Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RistaronTheRanger 03-15-08, 03:39 AM	I'm certain I've seen variants somewhere regarding this, but I am unable to find the official rules regarding a wizard casting spells straight out of their spellbook. In lieu of real rules, I have been using the house rules that it takes one minute per spell level to cast, unlimited times per day, and cannot be done under pressure (such as during a battle). I initially really liked the ability to cast from a spellbook because it makes wizards a more useful class. Certainly a wizard's vast repertoire makes it useful for utility spells, but when confronted with the tribulations of an adventure that requires an unprepared spell, a wizard who can't cast from their spellbook (which is entirely reasonable) is useless. In this case, sorcerors are infinitely better than wizards as a whole because in spite of their limited repertoire they have all the variability and adaptability necessary for a successful adventuring career. Even if wizards get the ability to cast magic missile infinitely as 4th edition has in mind, I still would not take them over a sorceror for the sheer utility often necessary of an adventuror. Please, please cite sources. I have looked through all the books I have over and over again and unless I get the specific book and page number I fear I won't find any use from your answers. >_> Thanks, Ristaron
Merestil Haye 03-15-08, 06:07 AM	I'm certain I've seen variants somewhere regarding this, but I am unable to find the official rules regarding a wizard casting spells straight out of their spellbook. In lieu of real rules, I have been using the house rules that it takes one minute per spell level to cast, unlimited times per day, and cannot be done under pressure (such as during a battle). I initially really liked the ability to cast from a spellbook because it makes wizards a more useful class. Certainly a wizard's vast repertoire makes it useful for utility spells, but when confronted with the tribulations of an adventure that requires an unprepared spell, a wizard who can't cast from their spellbook (which is entirely reasonable) is useless. In this case, sorcerors are infinitely better than wizards as a whole because in spite of their limited repertoire they have all the variability and adaptability necessary for a successful adventuring career. Even if wizards get the ability to cast magic missile infinitely as 4th edition has in mind, I still would not take them over a sorceror for the sheer utility often necessary of an adventuror. Please, please cite sources. I have looked through all the books I have over and over again and unless I get the specific book and page number I fear I won't find any use from your answers. >_> Thanks, RistaronYou cannot find them because they do not exist. There are no rules to allow a wizard to cast a spell directly from a spellbook. There used to be such rule in 2nd Edition, but even then there was a rather significant limitation - namely that casting a spell in that way removed it from the spellbook so you could not do it again. The only rule that approaches what you want is the rule about preparing a spell from another wizard's spellbook. Since that involves preparation, which is what you dislike about the wizard, it doesn't help you - and in any case doing so requires the spell be one you know. I'm curious. What happens when your adventure requires the casting of a spell your sorcerer does not know? And why is whatever method you propose to overcome this handicap not also available to the wizard - who is probably smarter than the average sorcerer?
runestar 03-15-08, 06:24 AM	Such a rule would be problematic for high lv spells. It takes lv*150gp to copy a spell over, but a scroll of a spell of the same lv costs lv*(lv*2-1)*25gp. No one would ever bother with scrolls if that was the case. Why buy a scroll of timestop for 3000+gp when I can copy 1 for just 1350gp? Lets not mention the problems spells with expensive material components would cause, such as wish....
JulesCARV 03-15-08, 06:37 AM	The rule is that you may leave spell slots unprepared, and later prepare spells from your spellbook in them at any time of the day with 15 minutes of study.
