what is given. The rules do not state that wizards are expected at a certain point to have been given the opportunity for x number of spells. It's an option the wizard has when spells become available via the DM's choice to put them there. No one made the DM sign a contract stating that any scroll of any spell would be available out in the boonies where the OP described the party as being.

Why is it suddenly admirable to complain that your expectations of additional power are not being met as long as you have what your class says you have? However, the player is still suffering a bit under the current system, which is still far more beneficial then if there was no way to get spells except by leveling, which is still a perfectly reasonable option by RAW, and I think that a change is in order to improve the OP's enjoyment of the game.

That change should not involve nerfing everyone else in the party based on one person's dissatisfaction. It should focus on him, and only him. He has a problem with the restrictions the DM created, not with everyone else, so the solutioni needs to focus on the restrictions he has, not giving other people more of the same.

If the fighter and rogue and bard and everyone else you mention could gain more feats, or better songs, or whatever by spending downtime, then it'd be balanced. Making them pay for something they are supposed to get is just as messed up as if the wizard had to pay to scribe those two free spells per level.

TOAOMT
2007-03-26, 02:07 AM
I suppose there could be the problem of this player isn't getting the guaranteed spells/level in which case I recommend he pummel the DM to death with the PHB.

By the way, just 'cause I know I can come off as pompous I want to reiterate none of my comments are meant to seem demeaning or insulting.

Disclaimer: I do not condone violence with D&D books, it would damage the book and the game gets a bad enough rap already.

Tyger
2007-03-26, 07:49 AM
The analogy of a fighter getting free feats being equal to a wizard researching spells is simply not accurate. You refer to the book's rules, well, so do I. There are copious ways, in the PHB and DMG for a wizard to get new spells, via copying them from other mage's books (rules are included for pricing this service), from scribing them from scrolls (found or purchased) and for researching them yourself. There are NO rules for fighters to learn new feats.

If there were no other mages, or if I did not have access to such, it would make sense perhaps that the only way to learn spells was via research. However, not only are there many other wizards, it is a relatively high magic world. I am a member of the mage's "guild" and have a personal mentor within that guild... all of whom are mages.

It is assumed that wizards will add more spells to their repertoires throughout the life of the character. In fact, it is expected. The corollary of the fighter is simply not accurate.

That said, yes, I do have to make a choice to improve the book rather than gaining the benefit of the mini-adventures during DT. However, ask yourself how effective a wizard would be if they added only their 2 spells per level into their book. A level 20 wizard with a grand total of 45 spells in his book? Hardly what is envisioned. So the choice for me is to either gimp my effectiveness by sticking with my base spells, or research new spells and fall far behind the other characters in wealth and magical items.

If the wealth and magical items wasn't required for basic survival, this would be of little consequence, however, we all know that as you increase in level, the CR assumes that you have gear appropriate to your level. At this point, my gear is appropriate to a level 2 or 3 character. One masterwork quarterstaff, and one magic missile wand (level 3 with half charges). That's it.

marjan
2007-03-26, 09:50 AM
1. Adventure
2. Drink Ale (which I am pro)

You can add another option for fighter. Craft your own equipment.

Tokiko Mima
2007-03-26, 10:31 AM
Yeah, given the feedback here, I am going to talk to the GM about it. I probably should have included this in the original post, but the reason that I posted this at all was not because I am incapably of making my own decisions, but because I haven't played D&D since the Expert set (remember that shiny blue book!? :smallsmile: ) so wasn't sure if it was considered normal that wizards would really be expected to concentrate most, if not all, of their time and resources on getting their spellbooks up.

For the record, I have a whooping total of 8 second level spells, 6 third and 2 fourth in my spellbook... its not like I am trying to get the whole Compendium into the book. :smallcool:

Hmm.. honestly, in your situation? I would consider asking to reroll as a Sorcerer.. those Wizard spell restrictions you're under are pretty harsh. Basically, right you're playing with the spell selection close to your average Sorcerer, but without the ability to spontaneously cast. You might want to point out to your DM how heavily his rules favor Sorcerers over Wizards. Sorcerers would be able to 'auto-adventure' like everyone else, as well.

While it is fair to make you have to spend the time to research spell, I think a basic assumption should be that you will earn at least enough to cover your costs (XP and coin wise) if everyone else is getting items awarded to them for free.

Holocron Coder
2007-03-26, 10:38 AM
I agree with Tokiko here.. my first reaction to the nerfing was that the Sorceror ends dup better than the Wizard with this. Automatically get about the same number of spells AND all that extra phat loot.

I'd like to see how this turns out for you :)

Krellen
2007-03-26, 11:04 AM
A level 20 wizard with a grand total of 45 spells in his book? Hardly what is envisioned.
Are you sure?

Psions get 36 powers over their 20 levels.
Bards get 35 spells.
Sorcerers get 34.
So even at 45, the Wizard has a lot more flexibility than other primary caster classes. No to mention that he's got access to twice as many cantrips as the Sorcerer - 19 as opposed to 9.
The only classes that'll have more choice are Divine casters - Clerics and Druids - but the flavour of Divine spells are very different from the flavour of arcane spells (or even psionic powers).

Sure, 45 might be a tad low - but the "typical" wizard with hundreds of spells in his books to choose from is definitely much higher than the designers really envisioned too.

marjan
2007-03-26, 11:21 AM
Psions get 36 powers over their 20 levels.
Bards get 35 spells.
Sorcerers get 34.

But none of them has to prepare spells in advance. Bards are not primary casters, sorcerers get more spells per day and psions are completly different story.

Krellen
2007-03-26, 11:44 AM
But none of them has to prepare spells in advance. Bards are not primary casters, sorcerers get more spells per day and psions are completly different story.
A bard is a primary caster. His caster level equals his class level and he gets spells from 1st level.
As far as spells per day go (ignoring bonus spells from high stats:)
Sorcerers get 60.
Wizards get 40 - 50 if they Specialise.
So in exchange for 50% more spell casting ability (20% over specialists), Sorcerers only know 75% as many spells and give up 5 bonus feats. They also receive access to spells a level later.

It's not that grossly unbalanced against the wizard, even if he doesn't learn any more than his level granted spells.

hewhosaysfish
2007-03-26, 11:56 AM
So we have your friends who, during downtime have the following option.

