Wren, you as a DM can run your game how you want, however, when I, the player, join the table and discover it I would simply move to another table or start my own. when you as a player want to run your wizard nerfed by only getting two spells per level and not taking the scrolls and such provided then trying to overplay your spells to make up for it you won’t get too much satisfaction and the party will mostly ignore you. You can play but you probably won’t have much fun and will move on.
for everyone else that has been asking about how many new/novel spells a wizard should be finding each level Cybermind’s table gives us an estimate - somewhere between 4 and 12 each level depending on how overwhelmed with decision making and how much time you put in between adventures for them to copy the scroll/spell into their spellbook (destroying the scroll in the process I believe) and then to make at least 1 new copy to bring along. You should also be setting your treasure hauls by this possibly so the mage has the funds to actually do all this copying and scribing.
Wren, you as a DM can run your game how you want, however, when I, the player, join the table and discover it I would simply move to another table or start my own.
And you are more than welcome to do so there should be diversity across tables I think that is a huge boon toD&D
trying to overplay your spells to make up for it
there is nothing to support your claim that I'm overplaying any spells
Wren, you as a DM can run your game how you want, however, when I, the player, join the table and discover it I would simply move to another table or start my own.
And you are more than welcome to do so there should be diversity across tables I think that is a huge boon toD&D
trying to overplay your spells to make up for it
there is nothing to support your claim that I'm overplaying any spells
Great, I'm glad that's all finished with. edit: spoke too soon.
I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure. Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.
The reason I'm for this is that there really aren't a lot of great spells in each level for the Wizard and there are a lot of shared spells across classes. It is difficult to keep each Wizard feeling distinct if you've got multiple casters in the party. They'll tend to gravitate towards the same spells and bump into other classes who are also casting those spells.
In this regard, I miss the days of 2e which had TONS of spells.
It's also worth remembering that a wizard can "lose" their (potentially flammable, fluid absorbent) spellbook.
Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.
In this case, a wizard, after acquiring a spellbook, spending the time and using the ink, will then be limited to "a number of wizard spells ... equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level".
I'd like to see some rules for the effects of spellbooks getting damaged.
You could still leave a wizard player with the fun of adding spells to their spellbook and you (sorry, I meant to say "gaming consequence") could also have the fun of destroying the hard work. It could make for good drama and strong memories.
I genuinely think that this kind of setup could really add to the game by very dramatically increasing the potential stakes. There'd be less artificial restriction of wizard progression and less artificial protection of work accomplished so far.
I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure. Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.
The reason I'm for this is that there really aren't a lot of great spells in each level for the Wizard and there are a lot of shared spells across classes. It is difficult to keep each Wizard feeling distinct if you've got multiple casters in the party. They'll tend to gravitate towards the same spells and bump into other classes who are also casting those spells.
In this regard, I miss the days of 2e which had TONS of spells.
It's also worth remembering that a wizard can "lose" their (potentially flammable, fluid absorbent) spellbook.
Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.
In this case, a wizard, after acquiring a spellbook, spending the time and using the ink, will then be limited to "a number of wizard spells ... equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level".
I'd like to see some rules for the effects of spellbooks getting damaged.
You could still leave a wizard player with the fun of adding spells to their spellbook and you (sorry, I meant to say "gaming consequence") could also have the fun of destroying the hard work. It could make for good drama and strong memories.
I genuinely think that this kind of setup could really add to the game by very dramatically increasing the potential stakes. There'd be less artificial restriction of wizard progression and less artificial protection of work accomplished so far.
Personally,, as long as a wizard is taking reasonable precautions to ensure that his spellbook stays safe or that he has backups for his spells I try not to damage his spellbook.
Pretty much for the same reason that I don't have the PC's fight a rust monster or slip a goldbug into their gold coin stash
I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure. Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.
The reason I'm for this is that there really aren't a lot of great spells in each level for the Wizard and there are a lot of shared spells across classes. It is difficult to keep each Wizard feeling distinct if you've got multiple casters in the party. They'll tend to gravitate towards the same spells and bump into other classes who are also casting those spells.
