Spellbooks - FK vs. TT necessity

[Andreas]

In a tabletop game, a spellbook is a very expensive commodity. Mages hoard their books, guarding them with every conceivable means available. These spellbooks are often costly, made of rare and priceless materials. The inks used to scribe spells in them are equally expensive. The loss of a spellbook in a tabletop game can be devastating to a mage.

On FK, a mage loses a spellbook... runs to the bank... buys a new one. Problem solved.

I think this situation is a bit unbalancing to the game and would like to propose some ideas to restore the value of spellbooks on FK.

1. Increase the price of spellbooks. According to the 2nd Ed. DMG, a spellbook has a base cost of 50 GP/page for a normal spellbook and 100 GP/page for a traveling spellbook. A regular spellbook can have no more than 100 pages and a traveling spellbook no more than 50 pages.

100 x 50 = 500 GP = 100 PP

On FK a generic spellbook generally costs less than 5 PP. Increasing the price of spellbooks in the game would help make things a bit more balanced and could promote more roleplay about how mages are supposed to be so possessive and protective of their spellbooks.

2. Spells would need to be scribed into the spellbook. As it stands now, if a mage loses their spellbook, they can just go grab any ol' spellbook and memorise their spells all over again. Again, according to the PHB and DMG. this would be nearly impossible. When a spell is taught to a mage, they scribe it into their own spellbook with the necessary notes for casting. Just like not every student takes the same notes, not every mage scribes a spell the same way. Thus a mage picking up an unfamiliar spellbook would have to spend a considerable amount of time just deciphering the spell before he could attempt to memorise and cast it.

I know this would entail some extensive code changes, but I think making it so that mages are required to scribe their spells into their books would be a lot more realistic. Maybe even require the use of a special quill or special ink for scribing. I'd even go so far as to include the Chance to Learn Spell % table. If a PC mage fails to learn a spell from a mob, then they would have to find another PC mage who can teach it to them. This would help promote roleplay between PC mages and more of the Master/Apprentice mage situation.

3. Limit the number of pages in a spellbook. "Each spell requires a number of pages equal to its level plus 0-5 (1d6-1) additional pages." (2nd Ed. DMG p. 63) If a spellbook only has a maximum of 100 pages (normal) or 50 pages (traveling) then a mage can only scribe so many spells in it before needing a new spellbook for more spells. A high level mage would have several spellbooks to store all their spells which is a lot more realistic than the one apparently endless spellbook that's in place right now.

I've seen this system used to excellent effect on another MUD. As it stands now, losing a spellbook really doesn't have a signifcant impact on a mage. I feel that by implementing the above changes, spellbooks will regain their prominence in a mage's roleplay.

[Balek]

While I appreciate the idea of trying to bring new rules and complexities to the game, I think this development is currently unnecessary. As it stands wizards have a more difficult time leveling than any other class. The fact that they have a more difficult time leveling is due to a multitude of limitations. First, the wizard can't effectively deal damage in anything other than light armor or cloth. Secondly their attacking power goes up very slowly without the addition of new spells to their arsenal. Third, the spells that increase this attacking power or defensive ability are both more numerous and more expensive than tha majority of comparable non-wizard abilities. I think the vast majority of players who have played both a wizard and a non-wizard will agree that it is far more difficult to earn money for a wizard than a non-wizard, despite the fact that they have more need for that money. I very much disagree with the notion that wizards need to be 'balanced' because they are too powerful in some way. If you compare almost any wizard to other-classed characters of the same level and with an approximately even number of hours spent fighting mobs you will find that in a one-on-one fight the wizard will typically lose barring the use of spells like disintegrate.

Long before I would favor any sort of additional restrictions on wizards, we would need to add to the offensive and defensive abilities of the classes. Wizards are already heavily limited by the spells they can memorize, the armor they can wear and the damage they can take, and yet their offensive output is probably not significantly greater than a good fighter, priest or thief.

