Spell number limitation

[dunbruha]

Thanks for your comments! This is exactly what I was looking for.

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.

If I do make a change, it will be to have a limit on the number of spells that wizards and clerics can prepare each day. The number of spells known would be only limited by the wizard's ability to acquire new spells, or the nature of the cleric's particular god. For wizards, if spell failure occurs, then that spell would be lost until it can be prepared again the next day (so "casting "something else" every time he loses a spell" won't be an option).

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.

We are! I am playing in one weekly game, and just started judging a second game at my FLGS. (I ran "Portal"). Everyone is enjoying it!

[bholmes4]

But if you want to experiment, go for it. DCC RPG is designed to be house-ruled.

Thanks for stating this. Lately there have been a number of posters who feel the need to constantly defend the game when someone suggests house-ruling. Perhaps adding a Tinkering Forum is in order?

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.

Clearly DCC wizards would be too powerful if there was no limitation on how many spells they could "know" at one time. A wizard with 30+ known spells would be able to cast non-stop in this system. For what I can assume was for balance and ease-of-use reasons, the limit to their known spells is also the limit to their learnt spells.

In Vance (the passage you quoted even shows this) the wizards are capable of learning as many spells as they can get their hands on. They are limited in that the may only choose to know (hold in their mind) a handful of them at a time. If I remember correctly they could simply go back to their books for another spell once one was cast though, no great rest period was needed (unlike D&D). Is that why you are suggesting that if wizards are capable of learning more spells, they could replace their known spells as soon as they lose them (without resting for a day) and keep casting? In a sense I suppose that is true to Vance, though it ignores the ability of Vance's wizards to pick and choose which spells they will "know" from their collection.

Was the D&D limitation where a wizard may change their selection of "known" spells once a day tested (allowing them to "learn" more spells)? I suspect wizards become a lot more powerful and a bit more cumbersome.

[beermotor]

My personal thought as far as house-ruling this are would be to allow wizards of level 6 and greater to construct laboratories, towers, or sanctuaries of some kind, and to keep a library inside. High upkeep costs. They could spend a month per level swapping out spells "memorized." So it's a "before the adventure" kind of backstory thing. Getting prepped for the particular quest. It might require the expenditure of a large amount of components, too. I mean, it's easy to forget something accidentally... but have you ever tried to forget something on purpose?

Again, I still think this is largely academic. What are the statistical chances that you actually have a player with a wizard who survives long enough to bump up against the limit? Probably exceedingly low, unless you're doing something that's not in the spirit of the rules.

Insofar as Tolkien's part of Appendix N, another route would be equipment, i.e., spellburning item creation to give expanded spells known. For example, a ring which gave +3 1st level spells known, or +2 1st and +1 2nd. Or a broach which was imbued with a particular spell that the wizard had acquired on a scroll but didn't want to "learn" because of limited utility (although it could be highly important in the right circumstances).

There's lots of ways around it other than ... simply turning wizards into AD&D magic-users.

[bholmes4]

My personal thought as far as house-ruling this are would be to allow wizards of level 6 and greater to construct laboratories, towers, or sanctuaries of some kind, and to keep a library inside. High upkeep costs. They could spend a month per level swapping out spells "memorized." So it's a "before the adventure" kind of backstory thing. Getting prepped for the particular quest. It might require the expenditure of a large amount of components, too. I mean, it's easy to forget something accidentally... but have you ever tried to forget something on purpose?

I could get behind something like this, where they have to go back to their tower to pick the spells they hold in their minds. Not sure we need the level 6 requirement, just charge upkeep which is something a low level wizard can't really afford anyway.

[IronWolf]

My personal thought as far as house-ruling this are would be to allow wizards of level 6 and greater to construct laboratories, towers, or sanctuaries of some kind, and to keep a library inside. High upkeep costs. They could spend a month per level swapping out spells "memorized." So it's a "before the adventure" kind of backstory thing. Getting prepped for the particular quest. It might require the expenditure of a large amount of components, too. I mean, it's easy to forget something accidentally... but have you ever tried to forget something on purpose?

This seems like a nice way to handle things. It also gives a character something they need to protect as well - their wizards tower! I would think there are a ton of questing opportunities and plot opportunities when the party wizard as a wizard's tower that is quite important to them.

There's lots of ways around it other than ... simply turning wizards into AD&D magic-users.

I agree. I think some of us get really used to having a rule for every situation, when with DCC RPG we have a lot of gray areas to get creative and use "questing" or other more story oriented tasks to accomplish various goals. It takes some adapting, but I think in the long run it can be much more fun. It just feels a little like riding without training wheels sometimes!

[ScrivenerB]

Er...hm. I thought this was all clear in my mind, but now I'm not sure. The Vance quote Mr. Goodman includes in his response, which I take it was included to support/demonstrate the way he wants the game to work, is actually quite in line with the idea that a wizard can change his "memorized" spells whenever he has access to his books...Turjan is obviously selecting spells based on what he expects to deal with that day.

Now that's not what I think the rules say, and had that Vance quote come from anyone other than Joseph I'd pay it no mind. In the end I'm not so sure I'd have a problem with it working like this because unlike, say, 3.5 D&D, there won't be any expectation that wizards can cheaply and easily find any spell listed in the rules just by popping round to the friendly local wizard's guild and ponying up a small bit of cash. In DCC if the judge is so injudicious as to give the PCs all the wizard spells, then he has only himself to blame.