In this regard, I miss the days of 2e which had TONS of spells.
It's also worth remembering that a wizard can "lose" their (potentially flammable, fluid absorbent) spellbook.
Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.
In this case, a wizard, after acquiring a spellbook, spending the time and using the ink, will then be limited to "a number of wizard spells ... equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level".
I'd like to see some rules for the effects of spellbooks getting damaged.
You could still leave a wizard player with the fun of adding spells to their spellbook and you (sorry, I meant to say "gaming consequence") could also have the fun of destroying the hard work. It could make for good drama and strong memories.
I genuinely think that this kind of setup could really add to the game by very dramatically increasing the potential stakes. There'd be less artificial restriction of wizard progression and less artificial protection of work accomplished so far.
Personally,, as long as a wizard is taking reasonable precautions to ensure that his spellbook stays safe or that he has backups for his spells I try not to damage his spellbook.
Pretty much for the same reason that I don't have the PC's fight a rust monster or slip a goldbug into their gold coin stash
Fair enough. I'm just saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried.
I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure. Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.
The reason I'm for this is that there really aren't a lot of great spells in each level for the Wizard and there are a lot of shared spells across classes. It is difficult to keep each Wizard feeling distinct if you've got multiple casters in the party. They'll tend to gravitate towards the same spells and bump into other classes who are also casting those spells.
In this regard, I miss the days of 2e which had TONS of spells.
It's also worth remembering that a wizard can "lose" their (potentially flammable, fluid absorbent) spellbook.
Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.
In this case, a wizard, after acquiring a spellbook, spending the time and using the ink, will then be limited to "a number of wizard spells ... equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level".
I'd like to see some rules for the effects of spellbooks getting damaged.
You could still leave a wizard player with the fun of adding spells to their spellbook and you (sorry, I meant to say "gaming consequence") could also have the fun of destroying the hard work. It could make for good drama and strong memories.
I genuinely think that this kind of setup could really add to the game by very dramatically increasing the potential stakes. There'd be less artificial restriction of wizard progression and less artificial protection of work accomplished so far.
Personally,, as long as a wizard is taking reasonable precautions to ensure that his spellbook stays safe or that he has backups for his spells I try not to damage his spellbook.
Pretty much for the same reason that I don't have the PC's fight a rust monster or slip a goldbug into their gold coin stash
Fair enough. I'm just saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried.
it sounds like you're saying that to keep things balanced nothing should be restricted.
I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure. Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.
The reason I'm for this is that there really aren't a lot of great spells in each level for the Wizard and there are a lot of shared spells across classes. It is difficult to keep each Wizard feeling distinct if you've got multiple casters in the party. They'll tend to gravitate towards the same spells and bump into other classes who are also casting those spells.
In this regard, I miss the days of 2e which had TONS of spells.
It's also worth remembering that a wizard can "lose" their (potentially flammable, fluid absorbent) spellbook.
Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.
In this case, a wizard, after acquiring a spellbook, spending the time and using the ink, will then be limited to "a number of wizard spells ... equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level".
I'd like to see some rules for the effects of spellbooks getting damaged.
You could still leave a wizard player with the fun of adding spells to their spellbook and you (sorry, I meant to say "gaming consequence") could also have the fun of destroying the hard work. It could make for good drama and strong memories.
I genuinely think that this kind of setup could really add to the game by very dramatically increasing the potential stakes. There'd be less artificial restriction of wizard progression and less artificial protection of work accomplished so far.
Personally,, as long as a wizard is taking reasonable precautions to ensure that his spellbook stays safe or that he has backups for his spells I try not to damage his spellbook.
Pretty much for the same reason that I don't have the PC's fight a rust monster or slip a goldbug into their gold coin stash
Fair enough. I'm just saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried.
it sounds like you're saying that to keep things balanced nothing should be restricted.
I'm ... saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing ... may need to be restricted (with potential consequences being top of a list of things to remain). I'm not sure about any restrictions that should be added though, for sure, something might come up.