To get back to the main point, I think the disadvantages to the wizard class outweigh the advantages already. Adding another disadvantage would not really serve to improve roleplay and would primarily serve to increase the difficulties for an already difficult-to-play class.

[Andreas]

" As it stands wizards have a more difficult time leveling than any other class."

Since when was FK about leveling?

"First, the wizard can't effectively deal damage in anything other than light armor or cloth."

Mages were never meant to be front-line fighters. That's what groups are for. Additionally, experience rewards increase when you're in a group. So not only is there the original incentive of having a big, metal-clad, sword-swinging warrior to stand in front of your mage, but the experience bonus is nice too.

"Secondly their attacking power goes up very slowly without the addition of new spells to their arsenal."

Again, mages are not toe-to-toe combatants. They get experience for casting spells.

"Third, the spells that increase this attacking power or defensive ability are both more numerous and more expensive than tha majority of comparable non-wizard abilities."

No more or less expensive than the training and equipment it takes to be a skilled warrior.

"I think the vast majority of players who have played both a wizard and a non-wizard will agree that it is far more difficult to earn money for a wizard than a non-wizard, despite the fact that they have more need for that money."

I believe this is subjective. Again, if you form a group and go adventuring, the rewards can be quite substantial. Mages also get the option of brewing potions which is an excellent source of income.

"If you compare almost any wizard to other-classed characters of the same level and with an approximately even number of hours spent fighting mobs you will find that in a one-on-one fight the wizard will typically lose barring the use of spells like disintegrate."

Again, mages were never designed to be solo adventurers. If you're basing your concepts from that perspective, of course mages will lose every time. FK is a roleplay game. Players are HIGHLY encouraged to form groups and roleplay/adventure TOGETHER.

"Long before I would favor any sort of additional restrictions on wizards, we would need to add to the offensive and defensive abilities of the classes. Wizards are already heavily limited by the spells they can memorize, the armor they can wear and the damage they can take, and yet their offensive output is probably not significantly greater than a good fighter, priest or thief. "

So now you're saying that a mage is the equal of any fighter, priest or thief? Well, take any fighter, priest or thief and remove all their equipment and they're not all that impressive. However, for a mage, this is easily solved by a quick trip to the bank to replace that lost spellbook and components. Losing a spellbook has absolutely NO meaning on FK at all. It's nearly the equivalent of misplacing a pair of socks. Oh well, just go buy more socks.

[Gwain]

I think increasing the validity and value of spellbooks is a great idea. In Dragonlance a revered spellbook would buy a city or a country. So convented where they that wars could and would be fought over them.

[Hviti]

So, depending on the guild, a wizard would have to have more/less spellbooks to keep his spells in (if he learned every guild spell)? Would they be able to prepare backups (left on pet or in dwelling) just in case?

[Tazmin]

Wouldn't this force us into a spells per day system? All spells, both clerical and wizard are coded as skills it seems. Thus it would be like codeing a fighters parry or multi attack to only work with a particular sword.

I have two wizards. I take care of my spellbooks. Both of them still have the ones they got when they put down roots in newbie temple. I play their value to my wizards.

Raise the cost of the spellbooks is fine, but putting a spells per book is a bad idea. Unless you are going to limit fighter and thief skills and force all clerics to pick domains.

We don't have the home base/group system table top does. By the time a tibletop wizard needs fifteen books to hold all the spells she know she has her own tower to store them in.

So in summery raise the book prices, but don't put spells per book.

[Hviti]

100 x 50 = 500 GP = 100 PP

Not that I want them to be (or that it would make much sense), but wouldn't it be:

100 x 50 = 5000 GP = 1000 Plat?

[Andreas]

*chuckle* Thanks for catching my math error, Hviti.

Sheesh... and people wonder why statistics class is melting my brain...