Clerics are another matter. Since every spell in the book that isn't counter to their religion IS available to them when they select spells AND they don't even have to worry about bulky shelves full of musty old books to contain that knowledge, it might well be unbalancing to let them choose a new loadout every day.

[beermotor]

I've noticed at my church that certain pastors do things much better than others. For example, when one does the Benediction, I really feel something powerful in his words, but others fall kind of flat. Since it's based on personality and rhetoric, it makes perfect sense to me that a cleric would have a few things he did well, and that would be that.

[Bhodili]

I thought I would throw my two cents in, although be warned my game has been house ruled failry extensively. I made a post in the judges forum about some of those changes. But as far as magic goes in my game mages have a certain amount of spells memorized, as denoted by the charts, which can be cast at will. Then beyond that they may have a collection of spells they have access to which take a longer time to cast as a ritual, and there is a -4 penalty to signify the greater difficulty of casting a spell you don't fully understand. To be a little more specific in my system there are 3 spells which every mage "knows", Read Magic, Detect Magic, and Cantrip. Aside from that all other spells are stored in crystals. A mage bonds with a number of crystals equal to their spells known by level+int mod, however they may own any number of crystals which may be purchased from shops or found on adventures. It is possible to switch out which cystals are bonded with an 8 hour ritual, however the mercurial effect is determined at the initial bonding. Also when a mage rolls a natural 1 on a spellcheck the crystal is destroyed, which helps balance the increased access of spells. Again this likely won't work for everyone's game but it has worked fairly well so far in mine. Except for one of my mages who got very unlucky and rolled 4 1's in row. Lost all his spells and was horribly disfigured in the process. We call him wobbly now.

[Bilgewriggler]

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 would shorten this to just say, "I strongly encourage you to read these books!"

I can't imagine anyone who enjoys DCC not having a blast reading The Eyes of the Overworld, Cugel's Saga, or Rhialto the Marvelous.

[Skyscraper]

For the record, I think dunbruha's line of inquiry is quite reasonable and him prompting the community on these boards for an answer appears likewise reasonable. I would not, myself, have considered sending a PM to the game designer to avoid harrassing him with what is perhaps a basic question that can be answered by a peer.

I appreciate the ideas brought into this thread by the OP and those who replied, and by Mr. Goodman for his insight on this aspect of the game design.

Sky

[finarvyn]

If I understand the discussion correctly, I think that the key is that limiting spells known helps to simulate the whole experience/advancement part of a campaign. Suppose the most novice apprentice knew every spell in the book. When he adventures, hasn't he lost some of the fun because he can't get much better? (He can cast more, but not learn more.)

Think about mathematics. You learn to add and subtract, then to multiply and divide, and to use fractions and decimals, and to deal with geometric shapes and triangles, and to do integrals and derivatives, and so on. You start to apply mathematics early on using whatever skills you've mastered and build onto your knowledge base as needed. If you never need calculus, it's possible you never bother to learn it.

I think that wizards are the same way. Starting wizards are not encyclopedias of information, but they have been exposed to a few spells and as they travel and advance in power they find out more things and get better at what they do. That keeps things interesting instead of stagnant.

[bholmes4]

If I understand the discussion correctly, I think that the key is that limiting spells known helps to simulate the whole experience/advancement part of a campaign. Suppose the most novice apprentice knew every spell in the book. When he adventures, hasn't he lost some of the fun because he can't get much better? (He can cast more, but not learn more.)

I think you are taking it too far though. No one appears to be suggesting a wizard should know all spells. Some of just want to see wizards able to pick and choose the spells they hold in their minds amongst those they acquire. For instance, if a 1st level wizard collected 8 spells in his travels, he can still only "know" 4 spells (+ int bonus) at any time. Thus collecting and acquiring spells is a major drive for wizards, something that fits literature (ie. Vance) but is not a big concern in DCC. Yes in DCC it's important to collect 1 spell per level but there is no point in acquiring more than that.

[dunbruha]

If I understand the discussion correctly, I think that the key is that limiting spells known helps to simulate the whole experience/advancement part of a campaign. Suppose the most novice apprentice knew every spell in the book. When he adventures, hasn't he lost some of the fun because he can't get much better? (He can cast more, but not learn more.)

I think you are taking it too far though. No one appears to be suggesting a wizard should know all spells. Some of just want to see wizards able to pick and choose the spells they hold in their minds amongst those they acquire. For instance, if a 1st level wizard collected 8 spells in his travels, he can still only "know" 4 spells (+ int bonus) at any time. Thus collecting and acquiring spells is a major drive for wizards, something that fits literature (ie. Vance) but is not a big concern in DCC. Yes in DCC it's important to collect 1 spell per level but there is no point in acquiring more than that.

Exactly. The search (quest) for spells can be a major goal for wizards. But just because a wizard (who already knows several spells) finds a grimoire with many more doesn't necessarily mean that he can learn them automatically--he might have to consult with a patron, or perform a ritual, or whatever cool thing the judge can come up with (rather than just a "spellcraft" check).

[Skyscraper]

Per the rules as written, can anyone remind me if the rules allow for spell switch? I.e. if the wizard rolls for spells numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 at level 1 and then find spell #5 during the course of adventuring, since he is limited to 4 spells known at level 1, can he spend time to ditch one of spells #1-4 and replace it with spell #5, thereafter having only spells #1, 2, 3 and 5 as spells known?

This would essentially be equivalent to what the OP was suggesting, with the difference that time must be spent on learning the new spell (e.g. a few weeks).

I can't remember if the rules allowed for that.