RistaronTheRanger 03-15-08, 03:32 PM	Hm, well, thanks everyone. @ Merestil: whenever I play as a wizard, I find that the challenges the party faces require spells my wizard have not prepared, but that he knows. Usually our characters are around 5th-10th level with our campaigns before they either get destroyed, either by the DM killing everyone or by someone killing the party (it happens surprisingly often, hence why lately we've been switching up DMs or allowing more powerful characters). Around these levels wizards get access to a number of highly useful utility spells that can be the difference between wasting hours trying to surmount an obstacle or simply circumventing it via magic. An example is that in our last dungeon, the DM had coated EVERYTHING in ice and we needed to make balance checks CONSTANTLY. This was a three person campaign, and two of the others had fly speeds. To circumvent my wizard having to make balance checks (DC he-falls-on-his-ass) every X-increment, I simply had him cast Fly out of his spellbook. Since the spell only lasts 5 minutes, he kept having to renew it. It was at this point that we (the party and DM) figured we should probably figure out what official rules there were concerning this, as a wizard casting unlimited times per day from his spellbook seems a little extreme (unless we're playing 4th edition, infinite magic missile go!). Of course, shortly after I posted this (which was during the gaming session because I had my laptop with me) my wizard died. Again, testament to our DM's truly impressive talent to kill people, the white dragon critical-and-max-damaged my 5th level wizard, AFTER he had been blasted by the dragon's breath weapon. In fairness, it was the only logical thing for the dragon to do at that time. Yes, there was a summoned monster attacking it and a neanderthal ranger banging on its hide, but my wizard had hit it with fire. White dragons don't like fire, hence why he charged across the room to rape the caster. And nobody expected the critical hit. (And the DM doesn't change the roll if things go bad.) Anyways, thank you again for your responses everyone.
risner 03-15-08, 05:56 PM	wizard casting unlimited times per day from his spellbook seems a little extreme (unless we're playing 4th edition, infinite magic missile go!). There never has been any way in 1E, 2E, or 3E/3.5E to do what you did. In 2E, you could cast out of your book as a scroll (it removes the spell from your spellbook.) In short, what you were allowed to do was severely unbalanced in a 3.5E world.
RistaronTheRanger 03-15-08, 06:05 PM	Hm, well I thought it was relatively balanced. You can't do it in combat, but otherwise it's highly useful and makes the wizard more valuable as a utility-class. Again, I felt it evened out the field between wizards and sorcerors, who don't need to prepare spells and are therefore more versatile in an adventuring setting. Although, wizards can still swap out prepared spells and prepare other ones if they need to... though it takes a while (i.e. again, you can't do it in combat). Even if wizards get magic missile infinitely, I still don't see myself using them without this variant... they're just too limited compared to sorcerors.
JulesCARV 03-15-08, 07:39 PM	If you regard sorcerers as so much better, why not just play a sorcerer?
X0_Lt_0X 03-15-08, 08:13 PM	Hm, well I thought it was relatively balanced. You can't do it in combat, but otherwise it's highly useful and makes the wizard more valuable as a utility-class. Again, I felt it evened out the field between wizards and sorcerors, who don't need to prepare spells and are therefore more versatile in an adventuring setting. Although, wizards can still swap out prepared spells and prepare other ones if they need to... though it takes a while (i.e. again, you can't do it in combat). Even if wizards get magic missile infinitely, I still don't see myself using them without this variant... they're just too limited compared to sorcerors. If I remember correctly, the Wizard is the best utility class. No? Sorcerers are not so much. Anyways if you dont find the Wizard to be versatile (LOL), then start carring around Scrolls
Operation_Shoestring 03-15-08, 08:15 PM	If you regard sorcerers as so much better, why not just play a sorcerer? +1. If having to choose your spells ahead of time is too limiting for you, play a spontaneous caster.
risner 03-15-08, 11:05 PM	Hm, well I thought it was relatively balanced. It isn't balanced, it isn't even remotely close to balanced. It is obscenely broken. At least that is my opinion, and I suspect a large number of others here would agree.
RistaronTheRanger 03-17-08, 01:37 PM	If you regard sorcerers as so much better, why not just play a sorcerer? Because I've played sorcerors a lot in the past. I haven't played a wizard since my very first character years and years ago. And that was in a campaign with, like, 8 other people, so nothing ever got done anyways. >_> And the wizard had purchased many scrolls, they had simply been transcribed into the spellbook because we thought wizards could cast from it.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-17-08, 01:49 PM	It isn't balanced, it isn't even remotely close to balanced. It is obscenely broken. At least that is my opinion, and I suspect a large number of others here would agree. Agreed. Wizards are already stupidly powerful, and while they don't quite have the on-the-fly versatility sorcerers have in rushed situations, ability to leave slots open and fill them in from their potentially huge spell list with 15 minutes' work more than makes up for it in the utility department. This is like pumping ten gallons of steroids into a velociraptor. A magic velociraptor. Yeah, I haven't slept much lately.
Fireclave 03-17-08, 02:05 PM	If you want your wizard to have more on-the-fly versatility, grab/craft a Runestaff (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20070216a).
