I dunno. It makes sense from a narrative perspective, but I don't see a player really wanting to do that unless they had a choice. To me, it sort of speaks to DCC's assumption that leveling happens between adventures.
Actually, the book is pretty explicit that levelling happens when it does, rather than the standard assumption in earlier D&D that XP are only gained, and levelling only occurs, between adventures...or when a safe place is reached. It is also explicit that, for the wizard (and presumably the elf), the ability to gain spells does not mean that those spells are gained.
The "time off" is probably intended as a means to help control the wizard's rise to power, and I don't want to mess with that too much before having a more thorough understanding of game play. But I do want the wizard to be able to take a gamble if game play makes it seem as though it is worth it.
Assuming a +1 Intelligence modifier, and a 1st level spell, the caster would have 1d16+2 vs a DC of 11, succeeding on a roll of 9 to 16, or 50% of the time. It should be noted that a character could potentially burn Luck to make the initial check successful.As a possible option, I might change the house rule so that you only have one chance to learn the spell "on the fly", but that this doesn't interfere with your normal chances to learn the spell through study. In fact, if it was desirable for characters to take these sorts of risks, it might even give a bonus to the normal attempt.
What do you think about that?
In the Barrowmaze we've been leveling ad-hoc, which is totally nice for a PbM game, but I guess this is one of the drawbacks. But it's all good if the party is large and the player has another couple of characters to play...
I agree with this.
I imagine that, optimally, every player would have a "stable" of potential PCs all operating in the same milieu, with their own interests and intersecting lives.