Search Posts
Why wouldn't spellcasters always let people pay to copy from their spellbooks rather than make scrolls? Scrolls cost money to make, whereas letting someone copy doesn't cost a thing. NPC wizard: "Here's the rental cost to borrow your spellbook to copy from it... and did I mention that I prepared plane shift today?" No way would I let my spellbook out of my sight! Sure, I'll sell you a scroll, but no way am I going to let anyone even SEE my actual spellbook.
Long time ago in an Living Greyhawk game my PC voided a combat encounter without actually noticing... it went something like this. The party needed to hurry across town to a certain square in the slums. As we cut thru some alleys my (Socially inept) wizard is approached by a "homeless street person" - and before the individual can say anything my wizard thrusts some coins on him and says: "Which way is 'Target Square'"? Unknown to me the beggar has the tactics of "stealing anything that might be sold/traded for food..." and would normally try to stab, grab and/or run. And I just gave him some coinage. More than he expected to make in mugging me. So, without saying anything, he takes off down a different alley. Whereupon my Wizard calls to the rest of the party "This Way!" and takes off after him. The party then sprints into that side ally - leaving several other wannabe muggers standing around wondering what just happened... The original street person, with a knowledge of the slum, easily looses the party in the twisty alleys. So my Wizard pulls a few more silver and pausing only briefly waves it at the next slum alley inhabitant with the question, "Which way is 'Target Square'"? Said individual points vaguely in a direction - so my PC tosses the coins their way and jogs into the next ally. This continues two or three times until one of the "helpful citizens" realizes that they can make more money by actually jogging along with me and just collecting coins at each intersection... We did eventually get there, though it might have been the long way around. Oh! and we totally missed the mugging/ambush by "homeless street persons". And because we hadn't killed any of the muggers, we all earned a boon called something like "Friends of Poortown" where we got bonuses to Gather Info checks in the Slums.
We are restricted to core rulebook only because a couple players are brand new. Unfortunately, that means no Chakram and no alternative racial traits. However, I will keep Focused study in mind for a future PC. If I create a rogue that is open to all PFS rules, I'll definitely do an unchained rogue. Is there a way for humans to gain low-light or dark vision? In Core? Just magic items.
With Martial weapon prof., you might want to check out Chakrams - 1d8 damage (slashing) and the same range as the Javelin. Also, maybe check out Human - The human Alt. Racial Trait (Focused Study) replaces the Human bonus feat, and gives Skill Focus at 1st, 8th and 16th level - so in the long term it is actually 2 or 3 Skill Focus Feats. Plus Human gives an extra skill point each level (so you can take your Favored Class Bonus as HP and still be getting a lot of skill points).
The Ranger dip would give access to Longbow... you might want ot check out Snipping depending on if you can get it to work (depends very much on interaction between the judge and the player). YMMV If you go that route, early on pick up a spiked gauntlet, locking gauntlet and a buckler. You didn't list what Race you were going with... If you decide to go with the shooter rogue, you might check Halfling (to get Small which has advantages to Stealth, AC, etc.) or Elf (for elven weapons which might remove the need for Ranger) or Half Orc (for darkvision)... And Welcome to the Company of Rogues!
If having ranks in Spellcraft was sufficient to qualify as a "character ability" involving spellbooks, then that would be the explicitly stated requirement, seeing as the skill is Trained Only, thus requiring even wizards to have a rank in it to scribe spells. I have encountered more than one Wizard in PFS without a rank in Spellcraft. Both were only 3rd level (one had just leveled to 3rd)... When I pointed out the problem to them, they were surprised and had thought that Wizards just got their initial spells and two spells added for leveling - they actually hadn't added another spell. The guy leveling to 3rd added several points to Spellcraft, and I have no idea what the other guy did (only saw him once at a CON). If I recall correctly, my "Rogue with a level of Wizard" got a spell from each of their books... But then he has had ranks in Spellcraft sense he was just a 1st level Rogue. (though he didn't get his first spellbook until he got a level of Wizard).