Pyre_Born 03-17-08, 05:56 PM	If you want a caster that casts straight from his spellbook, check out RPGObjects' Legends of Sorcery, some great alternative mechanics. Basically, you make a skill check to successfully cast straight from your book! Peace, Pyre
Tukka 03-17-08, 07:18 PM	Another option would be to take a prestige class like Mage of the Arcane Order (Complete Arcane). I have to agree that allowing casting from the spellbook would be completely broken. There would never be any reason to waste spell slots on long duration spells like mage armor if you played with the kind of rule described in the OP, but the cost in terms of wizard resources (spell slots) of casting such spells were most definitely taken into consideration in the design of the wizard class. The only way you might be able to balance it would be to associate some sort of significant cost with it -- say, if the process of preparing a spell in that manner required a material component of ruby dust equal in value to the price of a scroll of the same spell level of the one that's being prepared, with some other additional cost, perhaps in terms of time, or maybe a penalty to saves or some other important attribute, to represent the mental fatigue the process involves.
RistaronTheRanger 03-20-08, 10:13 PM	Well, I don't quite see the difference between using scrolls and being able to cast from your spellbook. Sure, scrolls are 1-time use, but your spellbook costs a fair portion of your adventuring money to keep updated and everything. In lieu of their being no official rules, I created house rules for my campaign. Casting From Your Spellbook Wizards, and any spellcasting class that relies on a spellbook, can use their spellbook to cast spells without preparing them and without using up a spell slot. They can only do this once per day per rank of knowledge (arcana) if they are an arcane spellcaster that uses a spellbook, or knowledge (religion) if they are a divine spellcaster that uses a spellbook. Casting time is one minute per spell level (to a minimum of 1 minute). To successfully cast the spell, the caster must succeed a spellcraft check (DC 10 + spell level). To apply a metamagic feat to the spell, simply treat the spell as the modified spell level would be if it were prepared under the effect of the metamagic feat (for example, a maximized fireball would be a 6th level spell; it would take 6 minutes to cast and the caster would have to make a DC 16 spellcraft check). Casting in this fashion requires close concentration, and therefore cannot be done while being threatened. Distractions such as a fight taking place on the other side of a thick door, or being trapped on a sinking ship require a successful concentration check (DC by DM's discretion). In my opinion, this makes wizards more adventure-capable. They can rival the firepower of a sorceror without severely compromising their utility. After all, there aren't that many campaigns that allow you to perfectly plan your prepared spells. Yes, I realize that you can leave spell slots open to prepare later, but, again, there aren't that many campaigns that give you a random 15 minutes to finish preparing spells when you've exhausted all your offensive ones. It's simply not practical.
Operation_Shoestring 03-21-08, 03:11 AM	Well, I don't quite see the difference between using scrolls and being able to cast from your spellbook. Sure, scrolls are 1-time use, but your spellbook costs a fair portion of your adventuring money to keep updated and everything. In lieu of their being no official rules, I created house rules for my campaign. Casting From Your Spellbook Wizards, and any spellcasting class that relies on a spellbook, can use their spellbook to cast spells without preparing them and without using up a spell slot. They can only do this once per day per rank of knowledge (arcana) if they are an arcane spellcaster that uses a spellbook, or knowledge (religion) if they are a divine spellcaster that uses a spellbook. Casting time is one minute per spell level (to a minimum of 1 minute). To successfully cast the spell, the caster must succeed a spellcraft check (DC 10 + spell level). To apply a metamagic feat to the spell, simply treat the spell as the modified spell level would be if it were prepared under the effect of the metamagic feat (for example, a maximized fireball would be a 6th level spell; it would take 6 minutes to cast and the caster would have to make a DC 16 spellcraft check). Casting in this fashion requires close concentration, and therefore cannot be done while being threatened. Distractions such as a fight taking place on the other side of a thick door, or being trapped on a sinking ship require a successful concentration check (DC by DM's discretion). In my opinion, this makes wizards more adventure-capable. They can rival