Spell number limitation

For DCC RPG rules discussion. Includes rules questions and ideas, new rules suggestions, homebrews and hacks, conversions to other systems, and everything else rules-related.

Moderators: DJ LaBoss, finarvyn, michaelcurtis, Harley Stroh

User avatar
dunbruha
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia

Spell number limitation

Post by dunbruha »

What is the reasoning behind the limitation of the number of spells that wizards and clerics can know? As I understand it, clerics can know only 4 spells at 1st level, and wizards can know a maximum of 4 (plus Intelligence mod). This "number of spells known" model is different from the "spell slot" model of D&D. In the spell slot method, casters know more spells, but can only prepare a limited number each day. I am curious as to the thinking that went into the DCC method. What are the advantages of limiting the number of known spells?
TheNobleDrake
Cold-Blooded Diabolist
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:36 am

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by TheNobleDrake »

Advantage number 1: A Judge will have an easier time preparing adventure content that will have opportunity to showcase the spellcaster's abilities, since there is a more limited number and there is no "I can't do that one today." aspect.

Advantage number 2: A player will have an easier time playing their character because they don't have to take any effort to prepare the "best" spells they can for the day, nor do they have to choose which they actually cast so discerningly as to have to weigh an attack spell vs. a utility spell or defense spell because they can only cast 3 times each day and don't want to "waste" something.

Advantage number 3: Limited number of spells in general makes it much easier to remember what the spells at your disposal actually do.

Advantage number 4: Limited numbers of available spells made it easier to "balance" the at-will nature of them.

All of those are, as would be expected, entirely my own opinion.

A special note: My home setting for DCC involves some Final Fantasy based inspirations that remove the Cleric class, change Wizards to Black Mages, add in a White Mage class, and reassign all the spells in the game to be either White (protective, curative, "buffs", and "holy" attacks), Black (destruction, "debuff", and "summon" magics), or Gray (general utility stuff like read magic, sword magic, Lokerimon's orderly assistance and so on that make sense for either type of wizard) - so my opinions may be a bit "odd" considering that I am, if you ask me, all about embracing the idea of Appendix N.
User avatar
Colin
Moderator
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: Devon, England

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by Colin »

I think TND summed up the advantages nicely. It's also worth bearing in mind that DCC wizbangs do not automatically lose the use of spells when they cast them (so having more spells would give them a significant boost in power beyond what they already possess), and that DCC is very much its own rpg (thank goodness) despite its roots in D&D.

Colin
User avatar
dunbruha
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by dunbruha »

Thanks for your thoughts. My opinions follow:
TheNobleDrake wrote:Advantage number 1: A Judge will have an easier time preparing adventure content that will have opportunity to showcase the spellcaster's abilities, since there is a more limited number and there is no "I can't do that one today." aspect.
I guess, although for sandbox-style campaigns, this would probably not matter much.
TheNobleDrake wrote:Advantage number 2: A player will have an easier time playing their character because they don't have to take any effort to prepare the "best" spells they can for the day, nor do they have to choose which they actually cast so discerningly as to have to weigh an attack spell vs. a utility spell or defense spell because they can only cast 3 times each day and don't want to "waste" something.
Possibly an advantage for new players, but not for experienced ones.
TheNobleDrake wrote:Advantage number 3: Limited number of spells in general makes it much easier to remember what the spells at your disposal actually do.
Again, possibly an advantage for new players, but not for experienced ones.
TheNobleDrake wrote:Advantage number 4: Limited numbers of available spells made it easier to "balance" the at-will nature of them.
But the "spell preparation" method also limits the number of available spells. And I think that spell failure really tones down their "at-will" nature.
TheNobleDrake wrote:...considering that I am, if you ask me, all about embracing the idea of Appendix N.
I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but I don't see how "spell preparation" is not Appendix N...
Colin wrote:It's also worth bearing in mind that DCC wizbangs do not automatically lose the use of spells when they cast them (so having more spells would give them a significant boost in power beyond what they already possess)
Again, spell preparation limits the number of spells per day. It definitely does increase the variety of potential spells that could be prepared, though.
Colin wrote:and that DCC is very much its own rpg (thank goodness) despite its roots in D&D.
I love the game, but doing something just to be different is not necessarily a good thing.

