Recent Posts
A spellbook is purchased for 15 gp just like any other item. There is no restriction on sale.No, but there seems to be a restriction on use.
IRL, I can buy two cars if I so wish, but I can only drive one at a time.
Replacing and Copying Spellbooks
A wizard can use the procedure for learning a spell to reconstruct a lost spellbook. If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbook. The process wipes the prepared spell from his mind, just as casting it would. If he does not have the spell prepared, he can prepare it from a borrowed spellbook and then write it into a new book.
Duplicating an existing spellbook uses the same procedure as replacing it, but the task is much easier. The time requirement and cost per page are halved.
In order to duplicate an existing spellbook you have to have more than one.
Not really.
After all, this rule is in the "Replacing a lost Spellbook" section.
In order to duplicate an existing spellbook, you have to lose yours, which means you have no spellbook, then buy a blank one, then borrow one from a friendly wizard, duplicate it, return the borrowed one (or heck, keep it if you wish - it has exactly the same spells in it so it won't do you much good unless you sell it, or keep it for a backup if you lose yours again).
Either way, you wind up with only one spellbook that is yours, and maybe or maybe not you might still have the borrowed one that isn't yours.
A car is not a book, and did you get the rest of my post?
Am I(assuming I am a wizard) supposed to be buying a blessed book at level 9? I will admit I did not check the price, but I am sure they are not cheap. If I level up and I dont have the blessed book do I get my learned spells retroactively. If I own more than one spellbook how is it determined which one is the active one? What is stopping me from just changing my mind at will about which one I want to use? Surely there would be a rule for all these things if the that was the intention. I am going to bed now. I will be back tomorrow.
OK. Let’s try this one more time. The Feats section contains the below feat. You can interpret this one of two ways. Either the word Spellbooks is a typo in the fluff description in which case the Spell Mastery feat just went from a ho-hum feat to godly good at higher levels. OR it is not a typo and you can have more than one spellbook.
The first part implies you can have more then one spellbook, but you only prepare a spell from one spellbook at a time.
Spell Mastery
You have mastered a small handful of spells, and can
prepare these spells without referencing your spellbooks
at all.
Prerequisite: 1st-level wizard
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, choose a number
of spells that you already
know equal to your Intelligence
modifier. From that point on, you can prepare these spells
without referring to a spellbook.
Normal: Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to
prepare all your spells, except read magic.
Blake, just to talk to you about the using prepared spells from another person's spell book to scribe a replacement.
I think the obvious inference is;
Was the spell in the spell book you lost? If yes, then you can prepare it and cast it. When it checks to see if you can prepare a spell in your spell book, it isn't checking to see if it is lost or not, merely that you copied it into your book. If you did, you can prepared the spell from the borrowed spell book.
When seen in that light, its not contradictory at all.
As for the talk of no phrase the expressly prohibits you from having multiple spell books....
BOOYAH!
Preparation environment: ...Wizards must also have access to their spell books to study from and sufficient light to read them. There is one major exception: a wizard can prepare a read magic spell even without a spellbook.
What do I win?
Blake, just to talk to you about the using prepared spells from another person's spell book to scribe a replacement.
I think the obvious inference is;
Was the spell in the spell book you lost? If yes, then you can prepare it and cast it. When it checks to see if you can prepare a spell in your spell book, it isn't checking to see if it is lost or not, merely that you copied it into your book. If you did, you can prepared the spell from the borrowed spell book.
When seen in that light, its not contradictory at all.
As for the talk of no phrase the expressly prohibits you from having multiple spell books....
BOOYAH!
Preparation environment: ...Wizards must also have access to their spell books to study from and sufficient light to read them. There is on major exception: a wizard can prepare read magic even without a spellbook.What do I win?
Thanks!
You are The Man.
I don't intend to offend, but this is the lamest discussion (or close to) that I have seen this far.
I take it that game designers think people are just into the game and have been so always.
In 2e there where both 100 p. spellbooks and 50 p. traveling spellbooks for this same purpose.
Also for those familiar with Dragonlance, Raistlin had an assortment of spellbooks.
It is always good to know your rules, but please keep to common sense, and try reading the whole book before you try to rip its logic appart.
I don't intend to offend, but this is the lamest discussion (or close to) that I have seen this far.