The player need only say he's searching the area. If the GM needs to know the precise manner of searching being done to determine if the player sets off any hazards or traps, he need only ask the player to be more specific. "Do you have to enter the 10'x10' square to search it?" wait, how would this work? In order to check an area for a trap - you need to set the trap off? Do I, personally, know how to detect a trap? No. Just like I do not, personally know how to Disable one. But it seems to me, that if it were true that a trap is triggered by someone entering an area, but it could not be detected outside that area... then the trap could NOT be detected before it is triggered. And if that where the case, then we would not be having this discussion. So I MUXT assume (and you know what they say about "assume") that a trap can be detected outside of it's trigger area. [sarcasm]Otherwise it's a haunt[/sarcasm]
I'm not the one that forces the game to either slow to a 10'/rd grid search or you auto-trigger traps [even ones that SHOULD be easy to see]. And remember 'if you call it a trap, it's requires a search action to find'. The GAME determined that the bear trap was in fact a trap. That item has NO conditions for it to be continue to BE a trap. Unless destroyed, it's a trap. Traps can't be found unless you search. Same with open pits being immune to passive perception. I don't even understand this enough to be able to give any response. What? I'm not ignoring it (though I think I am going to give up on the entire thread) - but I don't know what you were trying to say with your post "Noting about going 10x10 tweedle dum.", so, Sorry - no reply at this time.
But I guess we COULD be playing a "Mother May I?" game and I'll write out the above statement and read it out at each doorway... if that is the way the GM wants to run the game.Yes a very uncluttered 10x10 shack that would work in. But remember 10x10 is the max and clutter might reduce you maximum searchable area. But if it's bigger then even if the trap is in the 10x10 your standing in your glance around the shack misses it since you weren't limiting the search area. Relax thejeff - clearly Talonhawke and I are not talking the same langage - or he missed the parts in my post where I said... "...perform a Perception check on each 10'x10' area..." "...or lesser area if required..."
I'm not the one that forces the game to either slow to a 10'/rd grid search or you auto-trigger traps [even ones that SHOULD be easy to see]. And remember 'if you call it a trap, it's requires a search action to find'. The GAME determined that the bear trap was in fact a trap. That item has NO conditions for it to be continue to BE a trap. Unless destroyed, it's a trap. Traps can't be found unless you search. Same with open pits being immune to passive perception.
actually, the "DC0 bear 'trap' on a table" is not noticed - as long as the GM does not mention it. If it is not mentioned by the GM, it's not noticed unless you ask the GM what's on the table and/or he includes it in the "more in-depth" room description. Judge: "The inside of the old trappers shack is dusty, gloomy and filled with odd junk. A rickety table and chair are against the east wall, a moth-eaten rug covers an area in front of a fireplace on the north wall and a moldering bed is on the west. You are in the only door, which is in the south wall." Player: "I'll take a moment from the doorway to look around more. Anything of note in the room? What junk is on the table? anything hanging on the wall, under the bed?" Judge: "What's your Perception check?" Player: "Taking 10, with my MW tool, I get a 30" Judge: "Wow! that good!? You can see an oil lamp, some eating utensils and a rusty bear trap are on the table. Under the bed is a closed chest that you can't really see into, and the most important note is what looks to be a trap door under the rug. In fact, with that high a result, you can also tell that the floor around the trap door under the rug has been rigged to collapse - it's a Pit Trap."
Going back to the "overskilled" subject, I've felt it, in both Perception an Knowledge. an open pit is a hazard, not a trap. (unless there is something like a silent image cast over it?)
New tactic. Dig a 10ft square hole. Give it the Exposed Pit Trap stat block (DC 0). Jump in pit. Perfect invisibility.What if the bandits are hiding IN the trap!! ;)You didn't say it was an ambush! PCs get an automatic Perception check against the enemy's Stealth check.So don't do that then. Don't put a concealed pit trap on the open road. Does restrict movement a bit... and kind of depends on how tall the monster is. Doesn't work as well for Frost Giants as it does for goblins... Edit: but I could see a goblin pointing out that if some of the other goblins hide in the pit, the rest of them could conceal the pit by putting all this loose dirt back in! that way, when the Longshanks come down the road they wont see the gobos in the pit, who can then leap out and surprise them!
So the hot new tactic is to set up an ambush in the forest with a pit trap between the archers and the PCs. Melee PC tries to rush the archers, doesn't take time to look for traps, timbeeeeerrr!Hot new tactic? This is ultimately why minefields are nothing more than speed bumps to sophisticated armies if they aren't covered by fire, either infantry or artillery. Enemy fire keeps the engineers from effectively searching for and deactivating the mines without massive risk or distracts the unit from searching for them at all until it's too late. yep, and this is why Bangalore torpedoes were invented...