1. Adventure
2. Drink Ale (which I am pro)

You however, have the option (which you choose to take) of forfeiting loot in exchange for more spells added to your spellbook. The rules for it are fairly harsh, BUT it's an option. So your options are:

1. Adventure
2. Ad spells to spellbook.
3. Drink Ale (still pro)

So you see, you're not actually at a disadvantage because you have to forfeit something to take an action that your other players do not have at all (ask the fighter if he would accept the money sink in exchange for extra feats.) The only thing your DM seems to have done in this to balance out the Wizards winning is he's given everybody who didn't have an option besides drinking ale ('cause not everyone has my tastes) during DT an option, but he gave it to you too.



But compare these options to the normal, default scenario in DnD:

Fighters:
1) Buy +3 greatsword with you loot then idle ('Drink Ale' if you like).
2) Save your cash for later and go straight to idling.
Wizards:
1) Research spells with your loot (and xp).
2) Save your loot and xp by idling.

Fighter spend loot on equipment, Wizards spend loot on research. The only difference is that research takes up (in-game) time.

The scenario the OP is in, is like this:

Fighters:
1) Buy stuff with your loot then get a big pile of free loot.
2) Go straight to the big pile of free loot.
3) Say no to a big pile of free lootNot going to happen
Wizards:
1) Research spells with your loot (and xp).
2) Get a big pile of free loot.
3) Say no to a big pile of free loot

Whatever the non-wizards choose to do, they get free goodies. The wizard can get the same goodies as everyone else, but only if he gives up something else in exchange and you say he's not disadvantaged by this?

Imagine if the DM declared that the wizard was going to get a load of cash whatever he did but the non-casters would only get the same if they didn't spend anything on upgrading their weapons and armour. What would happen?
They would either not spend any gold on new kit and have **** gear for their level or they would buy some stuff but it would still look **** next to the wizard who can buy everything they have and research some new spells.

marjan
2007-03-26, 12:05 PM
A bard is a primary caster. His caster level equals his class level and he gets spells from 1st level.

I probably didn't express myself correctly , but comparing bards with wizards? Just don't.(bard's highest spells are lvl6)

Feats while good are not that big advantage. And wizard is only strong if he is flexible enough which he won't be with just the spells he gets. And while sorcerer has always access to his spells (fact that many people forget when they compare them to wizards), wizard who somehow loses his spellbook (doesn't happen often but still) is commoner with familiar, good saves and couple more feats (which he can't use without his spellbook unless he has spell mastery).
And it is unbalanced since there are many utility spells which you won't learn with only 2 spells/lvl and since there are no scrolls to be found how will you get access to them.

Oh and specialist wizard loses acces to one or two schools. If we look it your way you can pick up focused specialist and be able to cast as many spells per day as sorcerer, but is it realy worth it?

Krellen
2007-03-26, 12:10 PM
What "utility spells" are required for game balance?

As far as I can tell, the "utility spells" - things like, oh, Rope Trick, Magnificent Mansion, Teleport - are the spells that break the game, making wizards grossly unbalanced.

In a pure numbers game, the wizard should have 50% more known spells, to make up for the Sorcerer's 50% more castable spells a day. Thus, the level 20 wizard "should" have 51 spells- 50% more than the Sorcerer's 34. 45 isn't far off that mark. (A specialist "should" have only 41 spells - 20% more than the Sorcerer.)

marjan
2007-03-26, 12:21 PM
As far as I can tell, the "utility spells" - things like, oh, Rope Trick, Magnificent Mansion, Teleport - are the spells that break the game, making wizards grossly unbalanced.

What the hell is so game breaking in Rope Trick. It can be dispelled, if DM needs you to be attacked during rest.


In a pure numbers game, the wizard should have 50% more known spells, to make up for the Sorcerer's 50% more castable spells a day. Thus, the level 20 wizard "should" have 51 spells- 50% more than the Sorcerer's 34. 45 isn't far off that mark. (A specialist "should" have only 41 spells - 20% more than the Sorcerer.)

"A specialist "should" have only 41 spells - 20% more than the Sorcerer." You realy don't think that loosing access to one (or more probably two) school of magic isn't even concern. And even if you had school with only completly useless spells you still have one slot that must be filled with the spell from your specialty school. And of course being able to choose spells on fly isn't advantage at all.

And as I said wizard can have his book lost forever and then he's at the begining while the only way for sorcerer to permanently lose ability to cast is to either destroy artifact or have his soul devoured by demi-lich (in which case you don't realy care about losing access to spells).
Now tell me which is more probable to lose access to his spells.

Krellen
2007-03-26, 12:39 PM
And of course being able to choose spells on fly isn't advantage at all.
It's an advantage worth approximately 5 feats, apparently.

When's the last time a Wizard lost his spellbook in a campaign you played in? Or a campaign you've even heard about, for that matter?

TOAOMT
2007-03-26, 12:40 PM
I see the problem in my own argument now (thanks for pointing it out) and have crafted the following idea in solution to your problem.

Talk to your DM about making things like weapon selection, shopping, etc. take up downtime as well. That way you all have the same option with the same restrictions.

If Joe Fighter wants to buy that +3 greatsword that takes downtime because maybe it has to be enchanted, or he can't find one, etc. That way all forms of intangible, non-automatic improvement have a timetable and everyone has to make a decision when you do something besides grab free loot. Even if it doesn't actually balance it, it'll feel more balanced (I remember the guy that taught me to play used to say "Feel that indecision? That's balance.").

One thing I should stress though is how you present your argument. If you present it wrong you could get "So you want me to gimp everyone else so you can feel more powerful?" I don't know your DM personally, I just know I used to get that a lot.

Also, as to your argument that because you already have one more option (research) to get more than is automatically granted at your level and Mr. Fighter doesn't, I don't think it will help the argument. The way it is perceived is "I have options they don't and I like it that way, don't try to balance it." At least that's the way it seems to me, and the ease of research in the RAW makes it feel like that adds even more imbalance to wizards themselves anyway.

Thank you for your time.

marjan
2007-03-26, 12:49 PM
It's an advantage worth approximately 5 feats, apparently.


Count again.