And for keeping back-up books on a pet or cart in storage - Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[Dalvyn]

I agree 100% with Balek. Wizards do not need to be crimpled with another weakness just to make it possible to render one of them totally useless when his spellbook is removed after a pkill.

It's a clear fact that, when comparing what characters get in the game and what they get in tabletop, the observation is: combattant classes get nearly all the abilities they have in table-top (plus some more, like bash, punch, kick, and they used to get enhanced damage) while wizard classes are crimpled by lack of dimensions (0 or 1-dimensional mud vs 3-dimensional table-top setting), by the fact that spells are skills that need to be trained up before they can be useful, by the fact that this training can't be done efficiently by soloing wizards (while combattant classes do not have that problem), and by the fact that there is not much (if anything) to incite combattants to take wizards along.

I don't think the line "mages are not supposed to be powerful on their own but only in groups behind fighters" is an acceptable argument when other, combattant, classes can stand on their own and train up efficiently on their own, while being able to achieve at least as much (I would even say more) as wizards. The trade-off in D&D is: wizards are weaker in melee, but they can blast things much more quickly than combattants. I have not seen any wizard able to mindlessly bash temple golems/dummies again and again to train up a spell (they have to rest, meditate, and stop to get healed and have their clothes repaired much more often than any combattant class), while I have seen several combattants do that (not and only with temple golems).

As for the cost, it is clear that a training wizard will require much more money (to train up spells, that are generally more expensive and rare than other skills, to buy spell component, to repair their clothes, to graduate from the School of Wonder, and so on) during his carreer than most combattants (who, once again, can solo more easily and thus gather money more easily as well). Combattants do not need that much money to repair things once they have acquired high-quality, dwarven or magical, heavy armour since it nearly never damages. They only need money to get a heal from the PC mobs that stand next to some training areas, after their solo sessions.

[Balek]

"Since when was FK about leveling?"

It's not, and I never said it was. Leveling is, however, a major component of the game and to imply otherwise is naive. You would have an exceptionally difficult time finding someone playing this game who has never leveled up. I'm fairly certain that Andreas is level 51 and has spent some considerable amount of time working to improve combat skills because that is part of that character's roleplay so the importance of level and skills is undeniable.

"Mages were never meant to be front-line fighters."

I agree entirely, that's my point. Mages have the disadvantage of not being able to solo most areas because of all of their restrictions. In exchange for all of their disadvantages they have the advantage of...what?

"Again, mages are not toe-to-toe combatants. They get experience for casting spells."

That's actually not what my statement is about. If you read it more closely you'll note that I said that their attacking power does not go up very quickly without the addition of new spells. The idea here is that while hitroll and damroll go up for all classes as they level, the mage does not really utilize that increase in combat. The mage's offensive power is directly linked to the spells they use in combat and unless they train newer and more powerful spells their damage does not keep up as far as damage goes.

"No more or less expensive than the training and equipment it takes to be a skilled warrior."

I disagree very strongly. A suit of studded leather might cost ten or fifteen platinum coins and lasts a fighter for a very long time. Throw in a free weapon (from a quest) and suppliment that studded leather with some quest armor and you've managed to equip a warrior for next to nothing. Admittedly the cost of outfitting a wizard is less than that for a warrior, however it is more than offset by the fact that wizard guilds have dozens of expensive spells to train while warriors have significantly fewer, most of which are less expensive than a comparable spell.

"Again, if you form a group and go adventuring, the rewards can be quite substantial. Mages also get the option of brewing potions which is an excellent source of income."

Adventuring can be moderately rewarding, but I wouldn't say the rewards are quite substantial. I suppose it depends on your definition of substantial but I've grouped and adventured with a wizard I play and I still find it far more difficult to affort my spells than it is for me to afford fighter skills on other characters. Furthermore the ability to brew potions becomes available around level 45 so it's really not an option for a source of income for lower level characters. It certainly wouldn't be good to power level to acquire the brew skill in order to make money.