I'm ... saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing ... may need to be restricted (with potential consequences being top of a list of things to remain).
Sorry, this is still not parsing for me. Are you asserting that it may be possible to keep Wizards balanced without restricting them
THe benefit of only getting 2 spells/level and no scrolls is that you don’t have to spend all that money scribing spells into your spellbook 😁, you do still have to spend money and time scribing scrolls but if your like a lot of tables I’ve seen you just jump from one adventure to the next with no down time, no scribing and of course no spending so you have hoards of cash stored up that your not spending.
I'm ... saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing ... may need to be restricted (with potential consequences being top of a list of things to remain).
Sorry, this is still not parsing for me. Are you asserting that it may be possible to keep Wizards balanced without restricting them
I was thinking 'yes', but that was before better considering your question. On route, I got as far as to write "At least to my working definition of "balanced" in relation to gaming with wizards, yes."
But that's not true of the wider definition of the term.
It may balance a RAW potential for spell option acquisition with either a RAW potential for spell option loss or a potential cost (both potentially in gp value and in rp choices) for attempts to mitigate the potential of such loss. That's all.
It may, on average, work towards balancing a wizard's gain or loss of spell options. This might help keep wizards balanced. Dependent on perspectives taken on the level at which wizards are unbalanced, perhaps this would make it "possible to keep Wizards 'balanced'", perhaps not.
5e is a game where some subclasses, like some of those of rangers, are comparatively weak while some classes and various of their subclasses, like those of wizards, are comparatively strong. I think we both agree on that. Then we add in the issue of ranges of spell options in relation to the powerful spells of wizards.
A starter spellbook can RAW evolve in-game to contain spells numbering 6 + 2 per additional level after level 1, If a wizard "loses" their spellbook (an arguably odd choice of words) or if it is destroyed or if this valuable item is stolen, then the wizard is reduced to spells that were then prepared, int modifier + level, basically less. If a wizard can use the wizard Copying a Spell into the Book feature
Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
then the wizard can gain a lot more, and that's before the wizard invents any of their own spells on top.
Whether any of this would or could make wizards balanced is debatable.
The balance it gives is to facilitate a potential loss of spell options to act as the other side of a coin from the wizard's RAW potential to gain spell options. In-game it may all depend on the way the coin flips and on actions a player may take to rig the odds.
In RAW "reasonable precautions" can include that "many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place". Ye gods. They wrote "spellbooks" plural. Reasonable precautions might include not sleeping on the street etc. while wearing your wizard robes and sticking a bit more closely to your more durable party colleagues. Perhaps you have that alarm spell for a reason.
Personally, my motivation for keeping this realism in the game wouldn't necessarily be to balance things with wizards generally but to retain a further element of risk for characters, especially as they attain high character levels.
an option to keep a gaming balance [for the potential gain or loss of spell options] for wizards might be that nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried.
I have a lot of questions on your post. _Please_ don't take them as personal criticisms. I know, personally, how hard it is to learn another language. I've been struggling to learn Russian for a little while now.
It may balance a RAW potential for spell option acquisition with either a RAW potential for spell option loss or a potential cost (both potentially in gp value and in rp choices) for attempts to mitigate the potential of such loss.
"It may balance a RAW potential"Inpraxis,how do you balance a _potential?_
"spell option acquisition" do you mean,"spell acquisition option"?
"spell option loss" do you mean,"spell loss option"?
"a potential cost (both potentially in gp value and in rp choices) for attempts to mitigate the potential of such loss." I think you are trying to allude to the cost ofmitigating your risk of spellbook loss. Is that correct?
an option to keep a gaming balance [for the potential gain or loss of spell options] for wizards might be that nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried.
Is "an option to keep a gaming balance" the same " one way to keep a game balanced"?
"nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried." what?
In summary
I think what you're saying is that in the event the wizard becomes too powerful relative to the other party members, there's always the option to destroy his spellbook, just as there's the option to have the knight fight a rust monster or to slip a goldbug into the Rogues' coin purse.
