OK, this got a bit off topic in another thread, so I'm reformatting and posting it in its own thread.
Basically, as I read it, the Pathfinder RAW limits wizards to having just 100 levels of spells contained in one Spellbook. 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.
It's really become quite frustrating for my 6th level wizard who has already filled up his spellbook with only one blank page remaining.
So, help me out please. Clarify for me where in the rulebook it says a wizard can have more than one spellbook, espcially if it explains how it works.
As I read the wizard class, it always refers to "spellbook" in the singular. Likewise, in the Spells section, all references to wizards spellbooks are also singular. I don't see anywhere that references a wizard having more than one spellbook.
Further, if he finds another spellbook, he must first study each spell until he throroughly understands it and then he must copy it into his own spellbook before he can prepare that spell. The simple fact that he cannot pick up a spellbook, study it, and carry it around and prepare spells from it corroborates the 1-spellbook limit imposed on wizards.
So the wizard's one true core class ability is even more limited, at higher levels, than the sorcerer.
What's worse, the wizard has to pay gold for the inks and such to write each of those spells into his spellbook. Money that a sorcerer could use to buy magic items, scrolls, wands, or just a bunch of tankards of ale.
The only way I see, per RAW, for the wizard to overcome this limitation is for him to acquire a Blessed Book, which increases his capacity 10x.
But that makes the wizard class dependent on finding one specific mandatory magic item in order to use his core class ability. No other class is this limited. All 10 other classes can use every ability on their list, all the way up to level 20, with just ordinary items found in every marketplace in every town in the world. But not so for wizards. They have to be lucky enough to stumble upon a Blessed Book in a treasure hoard somewhere (pure luck), or find one for sale in a village marketplace (expensive), or take a feat to craft one themselves (waste of a feat and still expensive).
So the poor wizards must spend additional coin, maybe even burn a feat, or rely on a whole lot of luck, just to use their core class ability.
That really seems quite wrong.
Before I shamble off into the realm of houserules, and simply rule that the wizard can own as many spellbooks as he wants, and that he can cast spells from any spellbook, his, borrowed books, found books, etc. (as long as he studies the spell as presented in the RAW) without having to waste time or money copying them to his own spellbooks, is there something I've missed?
Does anyone else know of something I've missed in the RAW that counters the issue I have presented here?
|
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?
|
Well, I can't find anything that explicitly allows a wizard to have more than one spellbook. But, I can't find anything that specifically prohibits it, either. Yes, in most places, the RAW does refer to a "wizard's spellbook" (singular), but I imagine that's mostly for convenience.
On the other hand, a spellbook is listed as an item that can be purchased. And since:
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.
I don't see any point in having it listed as something you can buy if every wizard starts with one and can only ever have one.
Circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but it works for me.
Given all those treasure tables where the BBEG has more than one spellbook, it seems reasonable to assume that when it says 'your spellbook' it means 'a spellbook that you have'.
Also, threads on Paizo becoming off-topic! Nonsense!
YAP!
Not arguing, just keeping the discussion going:
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.
Expensive and tedious, but I guess if you're willing to take the time and spend the gold, you could have a whole shelf full of "defunct" spell reference books and still only have your one-and-only 100-page spellbook to prepare from.
Doesn't really solve the issue that the sorcerer can retain 62 more spell levels in his 10-INT head than you can store in your spellbook...
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.
Absolutely - but it's even worse if you only have one single spellbook and that's the book that gets stolen...
Still not sure the RAW supports having more than one. What you're suggesting here might be a houserule (one that I'm more than willing to support).
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?
Probably never looked at it too closely. I came from old school where a wizard had his "home" spellbook(s) and his "traveling" spellbook. The home books were huge old dusty tomes that you would practically need a wheelbarrow to haul just one of them around. The traveling spellbook was the smaller abridged version for road-use.
I've just played it that way all along. And probably still will.
