The specialist wizard

[Troile]

No she can't...have you seen the sorcerer's spell list? it is horrible...

If picking from one of 2 or 3 spells is great...

The specialist only gets 1 less spell half of the time...the other half of the time the specialist has at least 2 more spells of the higher level...all the scrolls, potions and an insanely larger amount of spells available.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

No she can't...have you seen the sorcerer's spell list? it is horrible...

Actually, it is identical to the wizard's

Buying magical items? Never let that happen in my games, they are found, borrowed, rented or made. Magic items are the stuff of legends IMC.

Take the Conflagration of Telmer (a item from one of my games), it is a longsword that inflcts an addition 1d3 points of flame/heat damage on a successful attack. It belongs to a family descended from a adventurer who acquired it from a death knight many centuries before. The party needed it for a time, so they asked to borrow it. To insure its return, the familt sent a body of men to accompany the larty to see that it was returned.

That is how the part gain items in my game, it not only proves more interesting that buying them, it offers some brilliant opportunities for roleplaying

[Ivana_Boritsi]

LOL.

No, of course, the sorcerer has only a few spells to pick from. At 6th level, a sorcerer can only choose from between 4 different spells. But the point is, if I choose the right 4 spells, that's all I'll need.

Because there are certain spells that are always useful. Especially when I can cast them spontaeneously. A wizard usually carries 1 mage armor. Maybe two. But a sorcerer can outfit the whole party with mage armor if she needs to. If she doesn't need to, the sorcerer can be loaded up with magic missiles. Or charm person. Or sleep. Whichever spell that I need lots of, I got it.

That's the real power of the sorcerer. Calling up the right spell at the right time. Spontaneity. The wizard is really powerful with careful planning.

Back to the conversation about specialist wizards - specialization seems to be powerful to me when someone takes that specialization and tricks it out all the way. As above in my enchanter example (Tim!). The disadvantage is, of course, when you run into something that your speciallization doesn't cover. For example, when your enchanter runs into constructs, etc.

[Troile]

basically the sorcerer is a crappy fighter if it is needed...all the sorcerer can do is crap...

the wizard has actual spells that are situational...

I'm going to end this argument now b/c no one is actually making real game balance arguments...its lame.

And thats all out of me.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

Spells I choose early on for my arcane spellcasters are:

1st Level
Grease
Mage Armour
Shield
True Strike
Magic Missile
Shicking Grasp
Enlarge Person
Reduce Person

2nd Level
Alter Self
Glitterdust
Invisibility
Mirror Image

Let's face it, all very useful spells, all even more useful when used more than once.

Also, has anyone else ever cast Mirror Image on the enemy and then used a spell like alter self to take on that enemy's form? Spells like that are really useful

[alhoon]

No, no, no. Potions and scrolls don't negate the need for spell slots. After all, scrolls or potions take an entire day to make.

Scrolls Don't take a whole day to scribe! The rules specify that potions need a day to be brewed, but say nothing on scrolls!

That means that a wizard with 500 gold pieces and 40 XP could make 40 Scrolls of mage armor in a single day.
Now tell me that the +1 spell per level seems as much an advantage.

I agree that:
- 1 extra spell is a boon.
- Killing a wizard for his spellbook is an evil act.
- There are restrictions in materials.

But: As many people has said, going out of your way to kill a peaceful wizard just to take his spellbook is absolutely evil.
Even killing the evil wizard tyrant of the village just to loot his spellbook under the guise that "I protect the people! " is evil.
But if your party kills the evil wizard tyrant after they were motivated by the cries of a mother that saw her babies stolen to become callibans under the wizard's rule and then finding his spellbook. Isn't evil.

As for materials: I agree with you there (generally). A village with a gp limit of 200 gp and total treasure of 8000 gp isn't the place where you can make that disintigrate scroll. But they have enought resources to provide you with enough materials for 40 mage armor scrolls.
IMC I rule that the costier material of the spell creation costs the item's cost/2. That means that the community should be able to provide items with 1/4 the market price of the item.
For example to be able to create a scroll costing 1000 gp the community should have a gold piece limit of 250 gp or more.