In theory Iagree with you in practice, I found that taking something away from a party member is a very quick way to damage the fun. It is better to have never had than to have had and lost
I have a lot of questions on your post. _Please_ don't take them as personal criticisms. I know, personally, how hard it is to learn another language. I've been struggling to learn Russian for a little while now.
I really think you would personally benefit from a bit of self-reflection as to why people here seem to get pissed off with you.
I'm not trying to do anything other than to give you option alternatives so that you don't need to cut access to features enabled by RAW.
I have a lot of questions on your post. _Please_ don't take them as personal criticisms. I know, personally, how hard it is to learn another language. I've been struggling to learn Russian for a little while now.
I really think you would personally benefit from a bit of self-reflection as to why people here seem to get pissed off with you.
I'm not trying to do anything other than to give you option alternatives so that you don't need to cut access to features enabled by RAW.
Who is cutting access to features enabled by RAW? When a fighter gets a + 2 flametongue, a wizard gets a spellbook.
I have a lot of questions on your post. _Please_ don't take them as personal criticisms. I know, personally, how hard it is to learn another language. I've been struggling to learn Russian for a little while now.
I really think you would personally benefit from a bit of self-reflection as to why people here seem to get pissed off with you.
I'm not trying to do anything other than to give you option alternatives so that you don't need to cut access to features enabled by RAW.
Who is cutting access to features enabled by RAW? When a fighter gets a + 2 flametongue, a wizard gets a spellbook.
I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure. Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share. ...
Getting a spellbook seems a pretty big jump up in certainty from an opportunity to learn new spells.
It still seems a bit rough to me that the wizard, who may be relied on to identify the various items, doesn't get to get any of them.
You've homebrewed a weapon. A Flame Tongue is already pretty much toward the awesome end of rare magic weapon selections but you've also made it +2 which, on it's own, would classify the weapon as rare.
In Sane Magical Prices, a Flame Tongue is valued at 5000 gp while spell scrolls are valued:
If that's the kind of comparison we're talking about then we've always been on the same, so to speak, page - but leaving me a bit baffled about your " pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure" comment.
If that's the kind of comparison we're talking about then we've always been on the same, so to speak, page - but leaving me a bit baffled about your " pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure" comment.
I'm going to stop responding to you if you continue to insist on taking my statement out of context
as for the flametongue, don'treadtoo much into it, I just picked it pretty randomly.
If that's the kind of comparison we're talking about then we've always been on the same, so to speak, page - but leaving me a bit baffled about your " pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure" comment.
I'm going to stop responding to you if you continue to insist on taking my statement out of context
as for the flametongue, don'treadtoo much into it, I just picked it pretty randomly.
I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure. Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.
The reason I'm for this is that there really aren't a lot of great spells in each level for the Wizard and there are a lot of shared spells across classes. It is difficult to keep each Wizard feeling distinct if you've got multiple casters in the party. They'll tend to gravitate towards the same spells and bump into other classes who are also casting those spells.
In this regard, I miss the days of 2e which had TONS of spells.
If you are " increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure" then you are effectively cutting access to the feature:
Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
That's not a criticism. It's just an observation. You do you.
My positive suggestion was to present a rules-based approach pertaining to both spell acquisition and loss.
Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.
Does this text only show up in my account? Is it invisible in your browser?
Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share.
Does this text only show up in my account? Is it invisible in your browser?
No, it's ok. I quoted that within my helpful correspondence.
I'm becoming increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure. Specifically, I'm for a soft restriction on this. Learning new spells should be as rare as finding new magic items and should count as a magic item in the party share. ...
Getting a spellbook seems a pretty big jump up in certainty from an opportunity to learn new spells.
It still seems a bit rough to me that the wizard, who may be relied on to identify the various items, doesn't get to get any of them.
You've homebrewed a weapon. A Flame Tongue is already pretty much toward the awesome end of rare magic weapon selections but you've also made it +2 which, on it's own, would classify the weapon as rare.