Nothing anywhere in the game ever says you're only allowed to have one book. And you are explicitly allowed to make backup copies of your spellbook, which explicitly implies that you are allowed to have multiple spellbooks. It ain't a houserule to say you can have multiple, and it would, in fact, be a houserule to say you can only have one.
"Your spellbook," in general, refers to a spellbook that you created yourself. It's hard to read someone else's spellbook, but easy to read your own. I forget where I read the fluff, but I believe the explanation in 3.X was that different mages, even master and student, record their spells in different notation, and oftentimes encrypt their spellbooks with ciphers of their own creation, which is why it's hard to use someone else's book.
Well, I can't find anything that explicitly allows a wizard to have more than one spellbook. But, I can't find anything that specifically prohibits it, either. Yes, in most places, the RAW does refer to a "wizard's spellbook" (singular), but I imagine that's mostly for convenience.
On the other hand, a spellbook is listed as an item that can be purchased. And since:
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.I don't see any point in having it listed as something you can buy if every wizard starts with one and can only ever have one.
Circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but it works for me.
I considered that, but wizards can lose their spellbooks. There are even rules presented for replacing a wizard's spellbook by scribing the spells he has prepared in his head.
He would certainly need a new blank spellbook to do that.
Here's an interesting point:
Under the "Borrowed Spellbooks" section, it says the wizard can prepare from a borrowed spellbook but only if he already has that spell in his own spellbook.
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.
Hmmmm, a paradox doth exist here...
Given all those treasure tables where the BBEG has more than one spellbook, it seems reasonable to assume that when it says 'your spellbook' it means 'a spellbook that you have'.
Also, threads on Paizo becoming off-topic! Nonsense!
YAP!
I am unaware of such treasure tables. Do they exist in any Paizo products created after releasing the Core rules?
If so, that would certainly give some ammo to fight back on this awkward subject.
I do not believe there is a limitation on the number of spellbooks a wizard can have. A wizard can only use a spellbook of their own writing because each wizard writes spells in their own cryptic notes. He cannot just memorize a spell from someone else's book because the notations and assumptions that are made by another wizard are somewhat alien to another wizard's mode of thinking. This is why you must use spellcraft to decipher and interpret another wizard's book and translate it into a notation that fits your wizard's style.
Wizard's have always been able to have multiple spellbooks. Often an adventuring wizard will have a single 'travel' spellbook which contains the most used adventuring spells, and keeps a library of other researched spells at home. Part of the tradition for wizards have towers.
|
|
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.I don't see any point in having it listed as something you can buy if every wizard starts with one and can only ever have one.
Circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but it works for me.
I considered that, but wizards can lose their spellbooks. There are even rules presented for replacing a wizard's spellbook by scribing the spells he has prepared in his head.
He would certainly need a new blank spellbook to do that.
That is a good point. It looks like, from a purely RAW standpoint, we don't really have a concrete answer.
Still, while it doesn't explicitly allow a wizard to have multiple spellbooks, neither does it explicitly limit a wizard to a single spellbook. Yes, it usually refers to a "spellbook" (singular), but nowhere that I've found does it actually state "A wizard can only have one spellbook."
In this case, I'd go with the interpretation that just makes sense, and allow multiples. (Especially considering the "traveling spellbook" tradition you referenced above...)
Nothing anywhere in the game ever says you're only allowed to have one book. And you are explicitly allowed to make backup copies of your spellbook, which explicitly implies that you are allowed to have multiple spellbooks. It ain't a houserule to say you can have multiple, and it would, in fact, be a houserule to say you can only have one.
Please cite me a page reference or an official source for this ruling.
Unfortunately, where I come from, we try to stick to RAW as much as possible, and often quibble about simple meanings in the RAW to try to understand the rules.
As such, it's a tough road to convince people that a dozen (estimated) reference to singular "spellbook" was really meaning "library of spellbooks" unless I can point to at least one official source that backs that up.
I also am not sure you're explicitly allowed to make backup copies of your spellbook, although you are allowed to "duplicate a spellbook": "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."