In my idea of Appendix N, wizards will always be trying to obtain more spells. Limiting the number that they can have in their grimoire seems counter to this. And I think clerics (although not really Appendix N style) should be able to pray for a variety of spells. In my view, none of the reasons presented are particularly compelling reasons, mechanics-wise, to remove the Appendix N flavor that I like. But I am open to hearing more opinions. This is definitely a fun game!
User avatar
Colin
Moderator
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: Devon, England

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by Colin »

dunbruha wrote:
Colin wrote:It's also worth bearing in mind that DCC wizbangs do not automatically lose the use of spells when they cast them (so having more spells would give them a significant boost in power beyond what they already possess)
Again, spell preparation limits the number of spells per day. It definitely does increase the variety of potential spells that could be prepared, though.
You missed my point. DCC wizards can cast spells more often (no fire-and-forget), and can cast them at potentially greater power too (with a good roll or some spellburn). If you gave them a greater selection of spells as well (increasing their versatility in the process), that could be unbalancing.
dunbruha wrote:
Colin wrote:and that DCC is very much its own rpg (thank goodness) despite its roots in D&D.
I love the game, but doing something just to be different is not necessarily a good thing.
What makes you think that Goodman did it for no reason beyond "being different for the sake of it"? Just because you don't like the reasons personally, and just because you have a different take, does not automatically equate to the other individual making changes for no good reason.

Apart from the single issue of sorcerors in Appendix N chasing more lore/spells (which they can still do in DCC; they can chose to learn spells they've found/stolen instead of just gaining random ones, after all), please explain why the spell slot, lots of spell choice, "fire and forget" model of D&D is so much better for modelling Appendix N.
dunbruha wrote:In my idea of Appendix N, wizards will always be trying to obtain more spells. Limiting the number that they can have in their grimoire seems counter to this. And I think clerics (although not really Appendix N style) should be able to pray for a variety of spells. In my view, none of the reasons presented are particularly compelling reasons, mechanics-wise, to remove the Appendix N flavor that I like. But I am open to hearing more opinions. This is definitely a fun game!
Clerics in DCC can directly pray for intervention/miracles (see Divine Aid) which can take any form, remember.

Colin
bholmes4
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:53 am

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by bholmes4 »

The reality is Vance was just one of many Appendix N authors and let's face it, a lot of players are not fans of this system. One thing this system does well is allow the player/DM to create thematic wizards (ie. illusionist, elementalist, conjurer, etc.) simply by changing their chosen spells (and manifestations). This is something Vancian systems typically struggle with as wizards will collect any spell they can, leaving them all feeling somewhat vanilla.

On the other hand I am a big fan of the Vancian model as I think it works really well in a game. It also gives incentive for wizards to try and hunt down new spells, which is as you point out is very Appendix N and not really something the DCC model represents well.

The simplest idea I think is to use a spell purging system. Perhaps a wizard can purge a known spell from his mind and relearn another from his book. This new spell would be unavailable (treat it as though it's been cast) until all spells refresh after a suitable rest. Thus you can swap them one for one.

The potential problems:
1. There is nothing stopping a player from filling his mind with high level spells. Without playtesting I don't know if that is necessarily as bad as it sounds.
2. It's a good way to get around bad mercurial effects as you can simply purge those spells
3. Wizards become vanilla again.

Or perhaps you just need a new class, perhaps called the magician if you are a fan of the Vancian sytem. The problem is along with the cleric, you now have three slightly different spell mechanics, which may start to get cumbersome and confusing.