"Again, mages were never designed to be solo adventurers."

My argument here has never been that mages should be solo adventurers. In fact, I don't think any class should consist of solo adventurers. Mages should not be and neither should paladins. In fact, when Andreas rides out to confront evil I seem to recall that it's typically alone and not in a group with a priest and a mage for support.

"So now you're saying that a mage is the equal of any fighter, priest or thief?"

Actually I never said that. I don't actually have specs for damage production by each class, but I would bet that the approximate damage per second of a mage is similar to or lower than that of most fighters and priests. No one here disagrees that the wizard class has many disadvantages. They cannot wear heavy armor, they can memorize a limited number of spells...these are concepts that I believe should be in the game. The important thing to remember is that there must be advantages to offset the disadvantages. In table top the advantage to being a mage is the ability to deal obscene amounts of damage at higher levels, an advantage that is not really present in FK.

[Belose]

Andreas, in the above post you said...."I believe this is subjective. Again, if you form a group and go adventuring, the rewards can be quite substantial. Mages also get the option of brewing potions which is an excellent source of income.

Have the rules changed again? The last time I mentioned it, it was STATED in no uncertain terms that only Priests can brew and Mages can scribe.... Belose has scribe and brew in his list... he cannot learn brew because he failed the quest.. but he learned scribe somewhere else and made one scroll.. also it looks like a lot of the skill lists have been changed to reflect that... but Belose still has scribe and brew... so what is it? Priests can only brew and mages only scribe or what? I keep seeing posts long after my original post in other threads and it keeps me irritated because it seems no one has read that..... both classes are doing both skills.... I wish Sharni, Greg or Dalvyn would put this issue to rest once and for all..... and hope everyone will read it so they'll KNOW!!!

[Lerytha]

I can see both sides of this discussion.

I think something has to be done to make some wizards see the true importance of their spellbooks. To most wizards, their spellbook is their one true friend. Seriously though, they have kept this grotty spellbook since their days as an apprentice magic missile fizzler, to their current status as a blasty mage. The spellbook is -part- of them. And that's just emotionally.

Magically, as Andreas has said, they have scribed not only spells, but obscure bits of maigc and notations to help them cast their spells. They use their own magical codes. Some wizards even have wards on their spellbooks to stop others from reading it.

To have a wizard lose their spellbook, and then just "ladida and fetch it" completely removes the value of this spellbook. So, I would agree fully with raising the price of this spellbook. Maybe not to 1000 platinum, because whilst that might be D&D accurate, it would be an extreme cost for wizards.

An example: a mage, level 24, loses their spellbook, due to being killed by a mob, or dropping it, or something. They thing: oh, god. What do I do? Next minute, they have to pay 1000 platinum. I think that 20 platinum, whilst unrealistic D&Dwise, makes the right point, for wizards.

Also, though, I think that this could be left to RP. Perhaps have an addition to the spellbook helpfile, stating: "Spellbooks are often the entire life and work of a wizard, guarded with magical codes and wards. To lose a spellbook is a great loss. A wizard is expected to RP this loss accordingly." (or something like that, if the staff agrees with it)

So, I think perhaps yes, increasing the cost, but also making it an official rule that wizard players should RP more concerning their spellbooks.

[Glim]

I have to agree with Balek and Dalvyn.

"So now you're saying that a mage is the equal of any fighter, priest or thief?"

Actually I never said that. I don't actually have specs for damage production by each class, but I would bet that the approximate damage per second of a mage is similar to or lower than that of most fighters and priests. No one here disagrees that the wizard class has many disadvantages. They cannot wear heavy armor, they can memorize a limited number of spells...these are concepts that I believe should be in the game. The important thing to remember is that there must be advantages to offset the disadvantages. In table top the advantage to being a mage is the ability to deal obscene amounts of damage at higher levels, an advantage that is not really present in FK.