This is nonsensical. Of course there's stimuli -- you now see something that you didn't see before, the inside of the cathedral nave. Please don't confuse "triggering stimuli" with "triggering event." Not all stimuli are actions. Lovely thought and much like my own thinking, but not what I have encountered in PFS. Some judges do not see actions on the part of the PC as being triggering "stimuli". But never mind - clearly I am just a confused ("nonsensical") player and will retire now from the discussion.
LOL! so there was no reactive check at all? The first check was from a request. A mentioned smoke, B asked for a Perception check (which he failed)...
but if "...you can't Take 20 on a reactive check because it's made in reaction to a specific stimulus.", what if the stimulus continues for more rounds? A:"I smell smoke... do you?"
Player "I listen at the door, Perception 18." GM: "Faintly, you hear a rumble... but you can't quite make out what it is."Player: "I take a minute to listen... can I take 20?" Gm: "sure..." Player: "I get a 35 with the T20" GM:"Sounds like a something large breathing... a bit like snores." You can't take 20: Player: "ok, I listen again (roll) 20 and 31... and next round 16 and 19, and next round 23 and 30 and..." etc. until he rolls a 20.
depends.... Is it an NPC doing the sneak? then often it succeeds automatically (I've even had it explained to me that "it's boxed text")... But if it's a PC - than no. "You can't sneak out in the open like that! and the last 5' square is not concealed in any way. So the target saw you and isn't flatfooted... unless you were invisible?"
ah... "Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps." you mean more than they already get?
...played in a game once where we slipped into an Evil Temple that had fancy columns that looked like a mass of skeletons holding up a dark cloud. We moved up to examine the alter, and were attacked by pair of Specters that came out of the back wall. The (Good) Cleric Channeled and the GM commented that the columns WERE actual skeletons holding up the stone ceiling... and they only had 4 HP each...
Party of adventurers trailing a group of goblins down a forest path, come to a rope hanging down from a high branch over the trail. A picture/note on the rope shows a red circle with a slash thru it (universal symbol for NO!) over a stick figure pulling the rope. Yeah - every group of adventurers is going to have one guy who pulls that rope. At the other end is a bucket full of ...ah... goblin poop. Chamber Pot fillings? Continuing down the path the party hears someone digging. They stop and listen - then see a bunch of dirt fly (left-to-right) across the path. A few seconds later more dirt - this time right-to-left. Yep, there are two goblins digging pit traps beside the trail ahead, one on each side of the trail (they have been digging these pits for a while and are very behind schedule). If the party rushes ahead to attack, they trigger a spiked log, swinging trap that would sweep across the trail... if it weren't for the tree in the middle of it. On end of the log is tied to a branch on the right side of the tree, the other end to a branch on the left side of the tree... Etc. Great fun!
we can assume that all the Stealth results are being modified by distance (etc) from the stealthed creature and the detecter... so it is not likely to detect ALL the hiding creatures at once - even if they took 10 on their rolls. Guard has a Perception check of 20... Goblins have a (take 10) Stealth of 20... so the first goblin will be detected when he gets to 10 foot from the Guard - who would NOT have detected the goblins that are 20 feet away.
A perception tool I use for several PCs is: "An iron ring with a handle, to concentrate my attention in a selected area, used much like a magnifing glass (thou it is just an iron ring - no glass in it). Only useful for vision based perception checks, occupies the hand when in use, and only works on active skill checks (when I am taking a move action to use it). I refer to it as a Perception Intensifier. I try always to mention when I am using it, normally by saying something like "I have a 25, 27 with my Perception tool". It is after all a circumtance bonus, and all circumstance bonuses must be approved by the judge.
I encountered another "SWAT" team a long time ago in LG days... Group of Halflings (or maybe Gnomes)... S.W.A.T. (Short Weapons and Tactics). I also ran a member of (redacted) - another Halfling team (Dog Mounted). ("Swiftly Mounted, Undercover, Recon Force"). And my -1 PC is a member of FED-Ex (Fast Elven Delivery - Express: "We Deliver While You Sleep")
If you have the UMD for it, you might look at a wand of Ill Omen. 1st level Witch spell, and it has no save... also, you might check out a whip with a wand of truestrike... it takes two rounds to get it off, but you have a very good chance of disarming weapon users at 15'... Picture the guy pounding on your Paladin - and then you (from behind the paladin) snatch his Greatsword of Paladin Smiting out of his hands.
from a game not to long ago... Rogue Take's 10 to disable a trap - and fails. But the trap doesn't go off... so the failure was by less than 5? Cleric says: "Here, I'll cast guidance..."