the firepower of a sorceror without severely compromising their utility. After all, there aren't that many campaigns that allow you to perfectly plan your prepared spells. Yes, I realize that you can leave spell slots open to prepare later, but, again, there aren't that many campaigns that give you a random 15 minutes to finish preparing spells when you've exhausted all your offensive ones. It's simply not practical. Okay, who thinks this is horribly broken? If you allow a wizard to emergency cast out of hist spell book, it should be FAR more limited than "ranks in Knowledge (arcana)/day" and should cost him a spell he has already prepared of at least one level higher or rip the spell he casts permanently out of his spellbook like in AD&D
Merestil Haye 03-21-08, 06:28 AM	After all, there aren't that many campaigns that allow you to perfectly plan your prepared spells.I'm sorry, but this statement shows how flawed your approach is. You are arguing that a wizard isn't adventure-capable because he has to prepare his spells each day, while holding up the sorcerer as adventure-capable because he doesn't have to do so. Wizards and Sorcerers have another spellcasting choice to make; what spells they know. If the sorcerer chooses the wrong spell, he's screwed not for one encounter, but for a dozen or more. Yes he has more spell slots, but he knows far fewer spells. If he cannot cast the relevant spell, he cannot come back the next day (let alone in in 15 minutes) properly equipped to defeat the encounter. Indeed, it's quite possible the sorcerer has to defeat the encounter in order to get the tools needed to defeat the encounter. If a wizard doesn't know the necessary spell, he can go away and learn it. It may take some time and acquiring a bit of gold, but he can do that without defeating the encounter. Wizards, as written and without being able to cast from their spellbooks, are far more adventure-capable because they are more flexible than sorcerers. Sorcerers do one thing well; wizards also do one thing well but can change what they do. Really, you are evaluating wizards wrongly if you think they need this.
risner 03-21-08, 10:07 AM	Okay, who thinks this is horribly broken? If you allow a wizard to emergency cast out of hist spell book, it should be FAR more limited than "ranks in Knowledge (arcana)/day" and should cost him a spell he has already prepared of at least one level higher or rip the spell he casts permanently out of his spellbook like in AD&D It is retardedly broken. The lowest way someone could argue this isn't astonishingly broken is to allow it to be casted then remove it permanently from his spellbook. Even this way is broken, since you could have two spell books and get a free scroll of wish for 100 gp plus copying costs from one of your books to another. So as soon as you have 9th level spells you can have +5 inherent INT by making 6 spellbooks, copy wish from 1 to the other 5, cast all 5 from the extra spellbooks (keep the original one.)
bluedsteel 03-21-08, 05:42 PM	They can rival the firepower of a sorceror without severely compromising their utility. And that right there is why this is horribly, cheesily broken beyond anything that should ever be considered. As if wizards aren't broken enough, you've successfully eliminated one of the major limitations... their limited firepower. There are ways around that limitation, and ways to reduce it... use them. A houserule that gives wizards the spellpower of sorcerers while retaining and actually increasing their utility is going to be broken, no matter what. Plus... almost all campaigns give you 15 minutes to prepare a spell if necessary. You just decide hey, I'm going to take 15 minutes at the entrance to the cave/edge of the gorge/base of the wall/whatever the hell you're facing to prepare a spell for darkvision/fly/spider climb/whatever the hell you need. Campaigns might make you feel rushed... but that doesn't mean you actually are. In short... Get better at playing within the rules and you won't have to go around them.
Kerelis 03-28-08, 12:42 AM	Of course...wzds do have Scribe Scroll just for this kind of thing. What wizard worth his salt wouldn't have a scroll of the primary utility spells like fly, teleport, etc., handy? Casting out of spellbooks is rather broken...I can testify to it from 2nd edition. Under 2nd edition I did it all the time. Since there were no rules restricting the number of spellbooks a wizard could have at one time I just made sure to have several copies handy all the time. I had one large grimoire with all my spells in it and about 3 travelling spellbooks with all the spells i thought most useful for any situation. If I used one or more out of the travelling spellbooks I just recopied during down time from my grimoire, which had numerous protections and a bound guardian ;) .