Just to put in my opinion, I beleive that a high level wizard should be more of a match for ANY high level character of any class. My reasons are:

I have heard of people lvling a warrior to lvl 50 in under 50 hours. This is impossible with a wizard. Wizards have many disadvantages. They are much harder to level and are limited in many ways that Dalvyn can explain alot better than I can, but the fact is the same. Yes, wizards are group people, but at higher levels, mostly in D&D as this cannot be reflected in FK, wizards are DEVASTATING. A single well prepared wizard, out of the way, can destroy fighters. And this simply isnt possible.
There are so many things that higher level wizards have at a disadvantage that cannot be reflected in D&D merely because it is 1 dimensional, contingencies, teleporting around in a battlefield, ect. It is honestly sad when a warrior of 100 hours can win in a PK against a wizard of 400 hours who still probably is at a lower level than the warrior.

Lets look at it this way, a wizard loses all his equipment, a warrior loses all their equipment. Who is going to win? Even with a spellbook, most good spells require components. Wizards have to constantly spend money on components, while warriors can get a suit of armor than never damages. Warriors have dodge, which works BETTER with less equipment.

The thought has crossed my mind for spellbooks in the game keeping their spells and such, I merely dont think that wizards need any more disadvantages than they already have.

Ill write more when its not 5:30 in the morning here, but I just cant agree with you at the moment Andreas. Perhaps when there are more advantages to a wizard we can have a more crippling disadvantage.

[Elenthis]

Ok, I'm likely one of the more adament advocates of wizard rights, but before anyone goes any further (This thread got a little heated for a bit) I want to say one thing.

The basis of Andreas' original post was right. Spellbooks are an important part of being a wizard and that should be reflected in RP.

Now for the opinions:
First, I think spellbooks -can- be RPed as valuable, and indeed, that is the end goal. But from what I've seen in a lot of cases FK as a whole (generalising is bad. I'm ashamed) has the notion that the only way to make people realise the importance of what they have is to make it more expensive/difficult/limited/rare. The final option, I happen to like most of all, but in no way do I disagree with the previous three in thier own places. I guess my point is: What if we made spellbooks MORE USEFULto increase thier value to the individual character?

Here is one of a thousand examples:

spellbooks, as they stand, include everything in your spell list weather you just got them, or had them a century. This is a code issue, and I will not presume to even suggest Greg does the work to change it, since I myself am not a coder. But if they -were changed- It might do well to personalise the spell list and make it possible to learn spells from them. (at inept). Doing so would require a down-time like brew during which one can only smote, but would take considerably longer (5 minutes ish IRL?) to complete, and only one spell per spellbook would work.
Perhapse in addition, to lighten the painful load on a wizard if his/her spellbook is lost, they would have to rewrite their spells into the book. Suspend reality a moment, and make it fun. What if rewriting required the expenditure of one of each of the components per spell, and maybe an exp loss of 1% per spell.

Anyhow. Just an idea.

So to finish off my post, I wanted to enter one final thing:
This is specifically for those of you who play wizards and love them.
I battle with myself after reading ever post claiming wizards to be the hardest class to play, and possibly a class which is wholly weaker than it should be. But what if it wasnt? That wouldnt be such a good thing IMO. I RP myself as being an eccentric force to me reckoned with, and most of the time, people respond. I dont need to spar to show my potential power.
If wizards were not all they are, and were all they arent. More people would play them, and they would lose that rareness that they have. It's the rareness of wizards that gives us the flexability we need to create our own aura around our wizards.

The End.

~Elenthis.

[Hrosskell]

I agree with Balek this time. It's just too hard to make a self-sufficient wizard for me to say, "Okay, here goes 100-1000 platinum." My wizard is roleplayed not to accept much help from others, he's more of a lone wolf. I'm willing to spend more time so I can keep his RP, but I can't agree with dying to a hill giant I didn't mean to go to, or even to some bandits if I forgot to memorise my offensive spells, and losing everything I've done on that character. In my opinion, wizards need a few things to make them stronger, even if those things require quests and kismet checks and just generally good RP to get, not things that will require as much time as quests and kismet checks and just generally good RP and still hurt the wizard as a class.

