Wizards and Starting Spells

[filo_clarke]

You are correct, 6 starting spells. 2 from level 1, 2 from level 2, 1 from level 3 and 1 from level four.

[pblackcrow]

Actually, no. That is not the case. You actually can select 1 additional spell at level 1. Plus the ones listed under 1. Common Spell Knowledge.

A total of 13 spells.

By the way, welcome to the forum.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Actually, no. That is not the case. You actually can select 1 additional spell at level 1. Plus the ones listed under 1. Common Spell Knowledge.

A total of 13 spells.

By the way, welcome to the forum.

At Level 1 the PF Wizard gets (also known as "starting spells"): The common knowledge spells, 2 level one spells of choice, 2 level two spells of choice, 1 level three spells of choice, and 1 level four spells of choice.
That is all the canon starting spells. A total of 12 (twelve) spells.
-----------------
The "level up" spells start when the char gains Level 2. pblackcrow, you need to reread the 2nd half of the addition spells section about the level up spells where the very 1st thing that section says is "At each new level of experience....". This phrasing precludes the interpretation that you stated.

[arouetta]

Actually, no. That is not the case. You actually can select 1 additional spell at level 1. Plus the ones listed under 1. Common Spell Knowledge.

A total of 13 spells.

By the way, welcome to the forum.

At Level 1 the PF Wizard gets (also known as "starting spells"): The common knowledge spells, 2 level one spells of choice, 2 level two spells of choice, 1 level three spells of choice, and 1 level four spells of choice.
That is all the canon starting spells. A total of 12 (twelve) spells.
-----------------
The "level up" spells start when the char gains Level 2. pblackcrow, you need to reread the 2nd half of the addition spells section about the level up spells where the very 1st thing that section says is "At each new level of experience....". This phrasing precludes the interpretation that you stated.

I respectfully disagree. The book states "At each new level of experience, starting at level one". So an apprentice gets the 12 spells, then upon attaining journeyman status (level 1) he learns a 13th spell as he is being kicked out of the nest.

[drewkitty ~..~]

, starting at level one".

"Starting At level one"....not "Starting with level one."
It is saying "Where you start the counting the level advancements From.", not "When you get your fist level up spell'.

The 1st 'level up' from starting at level 1 the char experiences is when the char goes from L1 to L2.

[kiralon]

My players have had this same argument. My answer 1-3 = yes, 4 -6 = no

[pblackcrow]

I respectfully disagree. The book states "At each new level of experience, starting at level one". So an apprentice gets the 12 spells, then upon attaining journeyman status (level 1) he learns a 13th spell as he is being kicked out of the nest.

Exactly how I see it.

[pblackcrow]

Thanks guys.

Some of the wording in the book seems a bit "indirect" for lack of a better word.

That's putting it nicely.

[The Dark Elf]

I think the wording of the "13th" spell is open for interpretation but the clincher for me isnt the wording it is that if it was included in level one and therefore I could only pick from level one spells then instead of saying "The player may select two spells of choice each level one and two" why doesnt it just say "three from level one and two from level two"...

[drewkitty ~..~]

When you take the argued over sentence as what the words say, you get that the char gets their 1st level up spell with their 1st advancement to a new level when they change to Level 2.

"In Other Words": There is no "ambiguity" in the sentence to be argued over.

[kiralon]

I respectfully disagree. The book states "At each new level of experience, starting at level one". So an apprentice gets the 12 spells, then upon attaining journeyman status (level 1) he learns a 13th spell as he is being kicked out of the nest.

Exactly how I see it.

No such thing as a apprentice for that assumption to work on by the rules. You either exist (lvl 1 or higher) or you don't exist (lvl 0)
So you start at level 1, and whenever you gain a level you get a spell. The clincher for me is where it says at each new level. Being lvl 1 isn't gaining a new level because there is no lvl 0 to start from, Otherwise I would work on the "it may be assumed" line, which gives room for error so you might not end up with a spell per level.

[The Dark Elf]

When you take the argued over sentence as what the words say, you get that the char gets their 1st level up spell with their 1st advancement to a new level when they change to Level 2.