Finally if you want a semi-Vancian system you could allow rituals that spell purge but at a cost (a quest is given by a patron, automatic corruption etc.). This way power hungry wizards can constantly seek new magic, further corrupting themselves in the process.
User avatar
GnomeBoy
Tyrant Master (Administrator)
Posts: 4126
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:46 pm
FLGS: Bizarro World
Location: Left Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by GnomeBoy »

For what it's worth, as an experienced player, I still find D&D's magic system frustrating in relation to 'Advantage #2' described above. "Yeah, I actually know a spell that would really help us now -- but I can't cast it today" is a thorn in my paw every time I play a spellcaster. Just as bad: memorizing stuff that it turns out you have no use for... :cry:

Meanwhile, I'd say if you find the book's numbers too limiting, try raising the numbers to see if you reach a point where it no longer seems limiting and does still seem to work. Use the numbers from the next higher level (or two) and see what happens...
...
Gnome Boy • DCC playtester @ DDC 35 Feb '11. • Beta DL 2111, 7AM PT, 8 June 11.
Playing RPGs since '77 • Quasi-occasional member of the Legion of 8th-Level Fighters.

Link: Here Be 100+ DCC Monsters

bygrinstow.com - The Home of Inner Ham
User avatar
dunbruha
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by dunbruha »

Colin wrote:You missed my point. DCC wizards can cast spells more often (no fire-and-forget), and can cast them at potentially greater power too (with a good roll or some spellburn). If you gave them a greater selection of spells as well (increasing their versatility in the process), that could be unbalancing.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood. This is exactly what I am asking about. Did playtesting reveal that having a greater selection of spells was too powerful? What was the design rationale for limiting the number of spells?
User avatar
dunbruha
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by dunbruha »

Colin wrote:
dunbruha wrote:
Colin wrote:and that DCC is very much its own rpg (thank goodness) despite its roots in D&D.
I love the game, but doing something just to be different is not necessarily a good thing.
What makes you think that Goodman did it for no reason beyond "being different for the sake of it"? Just because you don't like the reasons personally, and just because you have a different take, does not automatically equate to the other individual making changes for no good reason.
I don't think that at all. I am presuming that there was a good reason for it, and am trying to learn the evidence for why they chose what they did.
Colin wrote:Apart from the single issue of sorcerors in Appendix N chasing more lore/spells (which they can still do in DCC; they can chose to learn spells they've found/stolen instead of just gaining random ones, after all), please explain why the spell slot, lots of spell choice, "fire and forget" model of D&D is so much better for modelling Appendix N.
As I stated upthread, I think that the model of wizards seeking more spells is fun, and increases the reasons for wizards to adventure. Limiting the number that can be learned tends to discourage this, IMO. In fact, it seems to me like it is a mechanical (i.e., game-based) device to restrict the power of wizards. If so, I am wondering: what is the evidence that resulted in the adoption of this mechanic?

[Edit:] Just to be clear, I love the spell mechanic of DCC, and am not advocating "fire-and-forget" mechanics! I am wondering why the versatility of the wizard is much more limited in DCC than in other games. Yes, there are stories where the wizard only knows a few spells, or is thematically limited to certain types of spells, but there are also lots of stories where they have a spellbook with lots of spells.
Last edited by dunbruha on Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dunbruha
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by dunbruha »

Colin wrote:Clerics in DCC can directly pray for intervention/miracles (see Divine Aid) which can take any form, remember.
True, but at quite a cost (+10 to future disapproval). Only to be done in extreme situations!
User avatar
GnomeBoy
Tyrant Master (Administrator)
Posts: 4126
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:46 pm
FLGS: Bizarro World
Location: Left Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by GnomeBoy »

dunbruha wrote:...I think that the model of wizards seeking more spells is fun, and increases the reasons for wizards to adventure. Limiting the number that can be learned tends to discourage this, IMO....
But the rules cover this -- when you level up, you can learn the spells you've stolen/found, or roll for others. Having the choice might well be worth the searching...

The idea that Wizards are working on figuring out multiple spells at all times, and what they gain when they level up is just what study has come to fruition (either figuring out something for themselves or figuring out somebody else's book of spells) works for me.
...
Gnome Boy • DCC playtester @ DDC 35 Feb '11. • Beta DL 2111, 7AM PT, 8 June 11.
Playing RPGs since '77 • Quasi-occasional member of the Legion of 8th-Level Fighters.