Rogue: "Yeah, we do that, and I take 10 again...results?"
Teamwork in action...
I've never really looked into that. I just assumed they'd have to buy the spellbook, then scribe spells into their spellbook from scrolls or something. But if they're using a class feature, it would make sense for them to get at least some starting spells in the spellbook for free, like a wizard. This is like saying that a fighter should be able to make magic weapons, after all "if they're using a class feature (BAB), it would make sense for them to get at least some starting magic bonuses for free, like a wizard can...". The class ability would (outside of PFS) allow them to use an item of treasure (a wizards spellbook) that they captured some time ago, much they can use potions, or (with UMD) scrolls. This is an ability that works great - outside of the restricted treasure rules currently in use in PFS.
so, if I buy the flasks can pay the costs associated with creating them, can I have an alchemist in the party create Acid Flasks for me (and add them to my ITS)? How about Vials of Anti-Toxin? Or Poison? I'd be willing to pay the cost associated with creating it. No? Then why can I get him to write spells (formula) into "my formula book" and add that to my ITS? Heck, I have the ranks in Craft Alchemy myself, why can't I just create it myself? I'll scribe spells to his spellbook (I've got a level of wizard, so there is no question I can create a spellbook - just whether I can create them for a different PC), and he can make some alchemical items for me.
The lore oracle is PFS, I did Emerald Spire with him. I would have a wizard barrow my book and scribe spells into it when he was in the party. Seeing now that I may have had a misunderstanding of the rules, I am looking for potential remedies that keep the original intent of the characters. if you are still adventuring with the wizard, why not just get him to scribe an extra book? then he can loan it to you each time he is sitting at your table (or loan it to other PCs when he is at their table).
Actually, they work if you find a spell book in the current adventure.
but... (in PFS) a wizard can't scribe spells into another persons spell book, only into his own. (is this Lore oracle a PFS character or in a home game?) for example, Tweedle-Dum owns a Blessed Book with a large number of spells that he scribed in. So if Twee were to join a group with another wizard, he would offer his book. Say the other wizard then flubs his roll and can't understand Cloudkill. Twee can't just say... "heck, let me just scribe it into these pages on your book, and later you can try it again...". Because it's not Twee's book, it's the other (real) wizard's book, and the rule says that a Wizard can scribe "spells to his book".
Unchained Rogue, Minor or Major Magic talent combined with Bookish Rogue from ACG. ah! Thanks! ok, yes, there are specific abilities and magic items that allow a PC to use a spellbook. I just don't see how this "...That is universal for ALL characters, non-spellcaster's included..." applies to scribing/adding spells to a spellbook.
I agree it's close (in PFS you sell at half what you paid). But paying the scribe and access cost covers both activities and makes them equivalent so nobody will argue with paying that (higher) cost. Since you ARE getting it from an NPC caster the scribe and access cost are appropriate... ??? you have lost me completely here. I don't even understand what you are trying to say... on a side note, this is the internet, so clearly the statement "...so nobody will argue..." is clearly not true! ;)
As a friend pointed out to me, PFS is a set of inclusive rules, if the rules are not included allowing you to do something, you can not do it. So only those who have something that specifically allows them to scribe spells into a spell book are allowed to scribe spells into a spell book. there are a number of things in this post that a PC in PFS cannot do... - "... you are outright buying another's spellbook (pages). " a PC can't do this in PFS (there are currently no rules for it, and spellbook pages do not appear on any item list or Chronicle). - "...Thus using it would involve the rules for using another's spellbook...." are you talking about a Wizard preparing spells from a borrowed spellbook? -"... That is universal for ALL characters, non-spellcaster's included."
-" ... The ONLY wiggle is you may have to pay an extra 15gp for the spellbook to claim that's the only spell in the book (thus it's a "whole" item)." I do not even understand what you are trying to say here... please expand on this statement. "...Buying partial things like only 5 arrows tends to be a sticky point in PFS." I do not understand how this relates to spellbooks... are you saying buying part of a spellbook? Like buying part of a sword? "There's no cost difference between buying a book (15gp) and having a wizard scribe in it for you,..." which we currently can't do in PFS. "...or buying a spellbook with that spell in it." Which we also can't do in PFS... "It's only the following spells where you save the 15gp for the book. So if you have the book it's not a factor (for me as a GM) so long as you have the cash and time (aka in between scenarios)." ??? what??? again, I do not even understand what you are trying to say here... please expand on this statement.