"In Other Words": There is no "ambiguity" in the sentence to be argued over.

Clearly not. Open yourself to these thoughts and remember I believe the "correct" answer is debatable (ie interpretation of the poorly worded).

At each new level of experience, starting at level one, it may be assumed that the character has been able to figure out or learn one new spell

If the sentence read "starting at level two" what level would you give? Level Three then?
The word at usually means something precise ("I'll meet you at noon." "they're shooting at the lights." etc). This is where the confusion is coming from and it is easy to see why. The wording should read after level one (or starting at level two - there's that at word again) or similar to be clearer.

However they have used the words new level so I (personally) would gravitate towards the 13th spell being at level two.

But the point is I feel the wording is to be argued (or interpreted as the GM sees fit) and is far from clear. If it wasnt those posting wouldnt be doing so. You must see that surely. Surely?

[MADMANMIKE]

When you take the argued over sentence as what the words say, you get that the char gets their 1st level up spell with their 1st advancement to a new level when they change to Level 2.

"In Other Words": There is no "ambiguity" in the sentence to be argued over.

Clearly not. Open yourself to these thoughts and remember I believe the "correct" answer is debatable (ie interpretation of the poorly worded).

At each new level of experience, starting at level one, it may be assumed that the character has been able to figure out or learn one new spell

If the sentence read "starting at level two" what level would you give? Level Three then?
The word at usually means something precise ("I'll meet you at noon." "they're shooting at the lights." etc). This is where the confusion is coming from and it is easy to see why. The wording should read after level one (or starting at level two - there's that at word again) or similar to be clearer.

However they have used the words new level so I (personally) would gravitate towards the 13th spell being at level two.

But the point is I feel the wording is to be argued (or interpreted as the GM sees fit) and is far from clear. If it wasnt those posting wouldnt be doing so. You must see that surely. Surely?

Silly Brit with your comprehension of the English language..

Perhaps if things keep going well for Palladium we'll see an Ultimate Edition in the near future that will clear these little semantic arguments up. Personally I ussually do like Kev and let a player pick an additional six to eight spells at first level. But then I also use my spell learning rules (from the RIFTS Game Master Screens) so they have a book of spells they're constantly practicing and trying to learn.

[gaby]

Well I think they will have 2 Offense,2 defensive and 4 or 6 self-empowering or Utlity spells.

[pblackcrow]

Silly Brit with your comprehension of the English language..

LOL! Actually Mike, I am from Tennessee; but to be honest...I consider myself a citizen of the entire Earth. However, I do plan on moving back to England this spring, this time PERMANENTLY. I will be giving up my citizenship to the US. I do come off as British, because of my mum's influence.

Cheers Mike.

[pblackcrow]

But the point is I feel the wording is to be argued (or interpreted as the GM sees fit) and is far from clear.

I agree, Mate. However, I see it as being as Arouetta put it.

[pblackcrow]

No such thing as a apprentice for that assumption to work on by the rules. You either exist (lvl 1 or higher) or you don't exist (lvl 0)

One thing wrong with that assumption. Mainly the character's background. Also assuming apprenticeship doesn't exist, you deprive so many characters of a chance to multiclass.

[MADMANMIKE]

Silly Brit with your comprehension of the English language..

LOL! Actually Mike, I am from Tennessee; but to be honest...I consider myself a citizen of the entire Earth. However, I do plan on moving back to England this spring, this time PERMANENTLY. I will be giving up my citizenship to the US. I do come off as British, because of my mum's influence.

Cheers Mike.

Yeeaahh... I was quoting DarkElf, who is indeed from England..

[kiralon]

No such thing as a apprentice for that assumption to work on by the rules. You either exist (lvl 1 or higher) or you don't exist (lvl 0)

One thing wrong with that assumption. Mainly the character's background. Also assuming apprenticeship doesn't exist, you deprive so many characters of a chance to multiclass.