MrWildman 03-28-08, 09:03 AM	Of course...wzds do have Scribe Scroll just for this kind of thing. What wizard worth his salt wouldn't have a scroll of the primary utility spells like fly, teleport, etc., handy? Casting out of spellbooks is rather broken...I can testify to it from 2nd edition. Under 2nd edition I did it all the time. Since there were no rules restricting the number of spellbooks a wizard could have at one time I just made sure to have several copies handy all the time. I had one large grimoire with all my spells in it and about 3 travelling spellbooks with all the spells i thought most useful for any situation. If I used one or more out of the travelling spellbooks I just recopied during down time from my grimoire, which had numerous protections and a bound guardian . My thoughts exactly. (Get out of my head) :) 1st edition specifically mentioned "Traveling Spellbooks" and also that casting directly from a spellbook eliminates the spell. I recall we played it as "destroys the spell" and whooped it up about the color of fire that consumed the pages. Ahh, youth. Wizards always carried a smaller traveling spellbook or two, and had a library with several specialized books, along with the main (as Kerelis said) Grimoire I love that word. Peace.
Kerelis 03-28-08, 07:11 PM	Grimoire I love that word. Peace. I love that word, too. Everytime I play a wizard I always have a GRIMOIRE with all sorts of modifications--such as pages made out of sheets of metal, the whole thing enchanted with a levitate spell, etc., etc. It is the other reason that I always feel like something is missing when I play spontaneous casters...no spellbook. I guess i'm just a bibliophile. ;) Hmm, I wonder if you could get a spellbook that is a sentient animate object...sort of like an alternate familiar? Just a random thought.
MrWildman 03-28-08, 07:50 PM	Everytime I play a wizard I always have a GRIMOIRE with all sorts of modifications--such as pages made out of sheets of metal, the whole thing enchanted with a levitate spell, etc., etc. . . Hmm, I wonder if you could get a spellbook that is a sentient animate object...sort of like an alternate familiar? I like the way your head works, Kerelis. :D That was half the fun of being a wizard -the spellbooks! I remember back then there was a possibility that you could never learn spells if you failed a die roll by a big enough margin. (Woe to the wizard who finds Fireball impossible.) Defeating an enemy wizard meant ransacking his library, grabbing every book in sight, anything that could be written on. Captured spellbooks (Ahh, memories...) could hold a copy of that one spell that's eluded your researches or exceeded your magical talent, or they could be full of basic spells you already know and thus easily sacrificed during the adventure. Oh, the excitement that an unclaimed spellbook could cause! And I always thought that the expense of all those books and scrolls harmonized well with the stereotypical wizards who are either shabby and unwashed (because they spend all their gold on paper, inks, etc.) or dressed in the finest garments to be found (because they're successful enough to afford anything now and want to show off). After a while we started naming spellbooks. Scholarly names like: "Book Of Big Boom-Boom" or "On The Qualities Of The Lifeless Husk" or "When Things Must Be Done My Way!". Things like that, often made up on the fly, sometimes just the first thing someone called out. That really added to our games; I think I'm gonna explore this a bit with my current group...:plotting: Peace.
Michaelk 03-29-08, 10:15 AM	My own personal house rule is that it takes 15 mins + 5 min per spell level (flat 15 for cantrips).
Grovel_hits_it_yes 03-29-08, 11:51 AM	It isn't balanced, it isn't even remotely close to balanced. It is obscenely broken. At least that is my opinion, and I suspect a large number of others here would agree. Agreed. And to the original poster: I'm sure you don't need another person telling you that it shouldn't be done your way. What I see really happening is that your DM is not very talented(killing you constantly) and this is your way to make up for it. I could be wrong...
RistaronTheRanger 03-31-08, 06:10 PM	@ Person with Wish comment *sigh* The spellbook doesn't remove the XP cost of spells. And even if your 17th level wizard got enough bonus spells to do 5 consecutive Wish spells, he couldn't accomplish it anyways. That would require burning 25,000 XP! You can't do that until at least 26th level because otherwise you'd be de-leveling which does break the rules. As in, they state that you can't. They never say anything against the wizard casting from the spellbook. @ Wizard > Sorceror comment *facepalm* What happens when the wizard who used his teleport spell already gets into a situation that would require him to drop another 5th level spell to get another teleport? He ****ing can't, he'd die before he finished swapping them out. The sorceror, if he ever comes across a problem he can't either a. surmount with magic b. blast through (because sorcerors do get enough spells to do both), he has spontaneous casting and can teleport away so that he CAN return with a scroll. The versatility of not having to pick what spells you prepare ahead of time allows you to instantly get around the dragon's spell resistance by dropping a boulder on its head or summoning something capable of fighting it for you. Wizards are like bards. They have their uses. And when they are presented with the rare occasion where all of their preparations count for something they are absolutely amazing. I simply find that I can achieve that all the time with sorcerors, because they are more dynamic in a round-to-round basis. Yes, a wizard can make the most epic stronghold in the world with magic, but when he's prepared fire spells and gets sent to the plane of fire, WHAT THEN *****? The sorceror has fireball and cone of cold and he can choose on-the-spot which to use! Also, I'm pretty sure that, among playable races, more have bonuses to charisma than intelligence. Maybe you all play vastly different campaigns than the ones my friends and I do, but in my experience a sorceror is far more valuable than a wizard in 90% of given scenarios. I like those odds.
