Goodman Games

I wasn't sure if this should go in rules or magic, so I picked magic!

Is the number of known spells intended to be a minimum or a maximum? There is some evidence for each stance. My first read through I thought it was a maximum, but then I found the following two items:

on p. 126: "If your character should ever know more than this many spells [referring to the entire list of wizard spells], he will be a great mage."

This combined with the fact that a 10th level wizard is a near divine, once-in-history power level wizard makes the idea that he could only learn 16-18 (with a high intelligence) of the 716 spells a tad odd.

Anyone have any insight?

My reading assumed that the spells known was a maximum. But, I don't have proof. Good question.
-Berc

I got a little confused by the spells known as well... especially because of patron bond, invoke patron, and patron spells.

Example: the wizard chart says 4 spells known at first level, and there is specific mention that you get patron bond and invoke patron if you get either and that those two count as 1 spell...

but then (patron spell) on the spell list has a note that mentions only that you should ignore that while rolling spells unless you also have patron bond and invoke patron

Then, when you cast patron bond, the higher results mention that the patron gives you patron spells as a gift and that casting those a patron spell counts against how many times you can cast invoke patron in a day

...it was confusing because I had a player roll his spells and get all 3 (patron bond, patron spell, and invoke patron) according the the wizard spell chart - then he cast patron bond and was given a patron spell as a gift... and we found out about the restriction on casting patron spells only then since it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the patron spell description..

The end result: I've decided that, until further notice, I will be counting the spells known on the charts as both minimum and maximum in most cases - and that patron bond, invoke patron, and any number of patron spells will all count as 1 spell known total.

Also that you can only get patron spells through casting of patron bond.

My reading assumed that the spells known was a maximum. But, I don't have proof. Good question.
-Berc

It was my initial assumption as well - it is certainly the most natural reading.

I got a little confused by the spells known as well... especially because of patron bond, invoke patron, and patron spells.

I didn't even see that, good catch.

It is also interesting to note that a cleric ends up with 28 spells.

I think that's what you start with but you can find more through adventure.
Of course, the impression I get is that it is not so simple as sharing spellbooks between mages, as each spell is mercurially attuned to each magician, so some sorta something has to go down... quests for ex.

I take it as the number you know and can cast in a day. However, you could have a grimoire with 10 spells in it. In order to memorize one, you have to get rid of one in your memory.

PeelSeel2 wrote:I take it as the number you know and can cast in a day. However, you could have a grimoire with 10 spells in it. In order to memorize one, you have to get rid of one in your memory.

Interesting! That possibility had not occurred to me. That combined with the requirement that learning a spell takes 1 week/spell level (p. 315) would mean you could have flexibility, but not flexibility quickly.

caveman wrote:I think that's what you start with but you can find more through adventure.
Of course, the impression I get is that it is not so simple as sharing spellbooks between mages, as each spell is mercurially attuned to each magician, so some sorta something has to go down... quests for ex.

I've started leaning towards interpreting it something along those lines. Maybe you got those automatically, any beyond that have a cost.

giant wrote:Is the number of known spells intended to be a minimum or a maximum? There is some evidence for each stance. My first read through I thought it was a maximum, but then I found the following two items:

on p. 126: "If your character should ever know more than this many spells [referring to the entire list of wizard spells], he will be a great mage."

This combined with the fact that a 10th level wizard is a near divine, once-in-history power level wizard makes the idea that he could only learn 16-18 (with a high intelligence) of the 716 spells a tad odd.

Anyone have any insight?

The "known spells" for wizards (per table 1-12 on page 50) is the maximum number of different spells that wizard can cast. Once a spell is "known" in this sense, it becomes a permanent choice and the wizard can't backtrack on it. This, a level 1 wizard may know four different spells (such as cantrip, charm person, magic missile, and mending). Note that those four initial spells are determined randomly (with some allowance for picking if the randomization is hard on the player; see page 124). Finally, note that Intelligence modifiers may increase the number of known spells (see page 18).

Invoke patron and patron bond count as one spell. If you get one, you automatically get the other, and they collectively count once. Patron bond is really a one-use prerequisite to invoke patron. (Well, you could use it twice, but that gets risky...) Patron bond could almost be the "intro paragraph" to invoke patron rather than its own spell; after all, one can't exist without another. There was a time in play testing where I had them count as different spells, but more than one player pointed out that "patron bond is like a waste of a spell slot; you use it once and then it's gone, and if you don't also have invoke patron it's totally useless." So they collectively count as one spell. Note that other patron spells aren't part of this "package deal" - other patron spells count as their own individual spell slots.

There are certain other rare circumstances which may also affect a wizard's known spells (e.g., the spell arcane affinity which is basically a mechanic for wizard specialization).

Now we get to the fun part: "spells in your spell book, on scrolls, and other reference materials" versus "spells known." As you guys know, DCC RPG is based on Appendix N, and there are many great tales of learning magical spells in Appendix N. Especially in Vance's Dying Earth series and the Harold Shea tales (as well as some Lovecraft) there are stories of wizards who know how to cast a handful of spells, going to great lengths to learn a single new spell. In many cases they acquire the spell's "recipe" - for example, they have the book in which the spell's rituals are written, and have acquired the materials, and are waiting for the right astrological confluence to cast the spell - but even after having everything in place, they just can't get it right. Or, they can't quite memorize it properly. So they may have reference for the spell (i.e., it's in their spell book) but they still can't cast it properly.

I suppose I should make this more clear somehow, and be careful in my use of the word "know"...but that dynamic is what I'm getting at it when discussing that a wizard may have possession of more spells than he cast. In play, your characters might find a scroll with two spells on it, and steal a spell book from a rival wizard with four more spells on it. So a wizard who levels up may actually have reference material for six additional spells. But such is his power level, ability to memorize, practice in casting, experience with nefarious powers, and so on, that he is only able to properly cast one of those six. And that one which he chooses to learn becomes his next "spell known" (per table 1-12) when he levels up.