I found it to be an entertaining read. Of course everyone knows that a wizard can have more than spellbook. They could have since the 70s. Only DM_Blakes' apparently mentally handicapped DM thinks otherwise. And strange as it be, there is nothing in the corebook suggesting you could have more than 1. On the other hand, there's nothing indicating you can't either except circumstantial evidence which you could also interpret for the other side.
Page 218 tips the favor in multiple spellbooks ;-)
However, every player knew that already... except for that DM.
I don't intend to offend, but this is the lamest discussion (or close to) that I have seen this far.I found it to be an entertaining read. Of course everyone knows that a wizard can have more than spellbook. They could have since the 70s. Only DM_Blakes' apparently mentally handicapped DM thinks otherwise. And strange as it be, there is nothing in the corebook suggesting you could have more than 1. On the other hand, there's nothing indicating you can't either except circumstantial evidence which you could also interpret for the other side.
Page 218 tips the favor in multiple spellbooks ;-)
However, every player knew that already... except for that DM.
I guess I am lacking of patience. :)
I often get frustrated when, to me, absurd rules interpretation are given credence.
Blessed Book
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 7th
Slot —; Price 12,500 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description
This well-made tome is always of small size, typically no more
than 12 inches tall, 8 inches wide, and 1 inch thick. All such
books are durable, waterproof, bound with iron overlaid with
silver, and locked.
A wizard can fill the 1,000 pages of a blessed book with spells
without paying the material cost. This book is never found as
randomly generated treasure with spells already inscribed in it.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, secret page; Cost 6,250 gp
================
If you don't have Craft Wondrous Item:
cost of blessed book: 12,500 gp
cost of 10 full regular spellbooks (1,000 pages, all 1st level spells @ 10gp per page): 10,000 gp
cost of 10 full regular spellbooks (1,000 pages, all 2nd level spells @ 20gp per page): 20,000 gp
---> breakeven on blessed book if contains all 2nd level spells or higher
If you have Craft Wondrous Item:
cost of blessed book: 6,250 gp
cost of 10 full regular spellbooks (1,000 pages, all zero level spells @ 5gp per page): 5,000 gp
---> breakeven on blessed book if contains all 1st level spells or higher
Just thought I'd throw that in there... keep a regular, 100 page cheap version for your zero and 1st level spells... anything 2nd level or higher put it in the Blessed Book
Cheers!
PDK
Mistwalker
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Maps Subscriber)
A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his prohibited schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice.
More ammunition for DM Blake.
The PRD indicates that a mage starts with "a" spellbook, not "his" spellbook. To me that indicates that a mage can have more than one spellbook.
Add that to Dissinger's post on the Spell Mastery Feat, the low cost of spellbooks and the other circumstancial evidence posted in this thread and you should be able to make a good case to you GM.
But under the replacing a lost spellbook, it says he can prepare spells from a borrowed spellbook and then write them into his new spellbook.
Yeah, I saw this little confusing gem also.
*sigh* one more place where the wording is pretty wonky. I love the book overall but the little quirks can be quite annoying and there are a bunch.
I don't intend to offend, but this is the lamest discussion (or close to) that I have seen this far.I found it to be an entertaining read. Of course everyone knows that a wizard can have more than spellbook. They could have since the 70s. Only DM_Blakes' apparently mentally handicapped DM thinks otherwise. And strange as it be, there is nothing in the corebook suggesting you could have more than 1. On the other hand, there's nothing indicating you can't either except circumstantial evidence which you could also interpret for the other side.
Page 218 tips the favor in multiple spellbooks ;-)
However, every player knew that already... except for that DM.
Both you and The Grandfather need to lighten up. While I disagree with Blake there is no reason to be insulting to him and his GM.
I have never run a game where the wizard is restricted to a single spellbook. Why would it say in RAW that a universal wizard can use any spell if he is restricted to just 100 pages of spells, 20 or so taken up by cantrips. The one spellbook rule doesn't make any sense.
I have run games where the wizard is a bit anal with spells and has them scribed in seperate books for seperate levels, where the wizard carries around a whole bunch of scrolls which act as his "spellbook" and with wizards with his main books in his home and just using a travelling book to adventure with.
I am sure that there are published scenarios where Mr Pointyhat has more that one spellbook.
