Wizards and Spellbooks


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

DM_Blake wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

(math)

Lets see, each spell level eats a page. So, over the course of 20 levels, a Wizard requires, just by levelling up... 218 pages in a spellbook without using their ability to research spells at all.

Not conclusive evidence necessarily, but I'd say this is some pretty dang strong circumstancial evidence Wizards are allowed more than one spellbook.

Quite right, it is very compelling evidence. And I really want more than one spellbook too, and further, I believe the writers intended for wizards to be able to make use of more than one spellbook at a time, despite writing the opposite.

But, as has been suggested, it could be compelling evidence that the wizard needs to upgrade to a Blessed Book in order to exceed 100 pages.

It might also be compelling evidence that all wizards need to learn the Erase spell to clear out old spells they don't want anymore - hopefully after they make a scroll out of them first, in case they decide they want it back in their Spellbook some day.

Compelling evidence for the blessed book? Doubtful, though I suppose at least that one has some grounds, though from where I stand they are exceptionally weak.

But I would completely and totally call BS on the person who claimed the designers intended wizards to erase learned spells. Being a wizard is all about accumulating spells.

Oh, and Wraithstrike. I'm a ninja, you never saw me coming, and you'll never catch me going. *poof*


DM_Blake wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
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.

wraithstrike wrote:

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.


I had this all typed up and hit send before I saw Wraithstrike's last post, but for some reason the post dissappeared, so here it is, pasted in it's pure form.

DM_Blake wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

(math)

Lets see, each spell level eats a page. So, over the course of 20 levels, a Wizard requires, just by levelling up... 218 pages in a spellbook without using their ability to research spells at all.

Not conclusive evidence necessarily, but I'd say this is some pretty dang strong circumstancial evidence Wizards are allowed more than one spellbook.

Quite right, it is very compelling evidence. And I really want more than one spellbook too, and further, I believe the writers intended for wizards to be able to make use of more than one spellbook at a time, despite writing the opposite.

But, as has been suggested, it could be compelling evidence that the wizard needs to upgrade to a Blessed Book in order to exceed 100 pages.

It might also be compelling evidence that all wizards need to learn the Erase spell to clear out old spells they don't want anymore - hopefully after they make a scroll out of them first, in case they decide they want it back in their Spellbook some day.

Compelling evidence for the blessed book? Doubtful, though I suppose at least that one has some grounds, though from where I stand they are exceptionally weak.

But I would completely and totally call BS on the person who claimed the designers intended wizards to erase learned spells. Being a wizard is all about accumulating spells.

Oh, and Wraithstrike. I'm a ninja, you never saw me coming, and you'll never catch me going. *poof*


I alwayd found very obvious that wizards haveto collect their spells in multiple spellbooks.
It doesn't make sense to be limited to prepare spells from one spellbook only, especially with the appearance of the sorcerer class in 3.0. Or I have too much played in older editions.


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.


Looking for an AP example, i believe Karzoug in the runelords AP had a multiple spellbook collection in his treasure list.

Hope that helps you.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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!

Pathfinder Core Rulebook Page 218 wrote:
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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dissinger wrote:

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!

Pathfinder Core Rulebook Page 218 wrote:
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.


The Grandfather wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Funkytrip wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
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.


Per RAW does a spell take up 1 page or 1 page per level?

Sovereign Court

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


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PRD wrote:
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.

Sovereign Court

The Grandfather wrote:


I don't intend to offend, but this is the lamest discussion (or close to) that I have seen this far.

You think this is bad, go check out the one complaining about "Line of SIght" not being defined in game terms. Sheesh.


DM_Blake wrote:
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.


Funkytrip wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
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.


Spacelard wrote:


FWIW why have a 100 page restriction? I'm sure the "technology" is about to exceed this arbitary limit.

I've had my wizard characters simply glue a couple spellbooks together in the past. Suddenly, so many more pages!


Yeah, the 100 page restriction has always seemed especially idiotic to me. There's no mathematical reason to it, no game balance reason to it, and no flavor reason to it. It's just a random, arbitrary number. We ignore the entire set of rules about pages all together.

Contributor

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.


The first rule of RPG I learned in life a long, long time ago.(not only RPG but pretty much anything else)

If it doesn't say you CAN'T then you can. So you CAN have multiple spellbooks. I don't see how you figured you couldn't. That's just semantics to me really.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

DM_Blake wrote:
So, a 20th level wizard might have all 100 spell levels in his spellbook, and at the same time, a 20th level sorcerer has 162 spell levels carried around in her head.