When's the last time a Wizard lost his spellbook in a campaign you played in? Or a campaign you've even heard about, for that matter?

I don't remember the last time our party rogue failed his will save. Do you want to tell me that rogues have good will saves? The point is it is risk. Just immerse wizard in water and his spellbook is history.

kamikasei
2007-03-26, 12:53 PM
In a pure numbers game, the wizard should have 50% more known spells, to make up for the Sorcerer's 50% more castable spells a day. Thus, the level 20 wizard "should" have 51 spells- 50% more than the Sorcerer's 34. 45 isn't far off that mark. (A specialist "should" have only 41 spells - 20% more than the Sorcerer.)

It doesn't seem wise to me to try to balance the wizard using the sorcerer as a baseline. After all, sorcerer is generally viewed as a weak class, and clerics and druids are still out there with automatic full spell lists.

The real issue though seems to me that non-casters (ie every other player) are in this game being given free loot at no cost and with no risk, during what is nominally 'downtime'. They lose nothing by this - they have no use for the downtime. If they weren't being given the loot they'd be liquidating and upgrading equipment, or possibly (depending on the DM) being marked as "training" to justify level gains.

The wizard does lose something by sacrificing normal downtime activities. He loses the opportunity to do what for him is just as important as getting equipment - getting spells. Like equipment spells cost gold, but unlike equipment they also cost time, and under this system that also means they cost additional gold because you're passing up the opportunity to get free loot. It is unfair to the wizard to deny him that time. Why? Not simply because a wizard "needs" the extra spells above the two per level, but because that system basically treats the wizard as a non-caster. The wizard isn't allowed to play to his strengths. It's like allowing a melee character to invest in magical weapons or magical armor, but not both.

Krellen
2007-03-26, 12:59 PM
The wizard can go out and get free loot. Where does it say the wizard "needs" to expand his spell book that much?

marjan
2007-03-26, 01:08 PM
The wizard can go out and get free loot. Where does it say the wizard "needs" to expand his spell book that much?

Yes and Fighter can sell all of his equipment to feed the poor and then go out adventuring. But he doesn't do that. You know why? Because they need that equipment as much as wizard needs that spells.

kamikasei
2007-03-26, 01:15 PM
The wizard can go out and get free loot.

And as I said, a wizard with lots of gear but minimal spells is like a fighter with lots of cash but no access to magical weapons.


Where does it say the wizard "needs" to expand his spell book that much?

I didn't say it does. But the strength of a wizard is versatility, and denying a player the opportunity to play to his character's strengths is unfair. If you might as well be a sorcerer in order to do the things a wizard does, then the wizard has been nerfed too much.

Krellen
2007-03-26, 01:30 PM
Isn't one of the core arguements on these boards that wizards (along with clerics and druids) absolutely dominate mid and high level play, with no chance (or even point) of other classes participating? If the wizard wasn't super versatile - by which I mean having a spell selection of 100 or more spells, as people seem to be arguing they should - might not that problem be alleviated somewhat?

The wizard's strength isn't his versatility - it's his access to spells. Because apparently a small handful of spells absolutely dominates most spell levels, meaning the wizard will have access to them regardless of how broad or narrow his spellbook is.

kamikasei
2007-03-26, 01:50 PM
Isn't one of the core arguements on these boards that wizards (along with clerics and druids) absolutely dominate mid and high level play, with no chance (or even point) of other classes participating? If the wizard wasn't super versatile - by which I mean having a spell selection of 100 or more spells, as people seem to be arguing they should - might not that problem be alleviated somewhat?

The wizard's strength isn't his versatility - it's his access to spells. Because apparently a small handful of spells absolutely dominates most spell levels, meaning the wizard will have access to them regardless of how broad or narrow his spellbook is.

Wizards, clerics and so on are powerful not primarily because they have lots of spells but because their spells let them do things, not just that fighters can't replicate (that's why you're playing a wizard rather than a fighter, after all) but that they have no way to counter. A wizard 20 with two spells per level still has options that no fighter can counter, if he chooses those spells correctly. This is not the wizard's strength. This just happens to make wizards strong.

The wizard's strength is that he can, with some preparation, come up with a magical solution to most problems. That's what a wizard is. It's why wizards aren't sorcerers. Taking away versatility from wizards makes them a completely different and much inferior (I don't say weaker, I say inferior) class.

The wizard's strength is being Batman. The guide on that subject specifically calls out several spells that are too powerful and ought probably not to be allowed - and the wizard remained Batman. That's as it should be.

marjan
2007-03-26, 02:02 PM
Isn't one of the core arguements on these boards that wizards (along with clerics and druids) absolutely dominate mid and high level play, with no chance (or even point) of other classes participating? If the wizard wasn't super versatile - by which I mean having a spell selection of 100 or more spells, as people seem to be arguing they should - might not that problem be alleviated somewhat?

The wizard's strength isn't his versatility - it's his access to spells. Because apparently a small handful of spells absolutely dominates most spell levels, meaning the wizard will have access to them regardless of how broad or narrow his spellbook is.

If he wants to break the game he can do it with one spell per level (20 spells are enough). But that is not the point. Even if he wanted to that he would have to wait till higher levels and do mostly nothing till then. Now tell me where is fun in that.

Krellen
2007-03-26, 02:09 PM
But Batman eliminates the need for other classes, so the Wizard is still broken.

marjan
2007-03-26, 02:15 PM
But Batman eliminates the need for other classes, so the Wizard is still broken.

Wizard is still broken only if choose to play them like that. And cleric and druid but they don't get nerfed.

Gamebird
2007-03-26, 02:16 PM
Count me in with not seeing why a DM *must* or *should* allow a wizard access to more than their 2 spells per level. The only exception should be for the expectations of the player. If the player has a radically different idea of what a wizard was going to get, then maybe let them change their character.

Also, if the rewards are that awesome, your character should be out there adventuring as well and saving up the loot to buy that Portable Hole library.

valadil
2007-03-26, 02:18 PM
Did you know ahead of time what the situation would be like? If so, it sounds like your DM wanted to try something new and you're beta testing for him. Nothing wrong with that.