FWIW why have a 100 page restriction? I'm sure the "technology" is about to exceed this arbitary limit.
Purple Dragon Knight put down the specs as to why every sensible wizard takes Craft Wondrous Item as his 3rd level feat, which is also the point at which he gets 2nd level spells. Of course, if he's crafted the book himself, in Pathfinder this means the cost per page is 6.25 GP, so it's even cheaper for 1st level spells than scribing them into a regular book too.
Though your DM may only be wanting to go by Pathfinder RAW, it's worth noting that the Eberron setting put out a dragonshard crystal that could have spells scribed into it and it was basically half a blessed book--half the cost, half the capacity, half the everything.
Following this logically, you could just let characters make a "Blessed Leaf" and scribe each spell on an individual page which they could at some point bind up into a Blessed Book when they felt like it.
Of course, it sounds like your DM is too literal minded to do something like that.
Getting on to that point, on p. 79, it specifically mentions "other wizards' spellbooks." That's more than one spellbook. Yes, it could be read as each wizard having only one spellbook, but it could also be read as each wizard owning more than one spellbook, or even that all the other wizards in the world own their spellbooks communally, hoarding them in a grand library. Which is it?
If your DM doesn't want to look at previous editions, or English grammar conventions, or common sense, you might also note that each starting character begins the game with one set of clothing for free, but if they wish to buy extra clothing, they may. Now to posit a question for your DM: If you take off your clothes, and put on new clothes, are your old clothes not your clothes anymore? Can you buy new clothes?
Since clothes are for sale in the items section, but characters are allowed to buy them if they want to, one should assume that they may do so, and not just when they've been stripped naked. Similarly, wizards can buy blank spellbooks to make backups and so forth for the unpleasant but real possibility that they may lose their spellbook, their spellbook meaning here the spellbook they have with them, not all their spellbooks everywhere. The same as if you go skinnydipping and someone steals your clothes, this means that they stole the clothes you just had on, not the ones you had back at the inn or the ones you left in the closet back at your parents house.
Of course, clothes are plural and spellbook is singular. Ask the DM if when you say "I stuck my finger in my eye" he is to understand that you are a one-fingered cyclops. No, you are assumed to have ten fingers and two eyes, and the finger and the eye referred to were referred to in the singular because it was implied that you meant "I stuck one of my fingers into one of my eyes." Just so, when a wizard writes something into his spellbook, "spellbook" refers to the one he's writing into at the moment, not the number of spellbooks he may have.
A wizard starts the game with one spellbook, but like clothes, he can buy more whenever he wants.
James Risner
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
I get the feeling DM_Blake just sent us on a treasure hunt through the PFRPGCR.
1) Find me evidence that wizards can have multiple spellbooks.
2) Find a reference to goats.
3) Find me a reference to a pre-britain british literature.ect. ect. ect.
Nah, I was generally interested in what you'd have to say.
I'm still not convinced anyone has a RAW answer, but maybe the overwhelming preponderance of support for multiple spellbooks will win the day.
By the way, to those who cite the page where it says "Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks" or something like that, I have to say, that in no way proves they have more than one.
It would be grammatically correct to say "Wizards can pick their noses", and saying that would be syntactically equivalent to "Wizards can add spells to their spellbooks", but I doubt anyone would argue that such a sentence implies that every wizard has multiple noses for picking.
Thanks for the support anyway.
I'm curious to hear how this pans out when you discuss it with your DM and group.
If the argument so far haven't convinced you, I'm not sure there will be anything better.
I gather that your intent (and that of your group) is not to defy common sense, but if your group remains unconvinced that RAW allows more than one spellbook, would you adopt an interpretation of the rules that seems to cause more and greater problems than allowing multiple spellbooks?
I agree about the Wizards and Spellbooks comment of it being plural due to the Wizards part. But if you look at the Spell Mastery feat, it uses the singular word wizard with the plural of spellbooks. (full detials were posted earlier.
I think you're absolutely right that the rules shouldn't be read as only allowing one spellbook, but to play DM_Blake's game for a minute, the text you quoted above for the Spell mastery feat actually doesn't use singular wizard and plural spellbooks (unless I missed something else you quoted, or you misquoted the original text).
It says:
Spell Mastery
You have mastered a small handful of spells, and can
prepare these spells without referencing your spellbooks
at all.