Make sense?

All that said, there are some other interesting interpretations in this thread that sound like fun to play. So, as always, adjust to suit your own campaign!

Thanks for the clarifications Mr. Goodman... though you seem to have gotten invoke patron and patron bond switched around.

Might we also get more of a reasoning why the patron spells, given as gifts by high patron bond results and tied to the same daily limit as invoke patron, are meant to count as their own spell known?

I guess I just don't see how having the option to either cast a patron spell or invoke patron 3 times stacks up to having invoke patron 3 times per day and any other spell without a daily limit... not that I expect every spell to be equal, it just seems like you are - one way or another - losing a spell known (invoke patron) by using a "gift" your patron gave you that you also had to give a counter-gift for.

Looking at it that way, though, I could see it being intentional that you always end up getting the short end of any deal with a patron.

Thanks for clarifying! The explanation you gave right there is perfect and could go right in the book. Part of what it made it initially confusing to me is undoubtedly the D&D background of having access to dozens of spells potentially. I confess to having not read Vance or Shea, but while thinking this issue through I kept thinking about the wizards in the Conan stories who rarely displayed magical power. When they actually use spells they seem to only use one or two that are highly specific to themselves, so that certainly fits.

TheNobleDrake wrote:Might we also get more of a reasoning why the patron spells, given as gifts by high patron bond results and tied to the same daily limit as invoke patron, are meant to count as their own spell known?

The limit to daily castings of invoke patron reflects the limits of a patron's willingness to help his devotees. The patron is there to help in emergencies, not to be a solution to every problem. Thus, the patron will typically answer a couple callings each day, but no more. If a wizard gains the ability to substitute a patron spell for castings of invoke patron (as determined by the table of results for patron bond), that's part of the same concept - the patron will provide aid "here and there" but isn't available to focus all its attention on solving the problems of the character.

This is also a strong incentive to use spellburn when first casting patron bond. Start the level 1 spells off with a bang!

(Note that a wizard could also learn a patron spell as a "normal" spell slot later on, as well.)

If there were a mechanism whereby a wizard reliably could cast a spell he does not "know" but still has access to (such as by having the grimoire it is written in at hand) I could see this scheme working.

But having the spells known limit to be a hard absolute limit means that plundering lost libraries and enemy mages for their spellbooks is too weak, without any oomph. More importantly, an comparison to literature (Appendix N or otherwise) must always be made loosely. Writers only add in stuff they know will be relevant. Role-playing games do not have that luxury.

The idea of a Wizard being able to cast many and varied spells, given enough preparation, is a good one, and I would have preferred it if DCC did not go counter to it. There are many stories that simply cannot be told if the game rules prohibit a party from casting a spell important to the plot. Which brings me back to how the rulebook limit could have worked, if there was an allowance for a "safety valve", a way to cast spells from other sources than the brain of the caster (where the Spells Known limit is imposed).

I do recognize the counter argument "wizards lose their individuality if they can all learn all spells, or at least the best ones". I just think I won't play so many DCC campaigns that this will ever become an issue. I also understand the analogy with warriors. If fate gives you a character with low Strength you can't easily fix that by just studying for a week or three. But if you can switch out your crap spell for a good one then that is just what a Wizard can do. The most immediate counterargument to this is simply "flexibility is precisely what a Wizard is supposed to be about". The whole point of using your brain instead of your brawn or your belief is that you are only constrained by your wits and your imagination.

A role-playing game is storytelling but also a game. And from the game POV, having additional spells be only candidates for very limited slots is a very harsh restriction. As explained above, the intention is that a Wizard might well have found five spells, but each time he levels up only one can be selected. For starters, this basically means no Wizard will ever learn more first level spells once they reach 3rd level (since doing so would mean learning one less spell of the highest level you can cast). That's an awfully high opportunity cost.

Take all of this into account, and my evaluation is that a simple (and hard) limit is removing more than it adds, if we view the game rules as a necessary evil to facilitate the telling of stories. For many reasons, I will therefore lift the hard limits as detailed above.

---

When it came up last night I was unprepared for the lack of explanation (assuming that "only 18 spells full stop" does require an explanation if you have ever played any other iteration of D&D).

Having to make an on-the-spot decision, I ruled Spells Known is in actual fact Spells Memorized (this was mentioned upthread though not using those terms).

Looking now at how the rulebook proposes new spells I am amazed how compatible everything remains, simply by this "minor" (read not minor at all) tweak.

---

Specifically: when a mage finds a spell in a book or otherwise, defeats its guardians and breaks any encryption (and so on ) make an Understand Spell check:

The check consists of 1d20 plus his caster level plus his Intelligence modifier. The DC is 10 + spell level. (The specifics are unchanged from the rules). If he passes, he understands the spell. This means he's able to reproduce it, write it down, cast it and so on. Roll for Mercurial to individualize the spell. If he fails, he cannot understand or use the spell. If the Judge is lenient, he can try again after gaining a level or after a year (etc).

This leaves a Wizard PC with a spell book containing more spells than he can memorize at any given time. (The number of spells you can hold in memory at any given time is the number Spells Known in the rulebook)

To memorize a new spell (from a source you understand) you spend the requisite time (given in the rulebook as one week per spell level). The Judge may still require additional effort, such as "a price paid" or similar. Otherwise this process is automatic.

Of course, in any campaign where you only have a few weeks between adventures this means you can't swap your entire "spell loadout" between adventures. If you spellburned yourself out completely last adventure, maybe there's not even time for one such swap!