[Argentia]

I was hesitant to pop into this discussion, but I have to ask. Elenthis, your idea did not make sense to me. Maybe it's just me? I'm not quite sure what you mean by

It might do well to personalise the spell list and make it possible to learn spells from them. (at inept)

Can you maybe clarify?

Also, I wanted to mention that my characters tend to fear and respect powerful(IE High lvl) wizards. ::coughelenthiscough:: OOC and IC I've always considered them powerful, just because I figured they can zap me to kingdom come, or change my gender, or magically hold me, or make me weaker than a kitten, ect. I've seen a disintigrate spell make a L50 ranger go bye-bye in one shot. Poor guy never saw it coming.

Anyway, just wanted to mention that to show that wizards aren't the weaklings every is making them out to be. I agree that they are very difficult to train, whatwith having to learn twelve bajillion spells and gather their components, and learning their spells are comparatively more expensive than other classes. And my wizzy is always broke. But in my opinion, it all pays off in the end. A lot. Though come to think of it, Elenthis, I never HAVE seen you in action... Hmmm, I could be being fooled.

Uhh, yeah... About spellbooks. The first time I saw a spellbook for sale, I was shocked to see the price so low. I would agree that they should be more expensive. But not 1000 plat expensive. I've only ever been above 100 plat no more than three times. And that was TRYING. But anyway. I think a neat addition would be the ability to write notes in your spellbook. If you lose that spellbook, you lose your notes. I know I've always wanted to do that... Anyone else?

[Glim]

Well, Just think about it. Why would a blank book cost a few hundred platinum?

I beleive what Elenthis means is when you get a new spellbook, you must spend a little time scribing your old spells into the new book before you can memorise them. Scribing would require the components used a perhaps like 1% xp. Though that can take a long time and be expensive on xp and coin for components when a wizard has to scribe 50+ spells. Mind you this is ussually after they have lost everything, or merely just been PKed and had their spellbook taken.

Also, Argentia, more than likely, if you have any sort of high level character, and you know how to PK right, you can beat most wizards. Disintegrate is an excellent spell and a wonderful attempt at giving more wizards more power, but not all wizards get it.

[Isolrem]

I think the major problem is the ease that a spellbook could be lost in the game. Any random death and theft or accidnet (drop and crash) could easily result in the loss of the spellbook, whereas in many DnD, loss of essential items is much harder and regaining them by other means more lenient.
If a spellbook/symbol of faith kinda thing could be somehow attached to a character through death and "unstealabe" I don't disagree that there could be more price in acquiring and updating a spellbook.

So much as scribing goes, it is just a system of spell requiration some uses. FK uses train.

[Tandria]

Grr. Spent a lot of time writing a huuuge reply to this and got auto signed out! Will try and reword everything again .

My opinion is a mishmash of everyone's, more or less.

My level 14 illusionist can buy a generic spellbook for about 2 platinum, give or take. Furthermore, my level 50 mage can buy a generic one for about . . . two platinum. My illusionist knows 9 spells, and my mage knows all but one spell on her list. Someone mentioned the other day that he thought the cost of spellbooks was dependant on the amount of spells learned, and I think that would be a very valid way of selling spellbooks. For example, each spell would cost roughly two gold. My illusionist would, thus, spend roughly 18 gold for a spellbook, whereas my mage would spend more than 100 gold for one. I think this is quite reasonable.