In Sane Magical Prices, a Flame Tongue is valued at 5000 gp while spell scrolls are valued:
If that's the kind of comparison we're talking about then we've always been on the same, so to speak, page - but leaving me a bit baffled about your " pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure" comment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wren, you as a DM can run your game how you want, however, when I, the player, join the table and discover it I would simply move to another table or start my own.
when you as a player want to run your wizard nerfed by only getting two spells per level and not taking the scrolls and such provided then trying to overplay your spells to make up for it you won’t get too much satisfaction and the party will mostly ignore you. You can play but you probably won’t have much fun and will move on.
for everyone else that has been asking about how many new/novel spells a wizard should be finding each level Cybermind’s table gives us an estimate - somewhere between 4 and 12 each level depending on how overwhelmed with decision making and how much time you put in between adventures for them to copy the scroll/spell into their spellbook (destroying the scroll in the process I believe) and then to make at least 1 new copy to bring along. You should also be setting your treasure hauls by this possibly so the mage has the funds to actually do all this copying and scribing.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
And you are more than welcome to do so there should be diversity across tables I think that is a huge boon toD&D
there is nothing to support your claim that I'm overplaying any spells
Great, I'm glad that's all finished with.
edit: spoke too soon.
It's also worth remembering that a wizard can "lose" their (potentially flammable, fluid absorbent) spellbook.
Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place.
In this case, a wizard, after acquiring a spellbook, spending the time and using the ink, will then be limited to "a number of wizard spells ... equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level".
I'd like to see some rules for the effects of spellbooks getting damaged.
You could still leave a wizard player with the fun of adding spells to their spellbook and you (sorry, I meant to say "gaming consequence") could also have the fun of destroying the hard work. It could make for good drama and strong memories.
I genuinely think that this kind of setup could really add to the game by very dramatically increasing the potential stakes. There'd be less artificial restriction of wizard progression and less artificial protection of work accomplished so far.
Personally,, as long as a wizard is taking reasonable precautions to ensure that his spellbook stays safe or that he has backups for his spells I try not to damage his spellbook.
Pretty much for the same reason that I don't have the PC's fight a rust monster or slip a goldbug into their gold coin stash
Fair enough. I'm just saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried.
it sounds like you're saying that to keep things balanced nothing should be restricted.
I'm ... saying an option to keep a gaming balance for wizards might be that nothing ... may need to be restricted (with potential consequences being top of a list of things to remain).
I'm not sure about any restrictions that should be added though, for sure, something might come up.
Sorry, this is still not parsing for me. Are you asserting that it may be possible to keep Wizards balanced without restricting them
THe benefit of only getting 2 spells/level and no scrolls is that you don’t have to spend all that money scribing spells into your spellbook 😁, you do still have to spend money and time scribing scrolls but if your like a lot of tables I’ve seen you just jump from one adventure to the next with no down time, no scribing and of course no spending so you have hoards of cash stored up that your not spending.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I was thinking 'yes', but that was before better considering your question.
On route, I got as far as to write "At least to my working definition of "balanced" in relation to gaming with wizards, yes."
But that's not true of the wider definition of the term.
It may balance a RAW potential for spell option acquisition with either a RAW potential for spell option loss or a potential cost (both potentially in gp value and in rp choices) for attempts to mitigate the potential of such loss. That's all.
It may, on average, work towards balancing a wizard's gain or loss of spell options. This might help keep wizards balanced. Dependent on perspectives taken on the level at which wizards are unbalanced, perhaps this would make it "possible to keep Wizards 'balanced'", perhaps not.
5e is a game where some subclasses, like some of those of rangers, are comparatively weak while some classes and various of their subclasses, like those of wizards, are comparatively strong. I think we both agree on that.
Then we add in the issue of ranges of spell options in relation to the powerful spells of wizards.
A starter spellbook can RAW evolve in-game to contain spells numbering 6 + 2 per additional level after level 1,
If a wizard "loses" their spellbook (an arguably odd choice of words) or if it is destroyed or if this valuable item is stolen, then the wizard is reduced to spells that were then prepared, int modifier + level, basically less.