I'm not sure how this was an assumption, I have never seen a level 0 character in game, and I have never seen the apprentice OCC, not that it would matter as it would be a separate class and the gaining of a spell only occurs when you go up a level as a wizard, and when you change class from apprentice you start at level 1 wizard, which isn't going up a level, its changing class. The game mechanics make PC's spring fully formed as they are out of the ground. I'm not saying apprenticeship doesn't exist, it does in the fluff. I'm saying the game mechanics for apprenticeship aren't there so they can't apply to gaining spells. Not sure why it deprives multi classing options as well.

[pblackcrow]

No such thing as a apprentice for that assumption to work on by the rules. You either exist (lvl 1 or higher) or you don't exist (lvl 0)

One thing wrong with that assumption. Mainly the character's background. Also assuming apprenticeship doesn't exist, you deprive so many characters of a chance to multiclass.

I'm not sure how this was an assumption, I have never seen a level 0 character in game, and I have never seen the apprentice OCC, not that it would matter as it would be a separate class and the gaining of a spell only occurs when you go up a level as a wizard, and when you change class from apprentice you start at level 1 wizard, which isn't going up a level, its changing class. The game mechanics make PC's spring fully formed as they are out of the ground. I'm not saying apprenticeship doesn't exist, it does in the fluff. I'm saying the game mechanics for apprenticeship aren't there so they can't apply to gaining spells. Not sure why it deprives multi classing options as well.

Let me put it to you like this. When I multiclassed, from tumbler (or was it acrobat?) to mariner, I had to play the apprenticeship out...I didn't just become instantly gifted with the knowledge of a mariner. I was captured by a slaver, bought by a captain, and put on a ship (I was the only member to survive the circus game, and the other players wanted to play a few games at sea...And I wanted to continue playing my tumbler.) However, I did start as a cabin boy. I was playing a 13 year old boy, so it worked for me. The players said I played it perfectly. Even though, I probably had the most actual sailing experience, other then the GM. Plus, I had an absolute blast with doing it like that!

[pblackcrow]

Yeeaahh... I was quoting DarkElf, who is indeed from England..

Okay...Sorry, I thought you were talking about all Brits. We have a few on here. My bad.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The "starting spells already include any "level up" spells they would of "theoretically" gotten from moving from Level 0 to Level 1.

[kiralon]

The "starting spells already include any "level up" spells they would of "theoretically" gotten from moving from Level 0 to Level 1.

I also would assume that the training gave them the starting spells
but with this I'm just going by game mechanics. lvl 0 doesn't exist so you cant be lvl 0 and go up a level by the rules because you weren't level 0. I happen to agree with pblackcrow, doing it his way is much more fun and rewarding, but that isn't mentioned in the books so its a house rule. The book says you get a new spell when you go up a level. You start at 1 and going to 2 is going up a level, starting at one you haven't done anything to gain a level, otherwise I would say I started at level -10 and went up 11 levels. Lvl -10 makes as much sense as level 0, and there is the same amount of rules written for being lvl 0 as being level -10.
The problem is the game doesn't cater much for being under the age of adventuring
what level and class is a 2 month old baby
5 year old kid?

[Nightmask]

The "starting spells already include any "level up" spells they would of "theoretically" gotten from moving from Level 0 to Level 1.

I also would assume that the training gave them the starting spells
but with this I'm just going by game mechanics. lvl 0 doesn't exist so you cant be lvl 0 and go up a level by the rules because you weren't level 0. I happen to agree with pblackcrow, doing it his way is much more fun and rewarding, but that isn't mentioned in the books so its a house rule. The book says you get a new spell when you go up a level. You start at 1 and going to 2 is going up a level, starting at one you haven't done anything to gain a level, otherwise I would say I started at level -10 and went up 11 levels. Lvl -10 makes as much sense as level 0, and there is the same amount of rules written for being lvl 0 as being level -10.
The problem is the game doesn't cater much for being under the age of adventuring
what level and class is a 2 month old baby
5 year old kid?

Of course Level 0 exists, which is why you have that 'spend x amount of time earning experience to reach level 1' requirement for Multi-Classing. It's an inherent aspect of things where you start at Zero and after gaining that experience (which is considered to be 'off-camera' with regards to one's starting class) one achieves level One. Nobody ever starts at level One they all start at Zero and work up to it as part of the backstory (generally).