But that doesn't say anything about actually using both spellbooks as your own. I suppose that can constitute making a backup copy. Not that it would do you much good, since only one of them is "your spellbook" and the other one only has the same spells in it anyway.
More likely, I see it as still falling under replacing your lost spellbook - find a friendly wizard and duplicate his spellbook and now you can call the copy "your spellbook".
"Your spellbook," in general, refers to a spellbook that you created yourself. It's hard to read someone else's spellbook, but easy to read your own. I forget where I read the fluff, but I believe the explanation in 3.X was that different mages, even master and student, record their spells in different notation, and oftentimes encrypt their spellbooks with ciphers of their own creation, which is why it's hard to use someone else's book.
This fluff is in the Core book, page 218, last paragraph.
Think of it this way: the rules don't expressly permit your rogue to carry seventeen daggers, each enchanted in a different way. But there's nothing saying he can't, so it's accepted that he may if he so chooses.
Unless the rules say you *cannot*, assume that your wizard may have multiple spellbook, each as valid as the next. That's the power of the wizard, the fact that he can get each and every one of the spells and prepare them as necessary.
My guess would be that they only reason they don't use the terminology "the wizard's spellbook(s)" is that it's cumbersome. It's like saying, "the rogue's dagger(s)" or "the fighter's armor set(s)".
Of course you can have more than one.
Further, if he finds another spellbook, he must first study each spell until he throroughly understands it and then he must copy it into his own spellbook before he can prepare that spell. The simple fact that he cannot pick up a spellbook, study it, and carry it around and prepare spells from it corroborates the 1-spellbook limit imposed on wizards.
That's when he's looking at a spellbook he didn't write. If he wrote that spellbook, he can use it at will.
So, think of it this way: You get your spellbook stolen. You start a new one. You get the old one back. Are you telling me that you think you somehow can no longer read the old one?
OK, this got a bit off topic in another thread, so I'm reformatting and posting it in its own thread.
Basically, as I read it, the Pathfinder RAW limits wizards to having just 100 levels of spells contained in one Spellbook. 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.
It's really become quite frustrating for my 6th level wizard who has already filled up his spellbook with only one blank page remaining.
So, help me out please. Clarify for me where in the rulebook it says a wizard can have more than one spellbook, espcially if it explains how it works.
As I read the wizard class, it always refers to "spellbook" in the singular. Likewise, in the Spells section, all references to wizards spellbooks are also singular. I don't see anywhere that references a wizard having more than one spellbook.
Further, if he finds another spellbook, he must first study each spell until he throroughly understands it and then he must copy it into his own spellbook before he can prepare that spell. The simple fact that he cannot pick up a spellbook, study it, and carry it around and prepare spells from it corroborates the 1-spellbook limit imposed on wizards.
So the wizard's one true core class ability is even more limited, at higher levels, than the sorcerer.
What's worse, the wizard has to pay gold for the inks and such to write each of those spells into his spellbook. Money that a sorcerer could use to buy magic items, scrolls, wands, or just a bunch of tankards of ale.
The only way I see, per RAW, for the wizard to overcome this limitation is for him to acquire a Blessed Book, which increases his capacity 10x.
But that makes the wizard class dependent on finding one specific mandatory magic item in order to use his core class ability. No other class is this limited. All 10 other classes can use every ability on their list, all the way up to level 20, with just ordinary items...
If you are beat an enemy wizard his spellbook does not vanish. In Age of Worms Allustan has a traveling spellbook, and the main book. Complete Arcane also has a spellcraft check for figuring out an enemy's entire spellbook so you don't have to do it spell by spell. These all support that a wizard can have more than one spellbook.
While there is no specific page that makes the distinction between the words Spellbook or Spellbooks, there is also no mention of fighters being female. All page text that mentions sex is listed as he, his, or him. Reading too much into the rules is dangerous, but per RAW you could argue that only men can be fighters and women can by paladins.