What I mean is that barring two schools for just 1 extra spell isn't worth the loss IMO

[alhoon]

Spells I choose early on for my arcane spellcasters are:
. . .
Shicking Grasp

Sicking Grasp heh? Isn't that a necromancy spell?

What about a spell called "Socko Grasp" ? Wouldn't that be an incredibly useful spell for members of the fraternity?

PS. I hope you're not offended that I make fun of your misspell Wiccy.

[Jason of the Fraternity]

Scrolls don't take a whole day to scribe! The rules specify that potions need a day to be brewed, but say nothing on scrolls! That means that a wizard with 500 gold pieces and 40 XP could make 40 Scrolls of mage armor in a single day.

The 3.0 Player's Handbook states that scribing a scroll takes one (1) day for each 1,000 gp in its base price.

[alhoon]

The 3.0 Player's Handbook states that scribing a scroll takes one (1) day for each 1,000 gp in its base price.

And the 3.5 PHB states that too. So a 1st lvl scroll, with a market price of 25 gp, would take 1/40 of a day.
So in a day you could scribe 40 such scrolls, spending 500 gp in special ink, parchment etc.

[Jason of the Fraternity]

So a 1st lvl scroll, with a market price of 25 gp, would take 1/40 of a day. So in a day you could scribe 40 such scrolls, spending 500 gp in special ink, parchment etc.

Yes, a first-level spellcaster could scribe a 1st-level spell in 1/40 of a day. However, a spellcaster wouldn't be likely to actually scribe 40 such scrolls, since it doesn't seem reasonable that they would spend an entire day doing nothing but scribing scrolls. I would think that the ("normal") spellcaster would take the time to stop for food, water, and sleep at the minimum. I suppose that it comes down to a DM's interpretation of what a makes up a "day" (i.e. 8 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, etc.).

Despite the interpretation, I agree with your earlier point, alhoon. No matter how many scrolls the wizard creates that day, as long as he makes two or more, then it compensates or exceeds gaining one extra spell slot per day.

[alhoon]

PS. About the 40 spells. I also rule that "enough is enough". 5 or 6 scrolls in a day is reasonable, but come on now, how much "dried blood of a turtle, mixed with the rust of a plate armor" can be found in a town of 1200 people?

[Stygian Inquirer]

alhoon, you keep mentioning "that a wizard with 500 gold pieces and 40 XP could make 40 Scrolls of mage armor in a single day." But why not make a Wand of Mage Armour which has 50 uses and costs 325gp and 30XP?

[alhoon]

You're right.
Ahem, I just didn't thought about it. Also the wand is much more practical than the scroll. Although it can be stolen more easily.
In fact, when I create NPC wizards, I give them wands of mage armor, not a whole bookcase of scrolls.

[Wiccy of the Fraternity]

Sicking Grasp heh? Isn't that a necromancy spell?

What about a spell called "Socko Grasp" ? Wouldn't that be an incredibly useful spell for members of the fraternity?

PS. I hope you're not offended that I make fun of your misspell Wiccy.

Not at all mate, lol.

And ummm... we don't like touching Socko unless absolutely... positively.... necessary. The thing is alwaus covered in some goo, so the last thing we need to to cast Socko Grasp lol.

[tec-goblin]

Killing a wizard to get to his spellbook is evil.

Well, then, like Ivana said, so is killing an ogre because he has a +1 sword that your fighter wants.

So is having your thief stab another thief in the back to get his Boots of Elvenkind.

And so is killing a bunch of kobolds so you can get to their treasure.

All D&D games have a certain amount of violence (that's kinda the point of combat), so is the act of killing any sentient creature evil (within the context of the D&D game)? Regardless of the alignment of the creature itself, and how much evil it may have done (and will continue to do) in its life?

Or is it the motivation that's important? Is it okay to kill an enemy wizard who's killing townspeople and making the entire village into mindless zombie slaves because what HE's doing is wrong (and his uber-powerful spellbook is just a nice little present to yourself after you're done)?

I think Ravenloft 3.5 is pretty clear on it:
Looting the dead almost always awards a powers check (see RLDMG). Killing someone if you haven't exhausted all other options often awards a powers check (See RLPHB rules for the fighter).
So killing an enemy wizard for his spellbook is definetely evil, but even taking the spellbook from an already dead enemy wizard is a bit evil and can corrupt you.