"you" in English is unfortunately both singular and plural, and the verb doesn't help, since "have" is also used with both singular and plural subjects.
Language is an extraordinarily imperfect means to convey information :)
Actually Seabyrn, I would say that in the case of that feat, it says exactly what he thought it said. "You" in that particular context, refers to any single individual who takes the feat.
I absolutely agree with you (singular and plural), that this is the most reasonable interpretation, and that it is a convoluted linguistic gymnastic to assert otherwise.
But still, it is not a perfectly unambiguous assertion that one wizard can have multiple spellbooks. If I really wanted to be picky, I would point out that the word "wizard" isn't even used in the sentence, so who knows what "you" might really mean there :)
I think DM_Blake really has his work cut out for him to maintain that the rules imply, suggest, or state "one spellbook per wizard," and I am curious to see if the group persists, and what the consequences for the game are.
(I'm not trying to influence the outcome by helping to perpetuate what I perceive as a mis-reading, but it's hard to resist not playing along)
Actually Seabyrn, I would say that in the case of that feat, it says exactly what he thought it said. "You" in that particular context, refers to any single individual who takes the feat.I absolutely agree with you (singular and plural), that this is the most reasonable interpretation, and that it is a convoluted linguistic gymnastic to assert otherwise.
But still, it is not a perfectly unambiguous assertion that one wizard can have multiple spellbooks. If I really wanted to be picky, I would point out that the word "wizard" isn't even used in the sentence, so who knows what "you" might really mean there :)
I think DM_Blake really has his work cut out for him to maintain that the rules imply, suggest, or state "one spellbook per wizard," and I am curious to see if the group persists, and what the consequences for the game are.
(I'm not trying to influence the outcome by helping to perpetuate what I perceive as a mis-reading, but it's hard to resist not playing along)
Actually, on this point, I side with the literal writing again.
One person takes the feat, so "you" referencing the feat-taker is, in this case, singluar. And "spellbooks" are plural.
So this is the one place so far that stands out as referencing a singular wizard ("wizard" is not stated, but since the class is a prerequisite for the feat, it is implicit) and plural spellbooks.
When we resume our campaign in which I'm playing the wizard, I shall purchase a second spellbook forthwith.
It's in print. It's a rule.
I honestly think this is where you are repeatdly making your mistake. It's not a rule. There is absolutly nothing in the "RAW" saying a wizard can only have one spellbook. If the core rulebook said "A wizard can only have one spell book." that would be a rule. What you are doing is reading into the use of the singular in discussions of spellbooks and assuming that means there is rule preventing multiple spellbooks, when in fact no such rule exists. It is in fact just your interperetation of the text.
Although the rulbook may not explicitly state that a wizard can have multiple spellbooks, there are all sorts of indications that they can indeed have more than one book, which others have already enumerated so I won't bother to repeat them here.
My only additional argument would be to point out, that as far as I can see every single person who has responded to this thread disagrees with your interperetation of the rules for single verus multiple spellbooks. If after all this time you have not managed to convince people of your interperetation of the rules, it would seem to be a strong indication that you may infact be incorrect. ;-)
I absolutely agree with you (singular and plural), that this is the most reasonable interpretation, and that it is a convoluted linguistic gymnastic to assert otherwise.
But still, it is not a perfectly unambiguous assertion that one wizard can have multiple spellbooks. If I really wanted to be picky, I would point out that the word "wizard" isn't even used in the sentence, so who knows what "you" might really mean there :)
I think DM_Blake really has his work cut out for him to maintain that the rules imply, suggest, or state "one spellbook per wizard," and I am curious to see if the group persists, and what the consequences for the game are.
(I'm not trying to influence the outcome by helping to perpetuate what I perceive as a mis-reading, but it's hard to resist not playing along)
Actually, on this point, I side with the literal writing again.
One person takes the feat, so "you" referencing the feat-taker is, in this case, singluar. And "spellbooks" are plural.
So this is the one place so far that stands out as referencing a singular wizard ("wizard" is not stated, but since the class is a prerequisite for the feat, it is implicit) and plural spellbooks.
When we resume our campaign in which I'm playing the wizard, I shall purchase a second spellbook forthwith.
Excellent! Glad to hear it :)