BBB and 200 different spell books in a library stored in a portable hole. That is what all profession wizards do.


The Grandfather wrote:

I guess I am lacking of patience. :)

I often get frustrated when, to me, absurd rules interpretation are given credence.

+1

Zo


Adding Spells to a Wizard’s Spellbook
Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through
several methods. If a wizard has chosen to specialize in
a school of magic, she can learn spells only from schools
whose spells she can cast.

Page 166 Beta.

Grand Lodge

Just thought I'd agree with the general consensus that more than one book for a wizard was the intent of the writers.

Dark Archive

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.


Dissinger wrote:

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.


It seems the DM is looking for any excuse to nerf a wizards. It would be better to just ban the class than to try to pick on the language in which a rule was written.


Thazar wrote:
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:

Thazar wrote:


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.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
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)


Seabyrn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
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. ;-)


DM_Blake wrote:
Seabyrn wrote:


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 :)


I have always played where wizard can have more than one spellbook. With that said my mid to high level fix for my low strenth character having to carry around a library, is often a Blessed Book or portable hole


Jester Bobbity wrote:
I have always played where wizard can have more than one spellbook. With that said my mid to high level fix for my low strenth character having to carry around a library, is often a Blessed Book or portable hole

Are you aware you are replying to a thread that ended 3 years ago?


Jeraa wrote:
Jester Bobbity wrote:
I have always played where wizard can have more than one spellbook. With that said my mid to high level fix for my low strenth character having to carry around a library, is often a Blessed Book or portable hole
Are you aware you are replying to a thread that ended 3 years ago?

I am kind of glad Jester did. I needed a good laugh and this thread gave it to me.


Mistwalker wrote:
PRD wrote:
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.

"A" spellbook, not mine? Do I get to determine randomly whose spellbook I start with? *ducks*


Oh my god how has this hit 90 posts?

Liberty's Edge

UM mentions the Master Books of Rul Thaven in the list of spellbooks you can purchase/find through adventuring:
This trio of books is bound...

Library of the Dancer of Skins:
This quartet of books is held together...

Looks pretty clear to me...

OP should have just waited for UM.


If it is one page per level and a 100 pages in a book then logic would dicate that they would need multiple spellbooks in order to be able to read their spells.

Liberty's Edge

I'm going to ret-con Jester Bobbity's post and cast raise thread. *Phew* You may now continue the discussion.

Silver Crusade

PRD wrote:

TRAVELING SPELLBOOK

Price 10 gp; Weight 1 lb.
A traveling spellbook is less cumbersome than a normal one, but holds fewer spells. It has 50 pages. Some wizards prefer to travel with a smaller spellbook, omitting specialized spells that are rarely used on adventures. Others hide a traveling spellbook containing their most important spells, just in case.

link Scroll to the bottom of the page.


Dissinger wrote:

While it does go expressly into the singular, I would not be surprised if a wizard had two or three spell books over time. You have two choices...

1) Duplicate spells from one book to another, keeping the spells you use frequently. You lose some spells in the long run, but you keep with the flavor as you interpret it.

2) Allow multiple spell books. It says they must study their spell book. No where does it say he cannot carry multiples. Now obviously this makes it hard, for if someone steals a spell book they have a chance of making off with the level 9 spells and leaving you the cantrips.

That's just life.

Even in 3.5 this problem existed. It was just generally accepted you could have multiples here.

SO if you didn't have this problem in 3.5 why do you now?

Actually, in 3.5 Complete Arcane, you could buy spellbooks with more pages than 100.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This entire thread is making a mountain out of a molehill. Wizards can have multiple books. It's been that way since the dawn of 1st edition, ever heard of "Pages from the Mages"? This is also THE core strength of the wizard class.

What's next? Are we gonna make fighters make checks to keep their weapons sharp and their armor oiled? How about a barbering check for a cleric or monk to properly shave his head? Mr. Paladin might lose his Charisma bonus is he doesn't shine up his armor real good.


At the bare minimum, I like to put all my actual spells into travelling spellbooks that I keep in my pack, while wearing a full sized and fairly ornate (more expensive for the sheer purpose of looking fancier) but completely empty spellbook out in the open. That way if some theif decides he wants to steal my spellbook, he takes a pretty-but-blank spellbook thats easy to get to, while my actual spellbooks are harder to reach. If he does manage to get one of my actual spellbooks it'll only be 50 pages worth of spells and not my whole arsenal.