Merestil Haye 03-31-08, 06:34 PM	@ Person with Wish comment *sigh* The spellbook doesn't remove the XP cost of spells. And even if your 17th level wizard got enough bonus spells to do 5 consecutive Wish spells, he couldn't accomplish it anyways. That would require burning 25,000 XP! You can't do that until at least 26th level because otherwise you'd be de-leveling which does break the rules. As in, they state that you can't. They never say anything against the wizard casting from the spellbook. The rules also say that a character does not have to level up straight away, but can instead opt to stay at the lower level and spend the xp on spells with xp costs and/or crafting items. Thus it can be done at 17th level. ETA : The FAQ says this :Can a wizard cast a spell directly from his spellbook? If so what effects on the spellbook are there? No, you cannot use a spellbook like a scroll. A spellbook contains notes for preparing a spell, but it’s not a precast spell just waiting to be activated as a scroll is.Thus, officially, a spellbook is not a scroll and you cannot cast from it. You might also want to ask why spells such as Spell Engine and feats such as Alacritous Cogitation were created if all the wizard has to do to get a huge reservoir of spare spells is to invest 25,000gp for two Boccob's Blessed Books; one as his main grimoire and one as the book he casts from. Since one of the properties of the Book is that it absorbs the cost of scribing the spells for you, you have an effectively limitless spell selection.
bluedsteel 03-31-08, 08:33 PM	@ Wizard > Sorceror comment *facepalm* What happens when the wizard who used his teleport spell already gets into a situation that would require him to drop another 5th level spell to get another teleport? He ****ing can't, he'd die before he finished swapping them out. The sorceror, if he ever comes across a problem he can't either a. surmount with magic b. blast through (because sorcerors do get enough spells to do both), he has spontaneous casting and can teleport away so that he CAN return with a scroll. The versatility of not having to pick what spells you prepare ahead of time allows you to instantly get around the dragon's spell resistance by dropping a boulder on its head or summoning something capable of fighting it for you. Wizards are like bards. They have their uses. And when they are presented with the rare occasion where all of their preparations count for something they are absolutely amazing. I simply find that I can achieve that all the time with sorcerors, because they are more dynamic in a round-to-round basis. Yes, a wizard can make the most epic stronghold in the world with magic, but when he's prepared fire spells and gets sent to the plane of fire, WHAT THEN *****? The sorceror has fireball and cone of cold and he can choose on-the-spot which to use! Also, I'm pretty sure that, among playable races, more have bonuses to charisma than intelligence. Maybe you all play vastly different campaigns than the ones my friends and I do, but in my experience a sorceror is far more valuable than a wizard in 90% of given scenarios. I like those odds. Apparently you don't play the same game most of the rest of us do. We are still talking about D&D, right? Where the sorceror only learns a few spells, meaning limited versatility at best? Where intelligent players running wizards don't DO stupid things like teleport into a situation blind, knowing they could be in a bad spot, without have a second teleport prepared? Or, better yet, a backup plane shift? Where the choice between fireball and cone of cold is really easy... sculpted glitterdust? What kind of dumbass wizard prepares fire spells when he knows he's getting sent to the Plane of Fire? What kind of super-dumbass wizard doesn't prep a plane shift? Or cast Augury, so he knows to prep cold spells? Yes, your sorceror can usually come up with something to do. But it usually is something ineffective and only mildly contributory. A wizard, properly played, probably can't cast a spell every round. But he doesn't need to, because the spell he cast in the first round ensured victory. Oh, and btw... comparing a really poorly built and stupidly run wizard to a good sorceror won't prove anything, one way or the other.