Why? Because the rule serves no real use in the game thats why. Besides as a DM I already control what spells are in the game. A hard cap serves no purpose that simply saying "No, you can't have that spell, how about you make something that does X instead" won't already do.
Now I know some DM's who do not count spells created by the magic user against that limit. Thats not a bad rule but I think % to learn, a rule I do use ,covers that nicely. Can't learn fireball? No problem. Create your own version.
Also a lot of the games that I run have lists and list of extra spells, from Dragon, from the web or just from my own brain.I figure if I don't put a limit on how many spells they can know they might take a chance in something a little less ordinary once in a while and that means for fun for all.
Swords and Wizardry Kickstarter: 3 days left
-
I’ve been swamped with work lately – hence no posts at all in April (which,
I think, is the first time that I’ve missed an entire month since starting
th...
14 hours ago
I've got to agree with you on this one. In fact, given the propensity of some settings (Forgotten Realms) to have a plethora of new spells, I couldn't really see how it could be used in any sort of practical sense. "So sorry! You filled up all your 4th level spell-learning-slots, so you'll never be able to memorize 'Elminster's Fire-sphere of Doom'".
ReplyDeleteThe implication is that the spells in the "official" list are all there are, and the reality is that that's just not the case.