The thing I don't like about the new system for research is that it doesn't take into account your level. I mean, you gain points for ranks, but I feel like the number of points you need per spell should depend on your class level as a wizard. Someone who can cast 9s should have no trouble research several 1s in a day.

kamikasei
2007-03-26, 02:21 PM
But Batman eliminates the need for other classes, so the Wizard is still broken.

No, he does not. He provides whatever the other classes don't. Batman doesn't go on missions with Superman and spend his time hitting things very hard.

If wizards are limited in the way Tyger describes, then there's very little reason not to just play a sorcerer.

Tyger
2007-03-26, 02:31 PM
OK folks... didn't mean for this to turn into another "Wizards are too powerful, they must be nerfed" thread... there are plenty of those out there already. :smallcool:

That said, I've talked it over with the GM, and essentially been told, "suck it up for now. You'll get yours in time, don't worry." As I trust the man, I am taking that at face value and going to continue to play as planned, having fun, but no more researching spells for now. Once the library gets to a sufficient size, researching is going to be a lot easier. So for now, I go out with the rest of the crew on the DT, and get my goodies too. Then I take all that gold and buy myself a library.

Yes, that means that I will be the only one in the party for a while that has limited gear. And no, I'm not happy with that. The DMs answer is that I will soon be able to make my own magic items (which I hadn't actually planned on though!) and that will make up for it. Where the GP to make those items is supposed to come from, I don't know. :smallconfused: But if I do go that route, then I'll be able to charge the other players for the magic items that they want... he's intimated that the artificer is not going to be around. Oh well.

On the actual point, while there is nothing wrong with a DM limiting the wizard class to essentially the 2 spells that he gets each level, how many campaigns does this actually happen in? I've never played in one of that nature... has anyone else? The DM has suggested that this is going to change (we have to go up against wizards at some point, right?) so who knows...

Anyway, thanks for all your feedback.

Dark
2007-03-26, 02:58 PM
When's the last time a Wizard lost his spellbook in a campaign you played in? Or a campaign you've even heard about, for that matter?
I've heard of one where the wizard started out without a spellbook :smallsmile:

This was in 1st edition days. The campaign was named Screw Island, appropriately enough, and the intro was that the characters were washed up on an island after a shipwreck. The party consisted of a half-giant fighter who used a tree trunk as an improvised club, a thief without tools, and a magic-user with no spellbook. Apparently, great fun was had.

Clementx
2007-03-26, 03:21 PM
Limiting a wizard's book does not make him weak. It just annoys the f*ck out of the player and makes him ineffective until he can apply a broken, "no-duh I'm taking this at level-up" spell. That is not good game design. A wizard isn't supposed to have an infinite spellbook for free, either. Having a large one (100ish spells) costs a large chunk of money and time, depriving him of other magic items, in order to buff up his ability to spend his few spells more effectively (assuming he can take the time to prepare them). So the player is supposed to choose his own path between a thick book for any situation, or other benefits (in this case, FREE ITEMS WOO). But this is a wizards-broken topic, so I'll drop it at that.

If you think being able to cast Time Stop then Gate twice is broken, the problem is not the wizard knowing two really good lvl9 spells. The problem is one of those two spells even being in the game. The DM is spending his time choking the player out of frustration, instead of rightly flipping off WotC and revising arcane spells. That is misplaced aggression. And as for this, "You'll get yours in time", it sounds like the DM has already assumed you will take the most broken lvl4 and higher spells when you can and stop your research there. So he is not balancing the classes in any sensible way.

Basically, I would not trust this guy as much as the OP says. Kill yourself and make a sorcerer.

marjan
2007-03-26, 03:41 PM
Kill yourself and make a sorcerer.


Just remember: Don't be willing if somebody tries to resurect you.:smalltongue:

Gamebird
2007-03-26, 03:49 PM
On the actual point, while there is nothing wrong with a DM limiting the wizard class to essentially the 2 spells that he gets each level, how many campaigns does this actually happen in? I've never played in one of that nature... has anyone else?

I have, twice.

In one campaign, we started out as escaped slaves with no gear, not even spell books. The DM had each game after the first give one or two characters their "special" gear, such as weapons for the tanks, holy symbols for the clerics and a spell book for my character, the wizard. Then until 4th level I only got the 2 spells/level in the book. I got a handful more after a particular encounter, then a bunch of scrolls I never got time to scribe and about 6th level the campaign ended prematurely. It was a great game though.

In the other case, the party was so cash-poor that I had the two spells/level until around 7th or 8th, when I finally had enough "free" cash to buy inks to scribe some extra spells (1st level only). That was the same campaign where the warrior-types didn't have masterwork weapons until the same level and magic ones came in around 10th or 11th. Way under WBL, but a game doesn't have to conform to WBL guidelines to be fun.

Whamme
2007-03-26, 04:20 PM
No, he does not. He provides whatever the other classes don't. Batman doesn't go on missions with Superman and spend his time hitting things very hard.

If wizards are limited in the way Tyger describes, then there's very little reason not to just play a sorcerer.

Considering the default situation is the other way around, I don't really see the problem; it's no worse than usual.

Honestly, the time wasted picking out different spells is annoying. It's why in CRPG's I play my Wizards like sorcerors anyway (never change the spells).

marjan
2007-03-26, 04:33 PM
Honestly, the time wasted picking out different spells is annoying. It's why in CRPG's I play my Wizards like sorcerors anyway (never change the spells).

My advice: Don't play wizards.

Ninja Chocobo
2007-03-26, 04:36 PM
Tyger, I have a somewhat...unethical solution.
Step 1: Learn Alter Self and Major Creation
Step 2: Cast Alter Self to turn yourself into something completely different.
Step 3: Cast Major Creation and create a big, shiney diamond (3 hours+ duration)
Step 4: Sell said diamond, in the guise of your altered self.
Big, shiney diamonds are listed in the DMG as having around 3,000 gp value. That should help you out a bit.

Tyger
2007-03-26, 04:42 PM
I've heard of one where the wizard started out without a spellbook

This was in 1st edition days. The campaign was named Screw Island, appropriately enough, and the intro was that the characters were washed up on an island after a shipwreck. The party consisted of a half-giant fighter who used a tree trunk as an improvised club, a thief without tools, and a magic-user with no spellbook. Apparently, great fun was had.