In our games we go into quite a lot of detail about how we keep our property safe from bandits.

But to answer the OP's question, yes, it seems foolish considering the number of times it's referenced in the rulebooks that a wizard would only have one spellbook, particularly when the rules have a section specifically on the cost of making a duplicate of your own spellbook. Seems like a done deal at that point.


I %&$#ing hate when human beings think like robots. RAW can go die in a fire. If a GM tried to start this $*#^ at a table I was playing at I would walk away regardless of whether I was playing a Wizard or not.

Sorry, but these kind of threads enrage me. /Rant.

Shadow Lodge

As ammunition for the multiple-spellbooks camp, I offer these sample spellbooks from Ultimate Magic. Note: after level 10, all but one spell-/formula-book states either that it uses multiple volumes, or is the size of multiple volumes (implying that one can buy extra large books). Abridged for length.

Ultimate Magic wrote:

Arctic Call (Level 11 Evoker)

Fine vellum sheets fill these two well-worn books.

Insights of Far-Seeing Taernis (Level 12 Conjurer)
These two books are part of a set held together with a leather strap.

Quest Eternal (Level 13 Diviner)
Stuffed between the pages of these two well-worn volumes are all manner of riddles, tidbits of lore, and fragments of maps.

Grandfather's Legacy (Level 14 Necromancer)
This pair of lexicons is covered in excellently preserved human skin, with an intricate lace of fingerbones forming the locks on the cover.

Chymist's Guidebook (Level 15 Alchemist)
The pages of this formula book are carefully varnished. (one exception)

Guardian Grimoire (Level 15 Abjurer)
These three well-made books are covered with runes of warding against outsiders and undead.

Mysteries of Shadow (Level 16 Illusionist)
Each volume of this three-book set is written in gold ink on jet- black paper.

Master Books of Rul Thaven (Level 17 Diviner)
This trio of books is bound in leather as black as a starless night, clasped together with gleaming silver.

Manual of Binding (Level 18 Conjurer)
The three volumes of this set are bound in black sharkskin, the spells inscribed in purple ink on fine paper.

Library of the Dancer Of Skins (Level 19 Universalist)
This quartet of books is held together by a shining silver strand wound around the four tomes and tied in an intricate knot.

The Formulae of Master Gebr (Level 20 Alchemist)
These four cloth-bound books are neatly printed — as with a printing press ...

Mastery of Word and Thought (Level 20 Enchanter)
This massive tome is the size of four normal spellbooks, bound in leather as hard as plate armor ...

And before anybody dismisses these as options for treasure, let me also quote the beginning of the section that says they can be used by PCs for quick, ready-built spellbooks. Emphasis mine.

Ultimate Magic wrote:

Each spellbook or formula book is a unique reflection of the personality and capabilities of its creator. Many of these tomes contain more than just spells, such as notes on the caster’s other research, personal diaries, naturalist sketches, or even political treatises. Some contain preparation rituals, each of which grants a boon—or sometimes a hindrance—to spellcasters who use the book to prepare their spells.

The sample spellbooks and formula books below each list a description of the book, information on the caster’s specialty school and oppositional schools (if any), the book’s spells, and its preparation ritual (if any). Some books also contain precautions against prying eyes.
Descriptions, protections, preparation rituals, and spell content can be mixed and matched as desired from different books. Higher-level books can easily serve for lower-level casters—just drop the spell levels that aren’t applicable and remove lower-level spells as desired. Similarly, if you desire longer books, combine two together or add spells or formulae of your choice to the desired levels. These books also work as spellbooks and formula books for new characters. Just copy the list, hand it to the player, and go.

The idea of Wizards (Magi, Alchemists) being limited to one spellbook is a bit unreasonable. If that were the case, then they would never have real access to higher level spells. The singular uses of the word Spellbook throughout the Core rules indicate things like:

  • Can prepare the spell out of the spellbook it is recorded in (implication being a spell must be entirely recorded in one book)
  • Can copy a spell into a spellbook the Wizard has written
  • Starts with a spellbook, as in the Wizard gets a freebie book with his starting spells (note that this is the only Core class that gets an item for free at first level).
  • Can duplicate his own spellbook (what purpose could this have aside from useful backup copies?)

  • 51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Wizards and Spellbooks All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.