Link: Here Be 100+ DCC Monsters

bygrinstow.com - The Home of Inner Ham
User avatar
Colin
Moderator
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: Devon, England

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by Colin »

GnomeBoy wrote:
dunbruha wrote:...I think that the model of wizards seeking more spells is fun, and increases the reasons for wizards to adventure. Limiting the number that can be learned tends to discourage this, IMO....
But the rules cover this -- when you level up, you can learn the spells you've stolen/found, or roll for others. Having the choice might well be worth the searching...

The idea that Wizards are working on figuring out multiple spells at all times, and what they gain when they level up is just what study has come to fruition (either figuring out something for themselves or figuring out somebody else's book of spells) works for me.
Yep, I said this exact same thing upthread (bolded for emphasis):
Colin wrote:Apart from the single issue of sorcerors in Appendix N chasing more lore/spells (which they can still do in DCC; they can chose to learn spells they've found/stolen instead of just gaining random ones, after all), please explain why the spell slot, lots of spell choice, "fire and forget" model of D&D is so much better for modelling Appendix N.
Colin
User avatar
Colin
Moderator
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: Devon, England

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by Colin »

dunbruha wrote:
Colin wrote:Clerics in DCC can directly pray for intervention/miracles (see Divine Aid) which can take any form, remember.
True, but at quite a cost (+10 to future disapproval). Only to be done in extreme situations!
Absolutely. That's a good thing, imo.

Colin
User avatar
beermotor
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by beermotor »

This is largely academic. If you have a campaign where it becomes an issue, just Quest for a solution.
User avatar
dunbruha
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by dunbruha »

bholmes4 wrote:The reality is Vance was just one of many Appendix N authors and let's face it, a lot of players are not fans of this system. One thing this system does well is allow the player/DM to create thematic wizards (ie. illusionist, elementalist, conjurer, etc.) simply by changing their chosen spells (and manifestations). This is something Vancian systems typically struggle with as wizards will collect any spell they can, leaving them all feeling somewhat vanilla.
This is a good point, but even with a spell-slot system, the player/judge could create thematic wizards.
bholmes4 wrote:The simplest idea I think is to use a spell purging system. Perhaps a wizard can purge a known spell from his mind and relearn another from his book. This new spell would be unavailable (treat it as though it's been cast) until all spells refresh after a suitable rest. Thus you can swap them one for one.
This sounds very much like a spell-slot system to me? How is it different? [Note: my vision of a spell-slot system is that a wizard can prepare a certain number of spells per day, but can have multiple spells in the spellbook to choose from.]
bholmes4 wrote:The potential problems:
1. There is nothing stopping a player from filling his mind with high level spells. Without playtesting I don't know if that is necessarily as bad as it sounds.
If there is a number of slots for each spell level, then that would prevent this.
bholmes4 wrote:2. It's a good way to get around bad mercurial effects as you can simply purge those spells
Why? Once a spell is learned (along with the mercurial effect), then it stays that way in the spellbook.
bholmes4 wrote:3. Wizards become vanilla again.
You say that as if you don't like vanilla. I like vanilla. :D
User avatar
dunbruha
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by dunbruha »

GnomeBoy wrote:
dunbruha wrote:...I think that the model of wizards seeking more spells is fun, and increases the reasons for wizards to adventure. Limiting the number that can be learned tends to discourage this, IMO....
But the rules cover this -- when you level up, you can learn the spells you've stolen/found, or roll for others. Having the choice might well be worth the searching...

The idea that Wizards are working on figuring out multiple spells at all times, and what they gain when they level up is just what study has come to fruition (either figuring out something for themselves or figuring out somebody else's book of spells) works for me.
Suppose that, after an epic quest, a wizard finds a rival's spellbook. In it are 5 new spells. With the rules as written, he can only learn one of them, and then only when he levels up. The others are useless to him until he levels up again.