I have, twice.

In one campaign, we started out as escaped slaves with no gear, not even spell books. The DM had each game after the first give one or two characters their "special" gear, such as weapons for the tanks, holy symbols for the clerics and a spell book for my character, the wizard. Then until 4th level I only got the 2 spells/level in the book. I got a handful more after a particular encounter, then a bunch of scrolls I never got time to scribe and about 6th level the campaign ended prematurely. It was a great game though.

In the other case, the party was so cash-poor that I had the two spells/level until around 7th or 8th, when I finally had enough "free" cash to buy inks to scribe some extra spells (1st level only). That was the same campaign where the warrior-types didn't have masterwork weapons until the same level and magic ones came in around 10th or 11th. Way under WBL, but a game doesn't have to conform to WBL guidelines to be fun.

What's the common thread between these three examples? All the party were equally disadvataged. Not the same thing here. Here, we have a group of people getting free gold, magic items and cohorts, while the wizard stays in the inn, researching like mad and spending money, not making it. That is a pretty significant difference, no?

That said, I am going to trust the DM, he's a good guy and a friend. I don't think he's intentionally screwing me, and I think he does have plans for me and my character. He does however think that I am going in a direction that I wasn't planning on going on (the item creation route) so that has to be discussed a bit... but either way, I'm still having fun in the game!

Innis Cabal
2007-03-26, 04:48 PM
fun is important but so is party balance. Do your fellow party members complain you are not pulling your weight? Or do they not understand that you have been slipping on the way up?

Gamebird
2007-03-26, 04:52 PM
For the most part, they were all disadvantaged, though I'll quibble with the "equally" part. A fighter without magic gear can still use his feats, which depending on the feats allowed, will probably be where the majority of his damage comes from. A monk without gear is perfectly fine, as is a druid or sorcerer. A cleric without gear is still quite good. Only the wizard loses their core ability. A wizard without gear is useful for nothing (unless they have Spell Mastery). All of the other classes have some utility even without gear.


We can turn this around and reverse the situation. Let's say the wizard and most of the characters were happily accruing loot and shinies using the DT table, but one of the fighters had talked the DM into allowing him to buy extra feats by spending lots of time and money training. At 7th level, that fighter has a number of additional secondary combat manuevers he can use should the situation warrant, but he has no magic items and very little money. Meanwhile, the wizard has his core 2/lvl spells, lots of magic items and cool, valuable stuff. You just know the second the party sees a scroll or enemy spell book, the wizard is set, because he can afford it. The fighter, meanwhile, has screwed himself by investing in secondary feats instead of investing in the DT table loot-generator.

Would this be unfair? Not really. Most games I've been involved with, at some point someone makes a severely subpar choice, be it a feat or how to spend their skill ranks or what to buy and equip themselves at. More usually, everyone makes subpar choices.

In this case, the evidence is a bit more glaring, but I doubt you considered that at the start when you decided to research instead of DT looting.

Tokiko Mima
2007-03-26, 05:03 PM
Tyger, I have a somewhat...unethical solution.
Step 1: Learn Alter Self and Major Creation
Step 2: Cast Alter Self to turn yourself into something completely different.
Step 3: Cast Major Creation and create a big, shiney diamond (3 hours+ duration)
Step 4: Sell said diamond, in the guise of your altered self.
Big, shiney diamonds are listed in the DMG as having around 3,000 gp value. That should help you out a bit.

Either that, or buy 10 foot ladders and sell them back as two 10' poles. 5 cp for the ladder becomes 4 sp for two 10' poles for 700% profit. If your DM insists that the holes in the poles make them worthless, stack as many poles as you can in a 10' cube, then pay a cleric 20 gp to cast make whole for you. You'll still make out like a bandit, because you can fit a lotta poles in a 10' cube. If you get a problem with the "one item limit," attach cords and make the whole thing a single "bail o' sticks" object.

Tyger
2007-03-26, 05:04 PM
Yeah, its important to note that none of this was made apparent to me at the onset. Not that I would have no access to libraries (in spite of the fact that we created the Association with specific access to libraries at certain levels), not that I couldn't pay other mages to scribe from their books, not that the loot would be low on the main adventures, or that the DT loot would be so exceptionally high. Nadda.

kamikasei
2007-03-26, 05:11 PM
not that the loot would be low on the main adventures, or that the DT loot would be so exceptionally high.

This strikes me as particularly strange.

If his purpose is to play a high-level game... why are you playing through the low levels? If he wants you to play through low levels quickly to get used to things before he springs the plot on you... why isn't he just giving extra treasure in the normal adventures?

clericwithnogod
2007-03-26, 05:46 PM
Breaking things down from the numbers in the DMG and SRD, Wizards should have access to a significant number of spells by RAW (through scrolls, captured spellbooks and spells copied from other wizards' book for a fee), and 200 at 20th level isn't unfeasable.

At lower levels, you don't have as much expendable cash to spend, and while you can pick up some stuff you want, it's probably not everything you'd want (especially if you have the Spell Compendium and other non-core sources). At higher levels, you can afford pretty much everything you'd ever want.

If characters are going much beyond the difference between their treasure gain and expected wealth gain in their expenditures, it's reasonable to start cutting into their expected wealth by level (until they re-align their expenditures with their income).

You could theoretically spend twice as much on spell purchases, but practically it's hard to avoid using money for some other stuff, so figure about half of your expenditure money can reasonably make it to buying spells at 100GP+50GP per spell level.

LV=level; CASH=difference between wealth gain and treasure gain that is expected to be used on expendables, services and such (p. 54 of the DMG); Copy=Price to copy a spell from another wizards spellbook or by scroll (low to high - past 1st level, it's cheaper to pay another wizard 50 gp per spell level to copy a spell rather than use a scroll); #Spells Purchased is based upon using one half of the characters CASH and purchasing the highest level spells usable at that level. There's a lilttle rounding and minor saving from level to level to reach the divisor of a spell, but nothing significant.



