Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bromleylaerchenheim 04-08-05, 11:19 AM	<a desperate DM in search for help> In my new group the artificer and the wizard teamed up! The artificer scribes a scroll from which the wizard then learns the spell and copies it into his spellbook. Using this, the wizard will get a 100% complete spellbook in about no time. The only limitation is the craft reserve of the artificer... Is this due to the rules?
darkthought 04-08-05, 11:24 AM	<a desperate DM in search for help> In my new group the artificer and the wizard teamed up! The artificer scribes a scroll from which the wizard then learns the spell and copies it into his spellbook. Using this, the wizard will get a 100% complete spellbook in about no time. The only limitation is the craft reserve of the artificer... Is this due to the rules? Download the Errata. Scrolls made by an artificer are neither arcane nor divine. Only artificers or people with a UMD can use them. So your wizard is SOL. Personally, even without the errata, I'd stomp my foot down hard on the two players who'd try to do this. Rules lawyering does not go over well in my games.
fizzbang 04-08-05, 11:26 AM	<a desperate DM in search for help> In my new group the artificer and the wizard teamed up! The artificer scribes a scroll from which the wizard then learns the spell and copies it into his spellbook. Using this, the wizard will get a 100% complete spellbook in about no time. The only limitation is the craft reserve of the artificer... Is this due to the rules? Check the Errata: They stated that Artificer scrolls are neither Arcane nor Divine specifically to avoid this sort of abuse. Now you have a distinct rule you can point to and put the kibosh on that sort of thing.
shilsen 04-08-05, 12:25 PM	The previous posters have dealt with your problem, but I have a question - is there any reason you dislike your wizard having a large number of spells in his spellbook? That's one of the primary abilities of the wizard and he's paying 100 gp per spell level to scribe the spells, so he's hardly getting it for free.
Wolfwood2 04-08-05, 01:31 PM	The previous posters have dealt with your problem, but I have a question - is there any reason you dislike your wizard having a large number of spells in his spellbook? That's one of the primary abilities of the wizard and he's paying 100 gp per spell level to scribe the spells, so he's hardly getting it for free. I agree. What's the big deal? Every artifacer-produced scroll they use up this way is one they can't actually use when they need it. The wizard is getting a slight price break, but he still has to pay scribing costs and presumably the artifacer makes him pay the materials cost to produce. This sort of teamwork is to be encouraged, not discouraged, IMO.
Annaylli 04-08-05, 02:19 PM	Nerfing or restricting Wizards and spell aquisition is pretty common. Usually it disallows easy spell aquisition is by house ruling the end of this passage in the Spell book section of the rules: Spells Copied from Another’s Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). ... The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment. ... In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level x 50 gp. IMC gaining new spells is a simple matter of membership in a Wizards' Guild (with dues) and then access to the guild library: two days per spell (one to decipher, one to scribe). This is also why Spellbooks are usually valued at 50gp/scribed page (1 page/spell level >>> each page brings in 50gp when borrowed).
(Psi)SeveredHead 04-08-05, 02:52 PM	I don't see any need to severely restrict a wizard's spellbook. It's not like he can prepare every spell he has in the book everyday, and the DM is well within his rights to ban broken spells, overpowered spells or spells that just make him uncomfortable. The rules give him a few free spells, and let's him convert scrolls for cheap. That's just the way I like it. Much better than in 2e, where you might never learn fireball due to bad dice rolls.
KMFDM 04-08-05, 03:16 PM	Also this is kinda confusing when magecrafts/artificers make scrolls to sell in their shops. So they only cater to other magecrafts/artificers even though they too can make them... :confused: I for one don't really care either way...
Zedium 04-08-05, 05:41 PM	Well, Keith had this nice houserule that I am rather fond of: Artificers can only scribe artificer rolls, and can only be used by artificers or characters using UMD. But spellcasters that have the same spell on their spell-list can also use it without trouble. This allows your spellslingers to gain benefits from the artificer, without the abuse. Another thing to keep in mind is that Magecrafts cast as arcane casters.
Sarlax 04-10-05, 04:38 AM	What would you do if the party had two wizards who traded copied from the other's spellbook? Charge them with powergaming or rules lawyering or just plain cheating?
Zedium 04-10-05, 05:45 AM	It is different for 2 wizards than an artificer and a wizard. An artificer can create ANY spell he wants, thus a wizard would gain EVERY spell known. Two wizards of course gain more spells together, but it is just a limited ammount of them.
bromleylaerchenheim 04-10-05, 01:19 PM	ok ok - shame on my DMing skills :surrender I understand, artificer scrolls are neither arcane nor devine, hence a wizard can not scribe them. And making a wizards life easier to fill up his spellbook is not a bad thing. But I disagree with darkthought, that the DM should stomp on players who do good teaming even if their idea is powergaming or overruling. The "artificer sponsoring wizard" idea is not so bad (despite the ruling) and is as valid a team solution as powering up a partymember with magical weapons and spells to fullfill a difficult task.
Vharuck 04-10-05, 03:11 PM	The reason that people don't like thier wizard PCs to have complete spellbooks is because this makes the wizard EXTREMELY POWERFUL. Wizards were balanced with spending most of their wealth on their spell book. I made a 5th level wizard for an NPC once and wanted her to be a counterspelling mage hunter. I spent almost half her wealth on her spellbook, and didn't even come close to including all the spells I wanted. That's what's supposed to limit the wizard. Their strength is versatility, but too much pushes them over the edge of brokeness.
DarkWarriorKarg 04-10-05, 03:38 PM	The reason that people don't like thier wizard PCs to have complete spellbooks is because this makes the wizard EXTREMELY POWERFUL. Wizards were balanced with spending most of their wealth on their spell book. I made a 5th level wizard for an NPC once and wanted her to be a counterspelling mage hunter. I spent almost half her wealth on her spellbook, and didn't even come close to including all the spells I wanted. That's what's supposed to limit the wizard. Their strength is versatility, but too much pushes them over the edge of brokeness. No, what limits the wizard is spells per day. Who cares if the wizard had 50 spells in the spellbook? Only a certain few can be cast per day. Are clerics "broken" because they have access to all those spells in the cleric list?
Teron Gorefiend 04-10-05, 04:28 PM	Clerics are broken. However, their spell list is much smaller than the sor/wiz list, so you certainly can't say that a wizard with every spell is balanced, based on the cleric. However, I don't think it was unbalanced for the artificer to make wizard-compatible scrolls. If he wasn't spending his gold and virtual XP making those scrolls for the wizard, he'd use them to make other stuff to help the party. What's the difference?