Right now I am reading a good Appendix N book--The Goblin Tower (de Camp). In this story a wizard undertakes just such a quest to find a long-lost trove of spells (The Kist of Alven). The DCC rules would prevent him from learning most of them. My question is: Why? What was the thinking behind the limits on spells known?
User avatar
Colin
Moderator
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: Devon, England

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by Colin »

dunbruha wrote:My question is: Why? What was the thinking behind the limits on spells known?
You mean, beyond the fact that Joseph has been very clear about wanting DCC to emphasize the spells=rare/hoary guarded secrets aspect, that you yourself even admitted many Appendix N tales feature sorcerors with few spells (and Joseph obviously chose that route, one that also incidentally emphasizes the spells=rare hoary secrets), and beyond the potential imbalance I mentioned?

Given that all of the reasons other folks have given simply do not convince you, are you just after Joseph's official word? If so, PMing him would be a better bet.

Colin
Last edited by Colin on Sun Jul 08, 2012 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TheNobleDrake
Cold-Blooded Diabolist
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:36 am

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by TheNobleDrake »

First, I have to say one thing: I am an experience player (and GM too), so that whole "Possibly an advantage for new players, but not for experienced ones." line sounds so amazingly pompous that I am nearly offended.

Yes, remembering spells is easy enough in the first place and gets even easier as you get used to doing it - that has nothing to do with, and no effect upon, the fact that remembering less things is easier. Even if both are easy to the point of it feeling effortless, one is still somehow even more effortless than the other.

It's like you were trying to say that remembering a credit card number (14 digits) is no harder than remembering a local telephone number (7 digits). That, or you were actually trying to imply that my preference for simplicity is something only a "new player" would have. Both are completely ludicrous.
dunbruha wrote:Suppose that, after an epic quest, a wizard finds a rival's spellbook. In it are 5 new spells. With the rules as written, he can only learn one of them, and then only when he levels up. The others are useless to him until he levels up again.

Right now I am reading a good Appendix N book--The Goblin Tower (de Camp). In this story a wizard undertakes just such a quest to find a long-lost trove of spells (The Kist of Alven). The DCC rules would prevent him from learning most of them. My question is: Why? What was the thinking behind the limits on spells known?
Let's break this down using the rules sets of two current games in the same genre and see how it looks:

Scenario A: this "epic quest for spells" takes place in a Pathfinder game - there are two possibilities. One, you simply keep the book and prepare the spell from it - this takes no more time than preparing the spell from your own book, but requires a Spellcraft roll (one that you have around a 50% chance to succeed on with minimum investment in spellcraft and typical intelligence) in order to do so. Two, you actually copy the spell over into your own book with one hour of study and the same roll.

So results, you have A1 - you pick up someone else book and instantly expand your spell knowledge by however many spells within it you are capable of casting, so long as you can remember how to sort out the other wizard's notes; A2 - you pick up the spellbook in question and spend 5 hours sorting out the notes and converting to your own code and have 5 spells added to your book.

Scenario B: this "epic quest for spells" takes place in a DCC game - you get the book, there are 5 spells... you happen to have one slot open to learn a spell, so you start working out how to cast these... the die roll involved is about as likely to succeed (roughly 50% given "typical" values") but the in-character time investment is different. You might be studying this wizard's book of notes for a day to sort out one spell, a month before cracking the code on another, and a couple years before you finally sort out those last 3.

One of those reinforces the idea that magic is rare and explains why there is no one wizard with "every spell in the core book" written on his character write-up to be found in the setting (note: I can't recall if it was Elminster or Mordenkainen that said exactly that somewhere in the run of 3.x), which leaves more reasons open to actually go questing for spells in the first place.