LV CASH (Copy) = #Spells Purchased

01 00100 (125-150) = X
02 00200 (125-150) = 1 1st
03 00299 (125-300) = X
04 00399 (125-300) = 1 2nd
05 01332 (125-450) = 1 3rd, 1 1st
06 00665 (125-450) = 1 3rd
07 00665 (125-600) = 1 2nd
08 02331 (125-600) = 1 4th, 1 3rd
09 01996 (125-750) = 1 5th, 1 2nd
10 02329 (125-750) = 1 5th, 1 3rd
11 02994 (125-900) = 1 6th, 1 4th
12 10659 (125-900) = 5 6th, 1 5th
13 03323 (125-1050) = 1 7th, 1 1st
14 06653 (125-1050) = 3 7th, 1 1st
15 13315 (125-1200) = 5 8th level, 1 6th
16 13310 (125-1200) = 5 8th level, 1 6th
17 19970 (125-1350) = 7 9th level, 1 3rd
18 16628 (125-1350) = 6 9th level, 1 1st
19 23283 (125-1350) = 8 9th level, 1 6th


So, a 10th level Wizard should have in the neighborhood of:
12 Spells "bought" (1st:2, 2nd:3, 3rd:4, 4th:1, 5th:2)
18 Spells learned from level gain (1st:2, 2nd:4, 3rd:4, 4th:4, 5th:4)
7 Spells automatic at 1st level with an 18 INT (1st:7)
28 Cantrips automatic at 1st level (from PHB and Spell Compendium)
65 Spells Known at 10th level (without factoring in found spellbooks and scrolls) (0lv:28, 1st:11, 2nd:7, 3rd:8, 4th:5, 5th:6)
Unless you get ripped off by never having any spell books in loot, you should get another 1 or 2 per level. So all told ~75-85 spells at 10th level, knock off ~10 if you lose non-PHB cantrips, knock off ~10-20 if your DM screws you out of captured spellbooks. Getting scrolls in treasure messes up your finances, so your best bet is to sell them.

You can make campaign reasons that this isn't available, but you can make a campaign setting to be unfair to anyone. If you're changing something for balance, telling the players that upfront is the right thing to do. You shouldn't hide changes behind "it doesn't fit the setting" or "not in this town...or this town..or this town..." it's dishonest and makes for a poor gaming environment. If you're changing something for flavor, you should balance the underlying mechanics so you aren't being unfair to someone.

Krellen
2007-03-26, 06:05 PM
Why does the wizard have less expenses than the other classes? Where does all this spare cash of his come from; obviously it's "supposed" to be spent on something. If the wizard's spending it all on spells, what isn't he buying that the other classes are?

clericwithnogod
2007-03-26, 06:16 PM
Why does the wizard have less expenses than the other classes? Where does all this spare cash of his come from; obviously it's "supposed" to be spent on something. If the wizard's spending it all on spells, what isn't he buying that the other classes are?

Re-read the post. He's spending half of it on spells. The other classes are buying expendables for their class. e.g. Fighters are buying/using javelins of lightning, magic arrows, potions of various buffs and invulnerabilities. Wizards don't need to buy that stuff. The half that he spends on other stuff covers the kind of expenses everyone has like cure wounds potions (though less needed than most others), day-to-day expenses and pitching in toward party items.

Whamme
2007-03-26, 06:31 PM
My advice: Don't play wizards.

Well, I generally don't.

Exceptions:

In the BG CRPG series, you have no NPC sorceror option.

In IWDII, I needed someone to have spare skill points for my 'Two Character Soloing' challenge.


Tell me how being 'Batman' is at all in-genre for a Wizard, anyway?

kamikasei
2007-03-26, 06:38 PM
Tell me how being 'Batman' is at all in-genre for a Wizard, anyway?

It's supposed to mean that, like Batman, a wizard can always win if he prepares adequately.

Of course it's not true, not without some of Tippy's crazy level 20 builds. But it's the ideal, that you, the wizard, have something ready to cover as close to every eventuality as you can manage. The point is that it's the thing that wizards do better than just about any other class.

It does not mean you run about in a cape and cowl striking terror into the hearts of the cowardly and superstitious.

Dark
2007-03-26, 07:23 PM
This strikes me as particularly strange.

If his purpose is to play a high-level game... why are you playing through the low levels? If he wants you to play through low levels quickly to get used to things before he springs the plot on you... why isn't he just giving extra treasure in the normal adventures?
I can understand that.

If you start characters at high level, or if you level them up really quickly, then they will lack a history. A high level character should be legendary, which means there should be legends. With all these downtime adventures, the characters accumulate stories quickly. The one about finding the knight and unstoning him is a good one. The one about "You went into a dungeon and found a masterwork broadsword" isn't :) But still, it's the kind of thing a high level character will have done a lot of.

CharPixie
2007-03-26, 07:29 PM
I'll chime in on the two spells is enough side. Email your DM with a level by level breakdown of what you'd need to wait/pay for your spells, and let them know that 100 XP is about five times 100 GP, but once they know that, settle. Pick your spells well, pick ones that you find imaginative. Don't try to do EVERYTHING; if your party complains that you aren't the uber-blaster that they expect a wizard to be, tell them you can't be everything at once.

Yahzi
2007-03-26, 10:59 PM
That said, I've talked it over with the GM, and essentially been told, "suck it up for now. You'll get yours in time, don't worry."
So he just wants to control what spells you have access to. That's fine; it;s his world - he could just say those spells don't exist, or you have to make a pact with a demon to have them, or whatever.

I say... scribe no scroll that your DM does not specifically chose to give you.

Chances are, you'll still dominate the party at high levels. :smallbiggrin:

Artemician
2007-03-27, 04:02 AM
If wizards are limited in the way Tyger describes, then there's very little reason not to just play a sorcerer.

There is a reason. It's called not powergaming.

It's like saying "If fighters are as weak as everyone says, then there's very little reason not to just play a frenzied berserker."

Zincorium
2007-03-27, 04:12 AM
There is a reason. It's called not powergaming.

It's like saying "If fighters are as weak as everyone says, then there's very little reason not to just play a frenzied berserker."

Honestly, playing a sorcerer under this system wouldn't so much be powergaming as it would just be easier. I personally would much rather just get spells at a given rate rather than doing math every time I wanted an additional spell to see exactly what it would cost and how much time it would take. Sorcerers still aren't all that much better than a wizard who can't buy scrolls to scribe, since they don't get bonus feats and still get higher level spells a level behind wizards.