If a wizard can use the wizard Copying a Spell into the Book feature
Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
then the wizard can gain a lot more, and that's before the wizard invents any of their own spells on top.
Whether any of this would or could make wizards balanced is debatable.
The balance it gives is to facilitate a potential loss of spell options to act as the other side of a coin from the wizard's RAW potential to gain spell options. In-game it may all depend on the way the coin flips and on actions a player may take to rig the odds.
In RAW "reasonable precautions" can include that "many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place". Ye gods. They wrote "spellbooks" plural. Reasonable precautions might include not sleeping on the street etc. while wearing your wizard robes and sticking a bit more closely to your more durable party colleagues. Perhaps you have that alarm spell for a reason.
Personally, my motivation for keeping this realism in the game wouldn't necessarily be to balance things with wizards generally but to retain a further element of risk for characters, especially as they attain high character levels.
an option to keep a gaming balance [for the potential gain or loss of spell options] for wizards might be that nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried.
I have a lot of questions on your post. _Please_ don't take them as personal criticisms. I know, personally, how hard it is to learn another language. I've been struggling to learn Russian for a little while now.
"It may balance a RAW potential"Inpraxis,how do you balance a _potential?_
"spell option acquisition" do you mean,"spell acquisition option"?
"spell option loss" do you mean,"spell loss option"?
"a potential cost (both potentially in gp value and in rp choices) for attempts to mitigate the potential of such loss." I think you are trying to allude to the cost ofmitigating your risk of spellbook loss. Is that correct?
Is "an option to keep a gaming balance" the same " one way to keep a game balanced"?
"nothing (including potentially memorable gaming consequences) may need to be restricted, not that anything need be tried." what?
In summary
I think what you're saying is that in the event the wizard becomes too powerful relative to the other party members, there's always the option to destroy his spellbook, just as there's the option to have the knight fight a rust monster or to slip a goldbug into the Rogues' coin purse.
In theory Iagree with you in practice, I found that taking something away from a party member is a very quick way to damage the fun. It is better to have never had than to have had and lost
I really think you would personally benefit from a bit of self-reflection as to why people here seem to get pissed off with you.
I'm not trying to do anything other than to give you option alternatives so that you don't need to cut access to features enabled by RAW.
Who is cutting access to features enabled by RAW? When a fighter gets a + 2 flametongue, a wizard gets a spellbook.
You previously said:
Getting a spellbook seems a pretty big jump up in certainty from an opportunity to learn new spells.
It still seems a bit rough to me that the wizard, who may be relied on to identify the various items, doesn't get to get any of them.
You've homebrewed a weapon. A Flame Tongue is already pretty much toward the awesome end of rare magic weapon selections but you've also made it +2 which, on it's own, would classify the weapon as rare.
In Sane Magical Prices,
a Flame Tongue is valued at 5000 gp
while spell scrolls are valued:
Spell Scroll Level 1 60gp
Spell Scroll Level 2 120gp
Spell Scroll Level 3 200gp
Spell Scroll Level 4 320gp
Spell Scroll Level 5 640gp
Spell Scroll Level 6 1280gp
Spell Scroll Level 7 2560gp
Spell Scroll Level 8 5120gp
Spell Scroll Level 9 10240gp
If that's the kind of comparison we're talking about then we've always been on the same, so to speak, page - but leaving me a bit baffled about your " pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure" comment.
I'm going to stop responding to you if you continue to insist on taking my statement out of context
as for the flametongue, don'treadtoo much into it, I just picked it pretty randomly.
No goldpiececomparison was intended.
Context?
If you are " increasingly pro-restricting the Wizard to two spells per level and not finding new spells in treasure" then you are effectively cutting access to the feature:
Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
That's not a criticism. It's just an observation. You do you.
My positive suggestion was to present a rules-based approach pertaining to both spell acquisition and loss.
Does this text only show up in my account? Is it invisible in your browser?
No, it's ok. I quoted that within my helpful correspondence.