If you want DCC wizards to be able to know every spell out there (aren't there 716 according to the book?), then I suggest you home-brew a level chart beyond 10th that stretches the spells known formula until it hits that number - especially considering that spells know should, as a point of consistency, be directly related to the level (measurement of nothing more than personal power) of the wizard knowing them.
User avatar
dunbruha
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by dunbruha »

Colin wrote:You mean, beyond the fact that Joseph has been very clear about wanting DCC to emphasize the spells=rare/hoary guarded secrets aspect, that you yourself even admitted many Appendix N tales feature sorcerors with few spells (and Joseph obviously chose that route, one that also incidentally emphasizes the spells=rare hoary secrets), and beyond the potential imbalance I mentioned?

Colin
Colin, your responses to me seem to be kind of hostile. I don't know why this would be the case, and if I have offended you somehow, I am sorry. It certainly is not my intention. I am simply trying to find out if there is a game-mechanic reason for the spell limitation. It is clear that the "theme" of the game is "magic is rare". My question is: Is this simply a preference of Joseph's (which if it is, I can safely expand the spell limits to reflect the kind of Appendix N that I like), or is it based on actual playtesting experience? If it is, I would be more reluctant to make changes. If anyone has any play experience with wizards without limits on how may spells they know (but still have limits on how many they can prepare on a given day), I would be very interested in hearing it.
goodmangames
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 2703
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 12:41 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by goodmangames »

dunbruha wrote:My question is: Why? What was the thinking behind the limits on spells known?
I'm coming in late here and haven't read the whole thread, but thought I might chime in on this specific point.

The limits on "spells known" is because that's how Jack Vance did it. I assume you've read his Dying Earth series? It is the origin point for what is commonly known as Vancian magic. Many gamers use the term "Vancian magic" freely without actually having read Vance. His Dying Earth series, along with the Harold Shea series by de Camp and Pratt, were the two primary inspirations for the OD&D magic system. If you are interested in the decision-making process that led to the creation of D&D's magic system (i.e., "Vancian" magic), as well as the creation of the DCC RPG magic system, I strongly encourage you to read these books.

I've experienced some miscommunication in the past when it comes to terms like "known" vs. "cast" and so on. A spellcaster might have quite a few spells in his spell book, and scrolls of even more spells, but what can he cast is limited by level. You can call that "spells known" or "spells castable" or whatever other term you'd like...the underlying concept is that level limits one's ability to execute magic.

The first Dying Earth book was published in 1950, 24 years before D&D was published. To quote Jack Vance in 1950 (my emphasis in bold):
The Dying Earth, Jack Vance, copyright 1950 wrote: Turjan, remembering this conversation, descended to his study, a long low hall with stone walls and a stone floor deadened by a thick russet rug. The tomes which held Turjan's sorcery lay on the long table of black steel or were thrust helter-skelter into shelves. These were volumes compiled by many wizards of the past, untidy folios collected by the Sage, leather-bound librams setting forth the syllables of a hundred powerful spells, so cogent that Turjan's brain could know but four at a time.

Turjan found a musty portfolio, turned the heavy pages to the spell the Sage had shown him, the Call to the Violent Cloud. He stared down at the characters and they burned him with an urgent power, pressing off the page as if frantic to leave the dark solitude of the book.

Turjan closed the book, forcing the spell back into oblivion. He robed himself with a short blue cape, tucked a blade into his belt, fitted the amulet holding Laccodel's Rune to his wrist. Then he sat down and from a journal chose the spells he would take with him. What dangers he might meet he could not know, so he selected three spells of general application: the Excellent Prismatic Spray, Phandaal's Mantle of Stealth, and the Spell of the Slow Hour.
Joseph Goodman
Goodman Games
www.goodman-games.com
User avatar
dunbruha
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by dunbruha »

TheNobleDrake wrote:First, I have to say one thing: I am an experience player (and GM too), so that whole "Possibly an advantage for new players, but not for experienced ones." line sounds so amazingly pompous that I am nearly offended.

Yes, remembering spells is easy enough in the first place and gets even easier as you get used to doing it - that has nothing to do with, and no effect upon, the fact that remembering less things is easier. Even if both are easy to the point of it feeling effortless, one is still somehow even more effortless than the other.