And if you'd picked a better prestige class for your comparison, I might have agreed, but you're still comparing a low-powered base class to a PrC, it's almost always going to be better. Frenzied berserkers are great for arena-type comparisons, but most groups will slit your throat while you sleep once they realize that you'll be doing your best to kill them once combat is supposed to stop. I'd rather take a living fighter than a dead frenzied berserker any day.

Arbitrarity
2007-03-27, 07:25 AM
Tyger, I have a somewhat...unethical solution.
Step 1: Learn Alter Self and Major Creation
Step 2: Cast Alter Self to turn yourself into something completely different.
Step 3: Cast Major Creation and create a big, shiney diamond (3 hours+ duration)
Step 4: Sell said diamond, in the guise of your altered self.
Big, shiney diamonds are listed in the DMG as having around 3,000 gp value. That should help you out a bit.


More unethical: Major Create a block of pure Platinum. This should be worth level*(27000*20*50/540) PP, or about level*50000. Use alter self. Use fabricate, to break up into shiny coins. Enjoy. If your DM makes you do Craft:Metalworking, make sure you have intelligence pumped. Also, use nystul's magic aura on the stuff, otherwise it'll reek of magic :smallwink:

Or, buy iron, pump craft armoursmithing, and craft full plates. Take 10. Use fabricate :D.

Tyger
2007-03-27, 07:35 AM
:smallbiggrin: Yeah, the Fabricate uses have already started running through my mind.

The DM and I have been talking though, and while we aren't seeing eye to eye quite, we have changed the research system a bit.

Now, instead of 100XP for one point of research, its 10 XP per point. And you get to add your caster level in points as well. That changes things quite nicely at lower levels, though it may not make quite as much difference at high levels. It does mean that levels 1 - 3 spells will only take a day or two tops, so I might get to research one DT portion, and DT adventure on the other. And of course, if I do create magic items, then the party will be paying me... then we'll see who gets the deals! :) The ranger shared the wealth... he'll see some benefit from that!

Now to chose what Item Creation feats to take. Already have Create Wonderous... trying to decide on another. Maybe Wand or Staff?

hewhosaysfish
2007-03-27, 07:38 AM
And of course, if I do create magic items, then the party will be paying me... then we'll see who gets the deals! :) The ranger shared the wealth... he'll see some benefit from that!

Now to chose what Item Creation feats to take. Already have Create Wonderous... trying to decide on another. Maybe Wand or Staff?


If you're making stuff to get cash from the party, Arms and Armour might be a good way to go.

JadedDM
2007-03-27, 12:28 PM
So in 3E, wizards have no limit to how many spells they can learn?

stainboy
2007-03-27, 12:52 PM
I like your GM's point system. I think it undervalues XP pretty severely, but you've got no shortage of other options. I also like that he's treating your list of spells known as a big deal. When spells known are an actual commodity, something that players have to work for and choose carefully, wizards are a lot more interesting to play and a lot less broken.

And yeah, I agree with you, the nerfs to teleport and polymorph are pretty reasonable. Even WotC disallows polymorph in sanctioned games, for Christ's sake, and just about every high-level GM ends up struggling with how to counter teleport. There's only so many times you can get away with dimension-locking a dungeon.

I don't think he's being unfairly hard on you. He's making you work for your upgrades and he's got a fair and clearly-established for letting you do it. What I don't like is that he's not making at least one other player work for his upgrades. Players getting free loot during downtime goes against the spirit of the game, and devalues the risks and investments everyone else has to put in to gear up.

Gamebird
2007-03-27, 01:26 PM
So in 3E, wizards have no limit to how many spells they can learn?

Nope. At high levels, with maxed out Spellcraft, learning them is fairly automatic as well. A 10th level wizard can try to learn a 5th level spell. With maxed out Spellcraft, +2 synergy from 5 ranks of Knowledge (Arcana) and INT 18, he's got a +19 to the roll and the DC is 20. Since you only auto-fail on a 1 for saves and attack rolls, you automatically succeed on every attempt to learn a spell after 9th level. If you have a Headband of Intellect, or an INT 20 (from starting with an 18 and upping it at 4th and 8th), then it's automatic even earlier.

The main limit is the cost. In 3.0, it cost 200 gp per level of the spell to scribe it into your book. In 3.5 it costs 100 gp per level, which is still rather steep. This assumes you get the spell itself for free, by finding the scroll or capturing an enemy's spell book. You can also buy scrolls in most campaigns, then learn the spell off them.

Part of what's grinding the OP down is that after he spends his time researching a spell and not being able to go on the DT loot-gathering expeditions, he has to spend 100 gp/spell level to put the spell in his book.

JadedDM
2007-03-27, 01:45 PM
Oh, I see. Wow, that's something. In 2E, wizards are limited by their INT scores. A mage with an INT of 10, for instance, can only learn up to 7 spells per level (that is, he can learn 7 first level spells, 7 second level spells, etc., maximum). A mage with an INT of 18 could learn 18 spells per spell level. Only with an INT of 19 or higher could you learn an unlimited number of spells.

But anyway, so the problem is the wizard has to stay and scribe spells all day while his companions run quests for treasure. I'm probably missing some important detail here, but I don't really see why that's such a big deal. Does a mage really need to be THAT versatile to survive? If I'm reading this right, it seems a mage automatically gets a couple of new spells every time they reach a new spell level, right? So it's not so much a lack of power, as it is versatility.

I mean, if you have a spell that does 3d6 damage, do you really need a second spell that also does 3d6 damage (because, presumably, a spell that caused MORE damage would be higher level)? Couldn't you just memorize that first spell multiple times?

Or maybe I'm missing something here.

ravenkith
2007-03-27, 02:16 PM
For the future:

Collegiate Wizard (Complete Arcane). Back of the book, not with the other feats at all.

Changes the 2/level to 4/level.

Never study spells again.

Tyger
2007-03-27, 02:23 PM
Yup, you can indeed memorize the same spells over and over, and you could indeed stick to the base 45 spells (not counting cantrips) that you get from starting and the 2 freebies per level, but that would defeat the entire purpose of playing a wizard as opposed to a sorcerer. In essense, there wouldn't be much, if any, reason to play the wizard class.