right. It's like when several of us had "extra" spell books that we wanted to sell. There were no rules (at that time), no rulings, that covered HOW to do this in PFS. So (at that time) we couldn't do it. Here's another example. Say a Fighter PC would like a dire bat mount, so during an adventure the PCs encounter Dire Bats and the Fighter "swings for subdual damage" and KOs one. Now he lugs it back to town and gets his friend (another PC) to train it as a mount. Presto! Dire Bat Mount! Add it to my ITS! ... ah, except there are no rules that would allow him to do that. And indeed, there are many rules that seem to imply that he can't.
from the PRD: section on Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook
Full text of Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook:
Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods. A wizard can only learn new spells that belong to the wizard spell lists. Spells Gained at a New Level: Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, he gains two spells of his choice to add to his spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels he can cast. Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to his book whenever he encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment. If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until one week has passed. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish. In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells might cost significantly more. Independent Research: A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.
Notice in each case it is talking about a wizard adding a spell to his own spellbook? Not so "a spellbook" just to "his spellbook". Then there is the section titled:
Notice it does not say: "Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into a spellbook." it says "...into his spellbook." Currently there are no rules (that I know of) in PFS which allow a book-using spell caster (Wizard/Magis/Alchemist/Arcanist) to create a spellbook for someone else, nor to add new spells to someone else's spellbook. I really wish there were. I have several characters that would like to do this - heck, two of my PCs took a level dip into Wizard just to be able to do it! So until we get rules added for HOW to do this, the standard in PFS is that we can not do it. It's like my Alchemist can create poisons. He can even do this in the middle of an adventure. But he can not create poisons for another character that that character can add to his inventory (ITS), even if that other PC provides the money to make them. Even if the other PC can use them. (though they could use them during the adventure).
Where in there did I say "no"? So... You took my short answer as a long answer, and shortened "you can't get one in PFS" to be a one word answer... That I actually didn't say. I'm glad we have cleared that up. This is something I've wanted to be able to do sense Season One, and in fact took a dip in wizard just to do. Please detail the current procedure in PFS for adding spells to my spellbook (as a non-wizard) as I would like to re-train the single level of wizard I took and still be able to add new spells encountered to my Blessed Book (it has a large number of spells in it now, but it also has lots of blank pages still). Edit: I actually have several PCs that would like to do this, I can see several spellbook owning PCs in my future.
Long answer is.. there is no answer. Not no. I didn't say the long answer was "no". I didn't even say the short answer was "no". What I said was...
Where in there did I say "no"? The OP asked the following ... Within PFS how can a class without the spellbook feature get spells added to a spellbook?
Certainly if you have someone in your party capable of adding them then that would be the best option. If that is not possible, what other options exist? Currently there are no rules that I know of that covers this. BNW? Could you dominate/charm/convince a wizard NPC that appears in the module to do it for you? If so would the cost be the scribing cost? Currently there are no rules for this. Just as there are no rules for a dominated/charmed/convinced NPC Druid to train an animal... Or for an NPC blacksmith to craft armor, etc. Could you seek out a wizard and pay them if they do not appear in the module? Sigh. No rules cover this. What other options exist? Currently, none. At least I know of no rules detailing how we handle this... And that's pretty much what was said in the long thread I linked above and called "long answer". So, IMHO,
Short answer.... You can't get one in PFSLong answer? Here's another thread that'll answer this for you....
And I was pointing out that to make ALL traps passable by combat means - that there is NO trap could not be removed by "hitting it with a big stick" - was reducing the game to "Rock-Paper". To a game where the challenge is always able to be overcome by inflicting damage to it. And I used sarcasm to point out that this would be like requiring all combat challenges to be passable by diplomatic means. Clearly you are not seeing my viewpoint, so I will just move on.
interesting side note on the name of the original RPG game Dungeons (that part of the game that involves non-combat challenges such as puzzles and traps - sometimes referred to as "tricks and traps"
The game is made up of both parts. There are lots of people who play this game for only PART of what is offered. Sometimes we play for one part more than the other. Right now (and fairly often) I play for the first part (the non-combat challenges, the "tricks and traps") more than the second part (the combat challenges, the "Monsters"). And that does not mean that I am "...playing the wrong game", it just means that I am finding my enjoyment in a different part of the game that some other people.
Sign in to create or edit a product review. |