It's like you were trying to say that remembering a credit card number (14 digits) is no harder than remembering a local telephone number (7 digits). That, or you were actually trying to imply that my preference for simplicity is something only a "new player" would have. Both are completely ludicrous.
I meant no offense, and I apologize. I am having trouble conveying what I mean.
TheNobleDrake wrote:Let's break this down using the rules sets of two current games in the same genre and see how it looks:

Scenario A: this "epic quest for spells" takes place in a Pathfinder game - there are two possibilities. One, you simply keep the book and prepare the spell from it - this takes no more time than preparing the spell from your own book, but requires a Spellcraft roll (one that you have around a 50% chance to succeed on with minimum investment in spellcraft and typical intelligence) in order to do so. Two, you actually copy the spell over into your own book with one hour of study and the same roll.

So results, you have A1 - you pick up someone else book and instantly expand your spell knowledge by however many spells within it you are capable of casting, so long as you can remember how to sort out the other wizard's notes; A2 - you pick up the spellbook in question and spend 5 hours sorting out the notes and converting to your own code and have 5 spells added to your book.

Scenario B: this "epic quest for spells" takes place in a DCC game - you get the book, there are 5 spells... you happen to have one slot open to learn a spell, so you start working out how to cast these... the die roll involved is about as likely to succeed (roughly 50% given "typical" values") but the in-character time investment is different. You might be studying this wizard's book of notes for a day to sort out one spell, a month before cracking the code on another, and a couple years before you finally sort out those last 3.

One of those reinforces the idea that magic is rare and explains why there is no one wizard with "every spell in the core book" written on his character write-up to be found in the setting (note: I can't recall if it was Elminster or Mordenkainen that said exactly that somewhere in the run of 3.x), which leaves more reasons open to actually go questing for spells in the first place.

If you want DCC wizards to be able to know every spell out there (aren't there 716 according to the book?), then I suggest you home-brew a level chart beyond 10th that stretches the spells known formula until it hits that number - especially considering that spells know should, as a point of consistency, be directly related to the level (measurement of nothing more than personal power) of the wizard knowing them.
I am certainly considering my options, but I wanted to see if there was any playtesting experience that would argue against expanding the number of spells known.
User avatar
Colin
Moderator
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: Devon, England

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by Colin »

dunbruha wrote:Colin, your responses to me seem to be kind of hostile. I don't know why this would be the case, and if I have offended you somehow, I am sorry. It certainly is not my intention. I am simply trying to find out if there is a game-mechanic reason for the spell limitation. It is clear that the "theme" of the game is "magic is rare". My question is: Is this simply a preference of Joseph's (which if it is, I can safely expand the spell limits to reflect the kind of Appendix N that I like), or is it based on actual playtesting experience? If it is, I would be more reluctant to make changes. If anyone has any play experience with wizards without limits on how may spells they know (but still have limits on how many they can prepare on a given day), I would be very interested in hearing it.
Nope not hostile (sorry if it came off that way), but written swiftly at the same time as getting ready to hit the sack (it's well past midnight here) and getting some stuff ready. It simply seemed to me that you'd have been better off just PMing Joseph as ultimately that's what you wanted to hear.

Be aware though, even if giving access to many more spells was not playtested and is just Joseph's preference, that doesn't mean you can necessarily safely expand how many spells they have access to. I'd proceed with caution, as if unplaytested, it could prove fine or disastrous in either likelihood. My gut feeling as a player and game designer is that it could well tip the balance too far in favour of the wizard, but that's my feeling, not one I've actually tested.

And now I really have to go to bed!

Colin
Last edited by Colin on Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
meinvt
Deft-Handed Cutpurse
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:05 pm
Location: Central Vermont

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by meinvt »

I've been watching this thread with great curiosity. I too am interested in the apparent disconnect behind wizard's seeking out many powerful spells and the knowledge that after learning their initial four, most will never cast a new one again, and even those successful will learn only a few more. Likewise the restriction that they can only learn new spells when gaining a level.