Further, I was discussing this with another, and he mentioned something about a tag being added to the spellbook, an "owner flag" so that only the person who purchased or originally obtained the spellbook could use it. This is a great idea, IMO, but I'm not sure if it would be easier to use an if check on name that would be placed on the spellbook at purchase. For example:

Fibbly buys spellbook.
Fibbly's name is placed into an if check upon purchasing said spellbook. Now every time Fibbly casts or memorises a spell, the spellbook will check if Fibbly is the PC's name. If Fibbly dies and Bob gets the spellbook, trying to use it, he will fail, because his name is Bob and not Fibbly.

Does that make sense?

I don't think carrying about multiple spellbooks would really be practical for FK. As has been said multiple times in this thread, wizards are hampered down enough as it is . . . needing multiple spellbooks in inventory to memorise a handful of spells shouldn't really be necessary. Besides, this is FK, and tabletop is tabletop. Two completely different things .

[Rhiel]

One of my favorite things upon reading the FR books, D&D books in general, or TT games is the part when a wizzy goes questing, and at the end of which, run like a bat out of the Abyss completely neglecting the mountains and mountains of rubies, sapphires, coins, and other riches towards the ancient, dusty tome placed in a moldy corner of the room.

This book holds the knowledge of some ancient wizard long dead! It has been thought lost for millenia, and now I have it, and with countless hours of study, I will unlock its power!

That's the typical reaction of a wizard. In FK, it's not quite so....impressive. I agree with Andreas on many points, and I disagree on many points. But, I'm not gonna argue that. I'm just going to share MY particular vision of the wizard's spellbook.

As it is, the spellbook (excluding the neat ones in Aurora's, and the ones received as noobs), is just another book, much like any other in the Realms. But traditionally, the spellbook is a book of POWER, inscribed with magical runes, protected by wards, and laboriously studied and cared for. And the more powerful the wizard, the more powerful were their spellbooks. It would be an interesting change to see this reflected more in FK.

Now, in regards to coding issues, I have no CLUE what it would take to implement these or any other ideas suggested. That's why they're just ideas at this point.

Now the cheap, generic spellbooks cost less than 5 plat. Understandable. As it is, they are NOT books of power. But what about...say...Blackstaff's book? There is BOUND to be more spells than any wizard could learn in that book. What price tag would a wizard place on that?

Perhaps, a wizard's spellbook SHOULD be able to be written in. Part magical journal/part magical recipes. What if it were a reflection of the wizard: his faith, his alignment, his guild? What if, once lost, it could only be replaced by copious amounts of work? Or...what if the wizard could place wards and enchantments around his book, to protect it from thieves, other wizards, or- in the event of his death-protection until his return? Or maybe the spellbook could be attached to the wizard, bridging the gap between life and death?

And what if a wizards obtains the spellbook of another wizard, willingly or no? Perhaps with the right amount of study, experience expenditure, and component usage, a wizard could scribe spells into his OWN book? (This would also be a way for Mage Colleges to share information, as well as making money. Can anyone say "scribe spellbook?")

And maybe for the evil wizzies out there, what if we are given a reason to go good mage hunting, solely to learn the art of our opponents, and steal their power for our own?

As far as the wizard's status in equality with the other classes.....I think reputation plays an important role here. I have noticed...slowly but surely...wizzies are starting to receive a lot more respect. Many a fighter will not fight a wizard because of his reputation. In cases like these, code is irrelevant. And that's how it is in FR. Many times, a wizards creates an illusion of power, and if the people buy it, then it is so.

Nevertheless, I will say this: I have lost MANY a battle to players simply because I am a wizard, and they are not. Priests can dispel us, warriors completely ignore our high leveled spells. (Unless we use feats, which devour mana) Although I am recently leaning more towards the RP side of the game, this is -STILL- a MUD, and code retains an important function. Pure RP would be a MUSH, if I'm not mistaken....

I think it would make sense for insanely high-leveled and well RPed wizards with lots of hours under their belt to make a flippant gesture, leveling a row of undead with a spell. It happens in the books, why not in the game?

Just a few thoughts from an adamant wizard player, thanks for the "food for thought."

Rhiel