[kiralon]

Of course Level 0 exists, which is why you have that 'spend x amount of time earning experience to reach level 1' requirement for Multi-Classing. It's an inherent aspect of things where you start at Zero and after gaining that experience (which is considered to be 'off-camera' with regards to one's starting class) one achieves level One. Nobody ever starts at level One they all start at Zero and work up to it as part of the backstory (generally).

Could please show me then where it says level 0 is available to a pc in the book. I don't ever remember seeing it written anywhere. I'm playing devils advocate here, I like characters to have a good background story and give points for it. What im saying here is people saying you get a spell going from level 0 to lvl 1. I just want someone to show me where it says you start out as level 0 and get to level 1
does that mean that I have been doing hitpoints wrong because it says a starting (not level 1, but actually a starting character) character has 1d6 hp + PE and gets an extra 1d6 per level, so a lvl 1 starting character would have 2d6+PE hitpoints.

and the thing about multiclassing sort of only true of first ed (except it doesnt mention going from level 0 to level 1, it says your level freezes, then you have to gain and lose some experience and hey presto, level 1 in your new class). 2nd ed you just start in your new class and pay penalties if the new class is cross class. (p.10 of 2nd ed version of high seas i think)

[drewkitty ~..~]

There is only a theoretical Level 0 which represents the latter stages of training.

Even the only published 'Canon Changing Class Rules' do not use the term "Level 0" to refer to the training time needed to switch OCC's.

[Nightmask]

Of course Level 0 exists, which is why you have that 'spend x amount of time earning experience to reach level 1' requirement for Multi-Classing. It's an inherent aspect of things where you start at Zero and after gaining that experience (which is considered to be 'off-camera' with regards to one's starting class) one achieves level One. Nobody ever starts at level One they all start at Zero and work up to it as part of the backstory (generally).

Could please show me then where it says level 0 is available to a pc in the book. I don't ever remember seeing it written anywhere. I'm playing devils advocate here, I like characters to have a good background story and give points for it. What im saying here is people saying you get a spell going from level 0 to lvl 1. I just want someone to show me where it says you start out as level 0 and get to level 1
does that mean that I have been doing hitpoints wrong because it says a starting (not level 1, but actually a starting character) character has 1d6 hp + PE and gets an extra 1d6 per level, so a lvl 1 starting character would have 2d6+PE hitpoints.

and the thing about multiclassing sort of only true of first ed (except it doesnt mention going from level 0 to level 1, it says your level freezes, then you have to gain and lose some experience and hey presto, level 1 in your new class). 2nd ed you just start in your new class and pay penalties if the new class is cross class. (p.10 of 2nd ed version of high seas i think)

Everybody has to start somewhere, since you can't start at 1st level you start at what is effectively 0th level, for a mage they're a 0th level apprentice being taught by their master a basic set of spells and upon 'graduation' (i.e. reaching 1st level) he gets that new spell to round things out. There doesn't need to be explicit language in the books calling it 0th level since the level before you make 1st level would pretty much by definition be level 0.

I think at least some of the debate has little to do with the wording and more about whether some feel that the 'extra' spell is somehow 'too much', when spell acquisition in general is not particularly reliable a thing and treated like trying to acquire an epic item in AD&D.

[kiralon]

"There doesn't need to be explicit language in the books calling it 0th level since the level before you make 1st level would pretty much by definition be level 0"
But that is still an assumption, a good logical assumption because it does make sense, the problem is not much logic was used in the wording so applying a lot of logic to something that isn't very logical makes for lots of errors, that why its best to go by what's in the book. Other places in the book shows they do use 0 (+0 to strike etc) so they know 0 exists and they chose not to use it. Levels 1-15 are very well laid out and documented and lvl 0 is only ever assumed, not mentioned

But by going by that wording everyone would also have 2d6 hp at level 1 because the hp's are worded much the same way.
a starting character gains 1d6 and it says to roll 1 time for your starting character (that would be your normal spell picks), it then it say for each experience level gained you get an extra 1d6 hp
assuming you go from lvl 0 to 1 gives you the extra hp. No one I have ever played palladium with has interpreted that way because you start at level 1. Pre level one exists in real life but not in most rpg's, dnd has something close with 1/2 hit dice but that was written in the book.

