Memorizing the same spell twice (for mages) - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Memorizing the same spell twice (for mages)

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Mulhull
Jul 29, 2009 6:22:47 Have you ever had the rule of no memorizing the same spell twice for mages. My DM said it used to be in earlier editions of D&D, was it?

His rationale was that if mages could memorize the same spell as many times as they had slots for it, they would always memorize the same spells (magic missle, burning hands, etc) but if it's always been this way I wonder why the change.
#2
illithid_tentacles_02
Jul 29, 2009 12:33:48
Have you ever had the rule of no memorizing the same spell twice for mages. My DM said it used to be in earlier editions of D&D, was it?

There has never been a rule like that in 2e or 3e, and I would be surprised if it was in 1e.
#3
keytap
Jul 29, 2009 13:42:45
His rationale was that if mages could memorize the same spell as many times as they had slots for it, they would always memorize the same spells (magic missle, burning hands, etc) but if it's always been this way I wonder why the change.

Your DM is wrong, and is very bad at playing a wizard if he thinks preparing all magic missiles and burning hands would be effective.
#4
Mulhull
Jul 31, 2009 4:53:30
There has never been a rule like that in 2e or 3e, and I would be surprised if it was in 1e.

He said it was in "an earlier edition" and when we played 2E products (this was 92-93) were still being produced.
#5
keytap
Jul 31, 2009 9:51:54 Well, no. I'm 99.9% sure that there has never been such a rule. Hell, in most cases, at some point in a wizard's career, he is going to have more spell slots for a spell level than he has spells known. Such is the case of the "dead" spell levels where there is simply nothing good to take.
#6
alondrix
Aug 01, 2009 7:14:09
Well, no. I'm 99.9% sure that there has never been such a rule.

No - not true.

1e, 2e, and 3e allowed you to pick whatever spell you wanted. For example, if you had two level 1 spell slots, you cold fill it however you wanted to. So, you could end up with two burning hands or two magic missiles. The ruling for wizards was that your spellbook only contained a number of spells and you had to choose what you memorized. You had to find or buy new spells in order to add them to your spellbook and then to be able to prepare them.

For clerics (priests), same rule, except that you could prepare spells from any in the spell list. The difference is that clerics do not carry spell books, but instead pray/meditate for their spells.
#7
keytap
Aug 01, 2009 7:55:43
No - not true.

1e, 2e, and 3e allowed you to pick whatever spell you wanted. For example, if you had two level 1 spell slots, you cold fill it however you wanted to. So, you could end up with two burning hands or two magic missiles. The ruling for wizards was that your spellbook only contained a number of spells and you had to choose what you memorized. You had to find or buy new spells in order to add them to your spellbook and then to be able to prepare them.

That's exactly what I said. I said I was 99.9% sure there was never a rule that you couldn't prepare the same spell twice. What part of my post said otherwise?

Don't take me for a 4e player. Just saying.
#8
dougirwin13
Aug 01, 2009 16:26:01
Have you ever had the rule of no memorizing the same spell twice for mages. My DM said it used to be in earlier editions of D&D, was it?

His rationale was that if mages could memorize the same spell as many times as they had slots for it, they would always memorize the same spells (magic missle, burning hands, etc) but if it's always been this way I wonder why the change.

Well I played & DMed all flavours of D&D from 1982 up to 4e. That's both AD&D and normal/basic D&D. Never had that in either. In fact in "basic" we habitually just upped our number of MMs each level until we hit fireball :D
#9
alondrix
Aug 01, 2009 18:23:23
That's exactly what I said. I said I was 99.9% sure there was never a rule that you couldn't prepare the same spell twice. What part of my post said otherwise?

Sorry, misread your post - my bad.

My statements on the ruling still stand.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Mulhull Jul 29, 2009 6:22:47	Have you ever had the rule of no memorizing the same spell twice for mages. My DM said it used to be in earlier editions of D&D, was it? His rationale was that if mages could memorize the same spell as many times as they had slots for it, they would always memorize the same spells (magic missle, burning hands, etc) but if it's always been this way I wonder why the change.
#2 illithid_tentacles_02 Jul 29, 2009 12:33:48	Have you ever had the rule of no memorizing the same spell twice for mages. My DM said it used to be in earlier editions of D&D, was it? There has never been a rule like that in 2e or 3e, and I would be surprised if it was in 1e.
#3 keytap Jul 29, 2009 13:42:45	His rationale was that if mages could memorize the same spell as many times as they had slots for it, they would always memorize the same spells (magic missle, burning hands, etc) but if it's always been this way I wonder why the change. Your DM is wrong, and is very bad at playing a wizard if he thinks preparing all magic missiles and burning hands would be effective.
#4 Mulhull Jul 31, 2009 4:53:30	There has never been a rule like that in 2e or 3e, and I would be surprised if it was in 1e. He said it was in "an earlier edition" and when we played 2E products (this was 92-93) were still being produced.
#5 keytap Jul 31, 2009 9:51:54	Well, no. I'm 99.9% sure that there has never been such a rule. Hell, in most cases, at some point in a wizard's career, he is going to have more spell slots for a spell level than he has spells known. Such is the case of the "dead" spell levels where there is simply nothing good to take.
#6 alondrix Aug 01, 2009 7:14:09	Well, no. I'm 99.9% sure that there has never been such a rule. No - not true. 1e, 2e, and 3e allowed you to pick whatever spell you wanted. For example, if you had two level 1 spell slots, you cold fill it however you wanted to. So, you could end up with two burning hands or two magic missiles. The ruling for wizards was that your spellbook only contained a number of spells and you had to choose what you memorized. You had to find or buy new spells in order to add them to your spellbook and then to be able to prepare them. For clerics (priests), same rule, except that you could prepare spells from any in the spell list. The difference is that clerics do not carry spell books, but instead pray/meditate for their spells.
#7 keytap Aug 01, 2009 7:55:43	No - not true. 1e, 2e, and 3e allowed you to pick whatever spell you wanted. For example, if you had two level 1 spell slots, you cold fill it however you wanted to. So, you could end up with two burning hands or two magic missiles. The ruling for wizards was that your spellbook only contained a number of spells and you had to choose what you memorized. You had to find or buy new spells in order to add them to your spellbook and then to be able to prepare them. That's exactly what I said. I said I was 99.9% sure there was never a rule that you couldn't prepare the same spell twice. What part of my post said otherwise? Don't take me for a 4e player. Just saying.
#8 dougirwin13 Aug 01, 2009 16:26:01	Have you ever had the rule of no memorizing the same spell twice for mages. My DM said it used to be in earlier editions of D&D, was it? His rationale was that if mages could memorize the same spell as many times as they had slots for it, they would always memorize the same spells (magic missle, burning hands, etc) but if it's always been this way I wonder why the change. Well I played & DMed all flavours of D&D from 1982 up to 4e. That's both AD&D and normal/basic D&D. Never had that in either. In fact in "basic" we habitually just upped our number of MMs each level until we hit fireball :D
#9 alondrix Aug 01, 2009 18:23:23	That's exactly what I said. I said I was 99.9% sure there was never a rule that you couldn't prepare the same spell twice. What part of my post said otherwise? Sorry, misread your post - my bad. My statements on the ruling still stand.