Wizards- Spells known and balance

[MarvisSahad]

Hey all.

As any veteran GM should know, wizards can know any number of spells at any level but can only prepare so much at a time. However, what remains a challenge (for me at least) is determining how challenging the spell acquisition process ought to be. For example, would it unbalance the game if the lone wizard of the group discovered a small library of spell books, even though he is a mere level 3? Surely a wizard should have a minimum of spells known, but should I ever worry about a maximum?

I really want to help this player progress and not feel meager whenever he's preparing for a situation. Yet at the same time I don't want to go overboard with his spell acquisition, if that's even possible given the inherent limitations of a wizard.

Any thoughts?

[Runestar]

From personal experience, I find that the wizard's ability to theoretically learn every spell in the game to be overrated, because he only has so many slots, and more often than not, he simply fills them with the same few favoured spells.

So yeah, go ahead and let him learn as many spells as he wants. It is a money sink, and I am pretty sure 60+% of them will go untouched.

Though if he has some means of spontaneously casting any spell he knows, this may slow down the game as he mules over his entire library, so you may want him to decide on a few spells beforehand.

[dextercorvia]

Actually this doesn't cost him any money at all if he finds a library. There are rules for attuning a spellbook you didn't scribe. It basically just takes Spellcraft, and IIRC somewhere around level 3-5 you should be able to hit that target number, until then, it is a lower number to prepare spells from a 'borrowed' spellbook.

Edit: The attuning rules are in Complete Arcane. DC is 25 +highest spell level in the book, and takes 2 weeks. DC for preparing a borrowed spell is 15 + spell level, which should be unfailable for any spell he is able to cast, from level 1.

[Kosjsjach]

[...] DC for preparing a borrowed spell is 15 + spell level, which should be unfailable for any spell he is able to cast, from level 1.

Um. A 1st-level wizard, assuming no racial Int bonus, is going to have (4 ranks + 4 int) bonus to Spellcraft; that's a +8 bonus, meaning he'll roll minimum 9. He fares slightly better at 2nd level with the synergy bonus from Knowledge [arcana] (now at +11), so he'll only need to roll higher than 4, but it's still not "unfailable". (You could build on a +2 Int race, or take the Magical Aptitude feat, but you still wouldn't make it.)

Sorry. Nitpick, I know, but I dislike incorrect absolute assertions.

EDIT: This is not to say there isn't a build (or builds) that indeed can hit a DC 16 Spellcraft check at level 1; just that it's hardly a given.

[PId6]

You can Take 10 when under no particular rush.

[Kosjsjach]

You can Take 10 when under no particular rush.

Huh. You may very well have a point, and I'm in error. Where, again, are the rules for Taking 10 and to which skills they apply?

EDIT: Never mind, found 'em in the SRD:

When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help.

So yep, sounds like Taking 10 is totally viable with Spellcraft. I was wrong, and I feel stupid.

[dextercorvia]

You can Take 10 when under no particular rush.

Which is a requirement for preparing spells.

@PId6: You have a way of so calmly explaining things I thought were patently obvious to folks who find my statements obtuse. I appreciate that.

Edit: Here is the taking 10 link

[Fizban]

The SRD says that other wizards usually charge 50gp per spell level to let you copy one of their spells. So whenever they're in town the wizard should be able to buy new spells at the rate of 150gp per spell level. If you give him spellbooks, I'd value them at the full price minus that of any spells he already knows, since having a gp value means extra spells above those from level ups are effectively gear that should come out of your WBL.

[dextercorvia]

The SRD says that other wizards usually charge 50gp per spell level to let you copy one of their spells. So whenever they're in town the wizard should be able to buy new spells at the rate of 150gp per spell level. If you give him spellbooks, I'd value them at the full price minus that of any spells he already knows, since having a gp value means extra spells above those from level ups are effectively gear that should come out of your WBL.

Spellbooks have a stated value in the PHB of 50 gp/spell level. And a wizard's party members should be happy to count that as part of his share.

[Coidzor]

it is not how many spells he knows, but particular spells and spell combos that are unbalanced.

Summon Mirror Mephit is ok, until you realize what you can do with that 2nd level spell.Also,Celerity*Timestop....etc.

[JonestheSpy]

The SRD says that other wizards usually charge 50gp per spell level to let you copy one of their spells.

I gotta say, that has always seemed wayyyy cheap to me. If you were a wizard, would you really be likely to let a potential rival copy one of your 9th level spells for a measley 450 gp?

In the actual books by Jack Vance that inspired the DnD system, wizards guarded their hoard of spells jealously. Even in the magic-is-ubiquitous world of your standard campaign, does it make the slightest bit of sense for the knowledge on the level of Shapechange or Time Stop to cost less than a suit of half-plate?

[MarvisSahad]

it is not how many spells he knows, but particular spells and spell combos that are unbalanced.

Very true, which is exactly at the heart of my concern. Since there is a great variety of spells (not just in the d20 srd) in so many handbooks its safe to say that such combos will be more readily available if I just let this wizard easily expand his spellbook/spellbooks. I could always limit the spells to a particular handbook of course, but then it'd be limiting the flavor of the campaign in the end.

I've thought long and hard about this, and have decided that all things being equal a wizard with a cart packed full of spellbooks of his own will mop the floor of a wizard with only a modest repertoire for purposes of adventuring. Even on a 1-on-1 dual I'd place my bet on the former. A greater variety of choices never hurt anybody after all, and with enough knowledge a wizard could even outmatch his own party if given the time and opportunity of course to prepare all the right combos (which reminds me, did I mention this wizard was evil?).

The question is what is a reasonable amount of spell-knowledge a wizard should have at any particular level?

[MarvisSahad]

In the actual books by Jack Vance that inspired the DnD system, wizards guarded their hoard of spells jealously. Even in the magic-is-ubiquitous world of your standard campaign, does it make the slightest bit of sense for the knowledge on the level of Shapechange or Time Stop to cost less than a suit of half-plate?

I really do like this idea to be honest, especially since the party I'm dealing with is made up of evil characters. Another incentive to steal ladies and gentlemen.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I gotta say, that has always seemed wayyyy cheap to me. If you were a wizard, would you really be likely to let a potential rival copy one of your 9th level spells for a measley 450 gp?

In the actual books by Jack Vance that inspired the DnD system, wizards guarded their hoard of spells jealously. Even in the magic-is-ubiquitous world of your standard campaign, does it make the slightest bit of sense for the knowledge on the level of Shapechange or Time Stop to cost less than a suit of half-plate?

Thing is, DND drew inspiration from all over the place, becoming something entirely different. Sure, the way people prepare spells is vaguely similar to the works of Mr. Vance, but we're more than 3 editions from that.

Similarly, Calculus could be said to be based around other mathematical concepts, but I'll be damned if it doesn't look like something completely different than geometry at times.