So do all your level 1 characters have 2d6+PE for hp

[drewkitty ~..~]

The "+HP per level" is a "level up" thing like the "level Up" spells, they are first gotten at the change from L1 to L2.

And No I am not going to argue with you over it for three reasons...it would be going "Off Topic" for this topic, and you have not done your basic rules readings cause you are applying the spell/power meaning to a "Level up" item, ignoring the "level up" meaning for the words.

[kiralon]

The "+HP per level" is a "level up" thing like the "level Up" spells, they are first gotten at the change from L1 to L2.

And No I am not going to argue with you over it for three reasons...it would be going "Off Topic" for this topic, and you have not done your basic rules readings cause you are applying the spell/power meaning to a "Level up" item, ignoring the "level up" meaning for the words.

Lol
Well if you are talking to me I certainly confused you hehe. Im arguing that you dont get the spell because in the least thereis no level 0. And if the lvl 0 to lvl 1 thing existed you would get 2d6 hp instead of 1d6.

[Nightmask]

The "+HP per level" is a "level up" thing like the "level Up" spells, they are first gotten at the change from L1 to L2.

And No I am not going to argue with you over it for three reasons...it would be going "Off Topic" for this topic, and you have not done your basic rules readings cause you are applying the spell/power meaning to a "Level up" item, ignoring the "level up" meaning for the words.

Lol
Well if you are talking to me I certainly confused you hehe. Im arguing that you dont get the spell because in the least thereis no level 0. And if the lvl 0 to lvl 1 thing existed you would get 2d6 hp instead of 1d6.

Can't be responding to me since he supposedly doesn't read or respond to my posts, but the text for determining HP is the same throughout all palladium books and I haven't noticed any ambiguity where one would have reason to think it could mean you'd get more than 1d6 starting at first level, unlike the wording for spells noted here that would mean you'd get those 12 spells plus one more for your starting level of 1 for a total of 13 spells at 1st level. Well except for AtB with regards to HP, they actually do rewrite the text to be even more clear than it already is.

[kiralon]

I was more talking about the lvl0 to lvl1 thing. If wizards get it everyone else would as well. And the hp rules in the boom state that a starting character gets 1d6 hps plus PE to start and 1d6 hp when they go up a level . So by the rule where you get a spell for going up a level from 0 to 1 means that you would have pe plus 1d6 hp as a starting character as it says that in second ed. It then says when you gain a level you get 1d6 hp. So you would get 1d6 hp for going from level 0 to level 1 because the wizard gets a spell for going up a level which you are saying includes level 0 to 1.
Or another simpler way if you say the wizard get the extra spell for going from 0 to 1 he would also get the extra hp for going from 0 to 1
So if your characters get the extra spell the logi that gives them the spell is the same logic that would give u 2d6 hp to start with

I dont agree with this logic but if you write up a good background story explaining why you got it id normally allow it

[Nightmask]

I was more talking about the lvl0 to lvl1 thing. If wizards get it everyone else would as well. And the hp rules in the boom state that a starting character gets 1d6 hps plus PE to start and 1d6 hp when they go up a level . So by the rule where you get a spell for going up a level from 0 to 1 means that you would have pe plus 1d6 hp as a starting character as it says that in second ed. It then says when you gain a level you get 1d6 hp. So you would get 1d6 hp for going from level 0 to level 1 because the wizard gets a spell for going up a level which you are saying includes level 0 to 1.
Or another simpler way if you say the wizard get the extra spell for going from 0 to 1 he would also get the extra hp for going from 0 to 1
So if your characters get the extra spell the logi that gives them the spell is the same logic that would give u 2d6 hp to start with

I dont agree with this logic but if you write up a good background story explaining why you got it id normally allow it

The text doesn't work like that though. One says to include level one in the calculation (the spell-caster) and the other does not (determining HP ). So your basic level 0 HP is simply final PE number, with you acquiring your first 1d6 to add to it at level 1.