This approach which the game outlines seems to differ even from the Vance quote which tells that the spells known is something the wizard selects at a point in time, but also implies that at another point in time the wizard might select a different four spells. Maybe the new choices cannot be taken until the memory of the old fade, but it seems to imply that our hero has not made his final decision for life and can now safely entomb this vast library of knowledge, never to consult it again until he has completed some great new quests (gained a level).

I agree about confusion between spells "known" spells "castable" and spells "available". Based on that Vance quote I would say a character could have four spells known, which are castable. That is, they are imprinted in his brain until failed when casting (in the DCC rules). But, that character could also have a whole library of spells "available". When his spells are forgotten he could consult the library and study new spells to "know". As written now, the implication is that this can only happen as an additional spell when gaining a level - but it seems much more in line with the story to allow it whenever the character has fewer spells "known and castable" than allowed by level.

Whether you'd allow purging a spell from memory without attempting to release it's magic is a question. I'd allow a casting roll with a deliberate statement of no effect. Any misfire or corruption effects would still happen, but otherwise the magic is discharged.
User avatar
dunbruha
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by dunbruha »

goodmangames wrote:I'm coming in late here and haven't read the whole thread, but thought I might chime in on this specific point.

The limits on "spells known" is because that's how Jack Vance did it. I assume you've read his Dying Earth series? It is the origin point for what is commonly known as Vancian magic. Many gamers use the term "Vancian magic" freely without actually having read Vance. His Dying Earth series, along with the Harold Shea series by de Camp and Pratt, were the two primary inspirations for the OD&D magic system. If you are interested in the decision-making process that led to the creation of D&D's magic system (i.e., "Vancian" magic), as well as the creation of the DCC RPG magic system, I strongly encourage you to read these books.

I've experienced some miscommunication in the past when it comes to terms like "known" vs. "cast" and so on. A spellcaster might have quite a few spells in his spell book, and scrolls of even more spells, but what can he cast is limited by level. You can call that "spells known" or "spells castable" or whatever other term you'd like...the underlying concept is that level limits one's ability to execute magic.
Thanks for your response, Joseph. I have read the Dying Earth, as well as the Harold Shea series, and am re-reading the Goblin Tower right now.

In Vance's stories, the wizards knew multiple spells, but were only able to hold a few in their minds at one time. But they could choose which ones to hold in their mind on any particular day: "Then he sat down and from a journal chose the spells he would take with him." In other words, they had a large number of "spells known", but a limit on the number they could cast without having to go back and refresh them (a limited number of "spells per day"). As I understand it, this is different from the mechanism you use in your game, which is that they can only know a limited number of spells. Was this limit based on playtesting experience?
goodmangames
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 2703
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 12:41 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Spell number limitation

Post by goodmangames »

dunbruha wrote:I am certainly considering my options, but I wanted to see if there was any playtesting experience that would argue against expanding the number of spells known.
Yes...wizards and clerics become a lot more powerful. :)

Originally DCC RPG had no limits on the spells known to a cleric. This was changed right before the release of the beta rules, if I remember correctly. It was hard for players to familiarize themselves with an effectively unlimited spell list, and clerics were fairly powerful due to their versatility.

I haven't played wizards with "no limits" but I have played them with different amounts of spells. In DCC RPG a wizard can cast a spell an unlimited number of times if he rolls well on his spell checks. The limit of spells known effectively becomes a check on how powerful the wizard can be. More spells = wizard can keep casting "something else" every time he loses a spell.

But if you want to experiment, go for it. DCC RPG is designed to be house-ruled. The only thing I'd ask is that you play the rules as written first. The beta rules were downloaded 20,000 times, and the game was played by myself and many other "insiders" for over two year before release -- things ended up the way they are for a reason. There's a thread somewhere on these boards where a DM complains that wizards are too powerful, which is because he started house-ruling from day one and never played the game as intended. Play the game as intended, see how it ends up, then use that as a baseline to start your house ruling.
Joseph Goodman
Goodman Games
www.goodman-games.com
Post Reply

Return to “Rules discussion”