[Feedback] Not enough room in spellbook for all TOL enchanter spells

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by Rondor, Jan 3, 2022.

  1. Rondor Augur

    With the Terror of Luclin expansion release, I found that before I scribe any new spells from TOL, on my level 116 enchanter character I have only 25 unused spell spots in my 120-page spell book (120 * 8 = 960 spells), but I count around 49 new spells added for enchanters in TOL including two new illusion scrolls.

    Therefore I won't be able to scribe all the TOL spells unless I find some old spells to delete. I have a whole bunch of the Level 1 enchanter illusion spells from turning in illusion items to Bindral Argaff in Plane of Knowledge [ see Legendary Enchanter Illusions quest ], that are taking up a lot of space, and all the new Greater Mass Enchant spells added the last year also take up more room.

    I would suggest/request that there be more pages added to the spellbook if possible in order to allow all enchanter spells to be scribed. Ideally this would not cause more lag or hit current hard-coded limits in the file format of the spellbook database, so that I may scribe all my spells from TOL without deleting other spells. Perhaps upcoming 64-bit clients and servers may already have plans to address this due to less memory pressure, in which case I would like to know if this is planned already and can adjust plans to delete spells from the spellbook just yet.

    In the mean time I may end up deleting some of the greater-mass-enchant spells, or some of the Level 1 illusion spells from Bindral Argaff turnins as long as those can be re-obtained later by turning in again.

    Thank you.
    Axxius, MageGuy, minimind and 12 others like this.
  2. Kalvenie Elder

    Thanks for bringing this up. I have a chanter alt and didn't realise the 120 page limit was upon us.

    I wonder if you're focussing on the wrong spells to delete. Why not previous expansion spells that were upgraded? How many versions of tash do you need if it's upgraded every 5 elvels? etc.
    I'd just get rid of those rather than the unique "only one spell does this" types.

    that's the short-term fix I will go for, and hope that 64bit client upgrade gives us inifinity pages.
    Axxius and RPoo like this.
  3. Rondor Augur

    This is a good idea, deleting the easier-to-reacquire spells should one be so inclined, like the ones that we can re-purchase from the vendors in POK. Thank you!

    Having the whole range of previous versions of Tash and such is mostly fun for completionist-checking and seeing the output of "/outputfile missingspells" be blank or nearly-blank! But agreed, it may be acceptable to prune some in the mean time, pending a potential increase in the size of the spellbook.

    I had tried deleting certain spells in my spellbook a long time ago and found some spells that could not be deleted, with a message along the lines of "this spell may not be deleted". I don't know if that was done purposefully in cases where a tradeable spell is given out only once by some quest giver (like Omens of War Runes) when OOW was the current expansion, and if that mechanism has since been disabled and now allowing us to delete such spells. I don't remember specifically if it was OOW spells that were not deletable years ago when I tried, but there were for sure some non-deletable ones.
    RPoo, Laurana and Kalvenie like this.
  4. Kazint Augur

    I would love to be able to delete 80% of my spells.
    Axxius, Kalvenie and RPoo like this.
  5. Winnowyl Suffering is optional.

    If I'm not mistaken, dropped spells can't be deleted, and that includes ones upgraded by dropped spells.

    I could be wrong on how that's divvyed up. But that's what I remember about pruning spells on my druid, when I needed more space on her once upon a time.
    Rondor and Kalvenie like this.
  6. Angahran Augur

    And just wait until someone accidentally deletes a Rk. II or Rk. III spell and get told to just go get it again when they petition.
    RPoo and Vumad like this.
  7. niente Developer

    The spellbook limit will be updated in the patch, thanks for letting us know.
    CrazyLarth, Axxius, Kalvenie and 16 others like this.
  8. FrozenWater Augur

    Can you please consider adding a lot more pages than the bare minimum? Once upon a time I used to try and organise my spell book, but gave up on that a long time ago because there just wasn't enough pages.
  9. Tatanka Augur

    With the context-driven menus for spell-gem loading, why even bother to do this? The game organizes them for you. And then there's spellsets, so.....
    Fenthen and Jumbur like this.
  10. CatsPaws Just use plain English.

    Many of us like to organize the spell book wherein the level of the spell matches the page number or other parameters. Its just another way of playing and in my case a little OCD and the need to control the way its controlled.

    Its ok if you don't understand. ;)
  11. Tatanka Augur

    Oh, I used to do the same thing, back before context-driven loading, and spellsets.

    Fortunately, for me, my laziness is greater than my OCD ;)
    Fenthen likes this.
  12. Vumad Cape Wearer

    Organizing collections is part of the hobby of collecting.

    I'll admit that I have an alt for each expansion and have collections I've already collected on them organized in bags by their order in ACH window. When I'm done with ACH, I actually collect the collections. No different than pokemon cards. I don't know why it amuses me but it does.
    Rondor likes this.
  13. Fenthen aka Rath

    For what it's worth, this problem was mentioned in beta and ignored.
    Rondor likes this.
  14. Axxius Augur

    Obviously, it wasn't ignored. They just didn't have time for it before the launch.
    Rondor and CatsPaws like this.
  15. Fenthen aka Rath

    It doesn't seem that way. The way niente replied it was the first time they had heard about this. And letting a problem go to live that's going to lock up a class with the inability to use new spells is really really careless.