If you look at the spells per day of a level 20 wizard you find that they get four spells slots of every level. If they can only have one spellbook, then they could at most only have two spells per level with a couple of extra level 0 or 1 spells before they hit the 100 page limit.
A wizard at level 20 with a unique spell for each slot will need minimum of 184 pages before bonus spells for specialization or high intelligence. Most wizards past the midpoint will have two or three spellbooks at a minimum in their gear.
I also am not sure you're explicitly allowed to make backup copies of your spellbook, although you are allowed to "duplicate a spellbook": "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."
That's the ruling I'm referring to.
But that doesn't say anything about actually using both spellbooks as your own. I suppose that can constitute making a backup copy. Not that it would do you much good, since only one of them is "your spellbook" and the other one only has the same spells in it anyway.
Ask them to prove that the second spellbook isn't yours.
But that doesn't say anything about actually using both spellbooks as your own. I suppose that can constitute making a backup copy. Not that it would do you much good, since only one of them is "your spellbook" and the other one only has the same spells in it anyway.
Which is strong credence to the stance that "your spellbook" refers to any spellbook you wrote and that uses your personal shorthand.
As easy as it is to use that mindset, and as sensible and logical as it is in this case, it opens the door to a huge wave of things you don't want. I imagine VV is already typing up a massive discussion on that particular falacy though, so I'll leave the details in the air.
In some cases, I'd harp on it. In this particular case? Sometimes, the best answer is, "Duh."
i interpret it in this way....
There is only so much of a spellbook one person can logically carry on their person all day every day.There has to be a limit somewhere. This gives the GM some sort of idea where to limit it.
Actually, what gives the GM the idea of where to limit it is the rules for Encumbrance. 100 pages comes nowhere near even a very weak character's encumbrance limit.
Under the "Borrowed Spellbooks" section, it says the wizard can prepare from a borrowed spellbook but only if he already has that spell in his own spellbook.
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.
Hmmmm, a paradox doth exist here...
FWIW, I think the former is in need of an erratum (or in the Paizo parlance, a "clarification"). My assumption is that the "already in your spellbook" term is making a stupid assumption: that you could afford to, and chose to, scribe the spell in your own book after passing the Spellcraft check to learn it from an external source. It's only the latter which is mechanically important - that you have legitimately passed the "fit it in your head" test.
Now if you were to hire a henchman, take on an apprentice and let them carry a book or drag them around in a cart, you could virtually drag your whole library around as long as it isn't obscene amount of books.
You forgot the most standard, a mule and pack saddle, for 13 gold. Or just the standard bag of holding.
I hate to quibble, but we're making assumptions here. I was hoping for something more substantial.
I've already made my own assumptions and interpretations (or houserules) to handle it, although I may have a hard time impressing my DM until I find something more concrete.
Think of it this way: the rules don't expressly permit your rogue to carry seventeen daggers, each enchanted in a different way. But there's nothing saying he can't, so it's accepted that he may if he so chooses.
Unless the rules say you *cannot*,
Here's the quibbling:
The rules don't say my fighter *cannot* flap his arms and fly to the moon, but I won't assume he can.
It's a dangerous, slippery slope to assume that you can do anything that isn't expressly forbidden in the rules. Knowing that danger, I look to the rules to find some clarity. In this case, the only clarity I can find is quite vague (all the singular references to spellbooks) but that vagueness points, unilaterally, at only having one spellbook.
So if I can find any clarity at all in the RAW, that clarity seems to prohibit having more than one spellbook, even though it doesn't expressly say I *cannot*.
assume that your wizard may have multiple spellbook, each as valid as the next. That's the power of the wizard, the fact that he can get each and every one of the spells and prepare them as necessary.
I would like to agree. And logic says I agree. You're preaching to the choir here.
Now, can we back it up with anything else than reason and wishful thinking, say, with something concrete enough to win over a DM who wants to see it in the rules?
My guess would be that they only reason they don't use the terminology "the wizard's spellbook(s)" is that it's cumbersome. It's like saying, "the rogue's dagger(s)" or "the fighter's armor set(s)".