And its not about knowing 4 spells that all do 3d6 damage. Its about knowing two spells that do 3d6 damage, but one is fire and one is cold, one spell that immobilizes your enemy for 30 seconds, and one spell that allows your fighter to hit harder, another that lets you fly, one for turning the rogue invisible, one that casts illusions to fool your enemy... all combine to demonstrate the real reason for playing a wizard... versatility.

At the end of the day, the DM and I have acheived a bit of compromise on the spell research. You now get to add your caster level in points (1 point per CL) and the XP cost is now 10 per point rather that the original 100 per point. Overall, this is going to make a big difference at mid-levels, but no so much at high levels. By then though, I should have access to library materials, and maybe a few captured spellbooks.

At the moment, the plan is to stop researching spells at all, unless a) the party is paying me for something (i.e. "Yes, I can make a Bag of Holding for you, but you have to pay me to research the spell too"), or its a no brainer spell, like a level one or two. For now, I'll either craft for the party (at full retail price) or go on DT adventures myself. Using that gold to build up the library and buy a Blessed Book, cutting down even further on spell research costs. Once those are done, I should be 12th level or so, and then money become much less an issue anyway.

For now, I'll just have to get used to the idea that, at present, the party is far better off magically and monetarily than I am. C'est la vie, n'est pas?


For the future:

Collegiate Wizard (Complete Arcane). Back of the book, not with the other feats at all.

Changes the 2/level to 4/level.

Never study spells again.

DM disallowed this one. When I saw it, my eyes got all teary and I began to blubber... until he said "nope." :)

ravenkith
2007-03-27, 02:34 PM
Ok. Walk away from the wizard and go play a cleric of mystra instead, with the initiate of mystra feat.

-OR-

Play a frickin' Psion.

Tyger
2007-03-27, 02:38 PM
:smallredface:

The catch is, I really like this character. Its a bit maddening, but I have come to the conclusion that the DM, while not really being fair in my mind, is not being arbitrarily unfair. While he doesn't see the other party members' advancement in gold and items in excess of mine as a problem, I do. But that's not a game breaker for me. We talked, we worked it out a bit. I can now research low-mid level spells faster and more efficiently when I want to. That's good enough... even if I want to do more research, if he gives us another 6 week downtime, I can do three weeks of research and adventure the other 3 weeks. Should fund my reserach okay. But as stated, for now, if he gives more DT, I am getting paid instead! :)

Electric_Monkey
2007-03-27, 03:10 PM
On a tangentially related note, maybe I'm being a bit dim, but I have trouble seeing how This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html) doesn't put a crimp on the wizard's much-vaunted versatility.

Tyger
2007-03-27, 05:24 PM
That's a whole other kettle of fish, and one that I personally have no problem with.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-03-27, 05:58 PM
On a tangentially related note, maybe I'm being a bit dim, but I have trouble seeing how This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html) doesn't put a crimp on the wizard's much-vaunted versatility.
While that strip demonstrates that its possible for a wizard to not be prepared for a particular situation when it pops up, it doesnt do much to argue against the versatility of wizards.

Versatility does not guarentee that the wizard WILL be prepared for every eventuality, but rather that a wizard CAN be prepared for every eventuality. If in the strip you'd posted V had chosen to prepare different spells, or had been able to retreat and return 8 hours later with a different spell selection s/he would have been able to effectively counter the druid. Compare this with a sorcerer, if the necessary sonic spell weren't in his spells known it would take at least until he gained a level for him to gain a proper spell, far longer than the 8 hours it would take V.

Aquillion
2007-03-27, 09:36 PM
On a tangentially related note, maybe I'm being a bit dim, but I have trouble seeing how This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html) doesn't put a crimp on the wizard's much-vaunted versatility.That's a story, not an actual game, but in any case...

If you look at it as a game and not as a story, V isn't a very smart wizard at all. Banning conjurations is just bizarre. Trying to solo all of that with damage spells, without even trying any terrain effects, though? Stupid. Even if V had memorized nothing but sonic spells, so what? The trees would do damage faster. Whereas, say, Solid Fog or Wall of Force could've kept them away or restricted their movement... Hmm, no solid fog without Conjuration. Well, anyway. A dimension door to get out of their immediate reach (onto a rooftop, say) would've been even smarter. Oh, wait, no conjurations. Well, a wall of stone... er, a Phantom Steed to escape on... um, Web... Maybe Stinking Cloud... Black Tentacles? Acid Fog?

...who the boop bans conjuration and keeps invocation? Geez!

Well, there are lots of other spells V could've cast. Fly. Confusion. Fear. Disintegrate on the enemy druid, if a damage spell was absolutely necessary. Anything but a stupid damage spell which wouldn't have helped anyway, really.

The point is that V is set up as a character in a story, and the whole situation there was set up to for the joke. V has conjuration banned, in all likelyhood, because the author realized it was overpowered and didn't want to have to constantly deal with V teleporting people everywhere or making every challenge a cakewalk with, well, just about any spell in the conjuration school. An actual wizard of about V's level can have not just one, but almost all of the spells I listed above memorized at any given time... and most of them aren't specific to any one sort of encounter. While you could theoretically propose situations where dimension door / teleport wouldn't help, or where solid fog isn't the right spell for the job, it'd be tough to make everything like that useless... a lot harder than a piddling damage spell that, I have to point out, probably wouldn't have taken out even one of those trees anyway.

The point is, V seemed less than versatile then because the joke required a less than versatile spell selection--in the actual game, having twelve different types of damage memorized isn't "versatile", it's "stupid".

Gamebird
2007-03-28, 08:57 AM
The point is that V is set up as a character in a story, and the whole situation there was set up to for the joke.

Yeah, I had a little trouble with how V got to cast two spells and shout loudly while the trees and druid just stood there. It worked for the joke, but wasn't realistic. (And yeah, I'm willing to argue about the need for realism in a comic strip about stick figures.)

Dervag
2007-03-28, 09:38 AM
...who the boop bans conjuration and keeps invocation? Geez!Someone who really likes blowing things up. Someone who associates blowing things up with wizardly power.

There are valid reasons of character why a wizard would ban conjuration as their school, even if doing so greatly weakens their build.