[MADMANMIKE]

Guys, this is a pointless argument. if some people want to argue they can have extra spells at first level, that's between them and their G.M. No amount of semantic argument is going to convince them otherwise.

I'm not going to weigh in on it because like I said, there's no sense in beating our heads against a wall..

[arouetta]

I picked another OCC at random, the Mind Mage, and looked at the psionic progression. It says "each additional level of experience, starting at level two."

So if a wizard, which the wording states "starting at level one" doesn't get the spell until moving from level one to level two, then the very same wording means the mind mage doesn't get any additional psionics until he is moving from level two to level three.

Rebuttal?

[kiralon]

I was more talking about the lvl0 to lvl1 thing. If wizards get it everyone else would as well. And the hp rules in the boom state that a starting character gets 1d6 hps plus PE to start and 1d6 hp when they go up a level . So by the rule where you get a spell for going up a level from 0 to 1 means that you would have pe plus 1d6 hp as a starting character as it says that in second ed. It then says when you gain a level you get 1d6 hp. So you would get 1d6 hp for going from level 0 to level 1 because the wizard gets a spell for going up a level which you are saying includes level 0 to 1.
Or another simpler way if you say the wizard get the extra spell for going from 0 to 1 he would also get the extra hp for going from 0 to 1
So if your characters get the extra spell the logi that gives them the spell is the same logic that would give u 2d6 hp to start with

I dont agree with this logic but if you write up a good background story explaining why you got it id normally allow it

The text doesn't work like that though. One says to include level one in the calculation (the spell-caster) and the other does not (determining HP ). So your basic level 0 HP is simply final PE number, with you acquiring your first 1d6 to add to it at level 1.

Im saying that the extra spell has 2 conditions. Level gain and a particular level.

Sounds like this had been argued before, but I am a stubborn man, I have had to be because of badly worded ambiguities in games I play in. So I don't give up easily.

Hey Hey good rebuttal except that moving from 1 to 2 is gaining a level so it ticks both boxes. level 2 - check, just gained a level - check. Im saying creating a character isn't level gain so you don't get the spell, but I like your argument, im going to use it one the next player that plays a mind mage.

Banging your head against the wall burns 150 calories an hour, so its not a totally useless action Never give up, Never surrender.

[The Immortal ME]

I have always normalized all the "do I get the 'X per level' at level one?" questions to "yes." The wording in all the different places is annoyingly diverse and it saves an awful lot of hassle trying to Grammar Archeologist out the intent. I like to use consistent systems.

If we are going to discuss the finer points of Grammar Archeology, I always interpreted "starting at level one," to mean that level one was an inclusive endpoint. Which is to say, you get the 12 starting spells plus one at level one for a total of thirteen. If the sentence read "starting after level one" or something similar I would interpret it as an exclusive endpoint.

To me this particular instance seems to me to be very clear.

The main argument against this position is that "well then why not say 'select three from level one' when enumerating the starting spells?" To which I rejoin that one-based ranges are generally more intuitive. Generally when describing a series you have a base constant and a general formula for determining every value in the series. Having level one described by a different formula than the one used to describe what you do at level two is not intuitive.

[The Immortal ME]

I picked another OCC at random, the Mind Mage, and looked at the psionic progression. It says "each additional level of experience, starting at level two."

So if a wizard, which the wording states "starting at level one" doesn't get the spell until moving from level one to level two, then the very same wording means the mind mage doesn't get any additional psionics until he is moving from level two to level three.

Rebuttal?

Exactly what I was talking about for "annoyingly diverse" and why I would prefer a normalized system.

[Reagren Wright]

So many ways of interpreting the text. Take a look at all wizard classes from Nightbane, HU, Rifts (Ley Line Walker), and
Palladium Fantasy. Look at them all and check the language and maybe a true general consensus might be reachable.
Otherwise live it up to G.M. interpretation. It's first level folks. Besides when you read the Half Wizard from Mysteries of Magic,
it appears possible an apprentice could have a generous teacher who can teach you a number of high level spells just before
you tell him to go fly a kite and leave to do a new profession, of course just before he teaches you Enchanted Cauldron.