Of course you can have more than one.
Maybe. But this is a perfect case where a simple sentence like "The wizard may maintain as many spellbooks as he would like." or even adding, in the description of the wizard's spellbook, the phrase "one or more books" and leave it at that.
Just a few simple words.
And yet they didn't.
Oversight or intent? It's very hard to say.
Further, if he finds another spellbook, he must first study each spell until he throroughly understands it and then he must copy it into his own spellbook before he can prepare that spell. The simple fact that he cannot pick up a spellbook, study it, and carry it around and prepare spells from it corroborates the 1-spellbook limit imposed on wizards.That's when he's looking at a spellbook he didn't write. If he wrote that spellbook, he can use it at will.
And yet, it also says that once he deciphers a spell in that spellbook, he never has to decipher it again.
So he studies it, figures it out, comprehends it completely (well enough to copy it to his own book with no chance of error - any chance of error happened during the 'figure out' phase, not during the 'copy' phase), and yet at this point he still has to take that extra step to write it down in his own spellbook (singular) before he can use this thoroughly understood spell.
So, think of it this way: You get your spellbook stolen. You start a new one. You get the old one back. Are you telling me that you think you somehow can no longer read the old one?
An interesting paradox, one that the rules don't seem to resolve.
A DM could easily rule that the wizard must pick one to be his "spellbook" and the other one becomes some handy reference tome, maybe a backup in case he loses his spellbook again.
If you are beat an enemy wizard his spellbook does not vanish.
I never suggested the spellbook vanishes.
Clearly the wizard can copy spells from that enemy's spellbook into his own.
In Age of Worms Allustan has a traveling spellbook, and the main book.
Not a Pathfinder AP, but it is a handy reference for resolving 3.x concerns.
Complete Arcane also has a spellcraft check for figuring out an enemy's entire spellbook so you don't have to do it spell by spell.
Also not Pathfinder, and it also doesn't seem to support directly using his spellbook as your own - all it says is that you don't have to make rolls for each spell. You roll for the whole book, and now you can copy whichever spells you like into your own book so you can prepare them.
These all support that a wizard can have more than one spellbook.
Not all, but the AoW reference is a good place to start.
I hate to quibble, but we're making assumptions here. I was hoping for something more substantial.
I've already made my own assumptions and interpretations (or houserules) to handle it, although I may have a hard time impressing my DM until I find something more concrete.
...
You are the first person I've heard suggest there is a 1 spellbook limit on wizards. Maybe you think it's a perfectly logical reading but that's not how I read it and none of the GMs I've played with have ever used the rule that way.
To be honest, I kind of like it. I might just adopt it as a house rule.
While there is no specific page that makes the distinction between the words Spellbook or Spellbooks, there is also no mention of fighters being female. All page text that mentions sex is listed as he, his, or him. Reading too much into the rules is dangerous, but per RAW you could argue that only men can be fighters and women can by paladins.
You could, but that would be silly.
Non-specific gender identity has been a staple of instructional text since women started burning their bras 40 some odd years ago. (I don't mean that rudely, I'm a staunch advocate of all that stuff IRL).
I can't accept gender identity pronouns as evidence that we are or are not reading too much into rules.
If you look at the spells per day of a level 20 wizard you find that they get four spells slots of every level. If they can only have one spellbook, then they could at most only have two spells per level with a couple of extra level 0 or 1 spells before they hit the 100 page limit.
A wizard at level 20 with a unique spell for each slot will need minimum of 184 pages before bonus spells for specialization or high intelligence. Most wizards past the midpoint will have two or three spellbooks at a minimum in their gear.
This is incorrect.
You're quoting spells/day. A wizard only needs one page in his spellbook. Let's say that page contains Magic Missile. The other 99 can be blank. He can then fill every spell slot of every level from 1-9 with Magic Missile spells, with or without Metamagic enhancements. (he can put Read Magic in all his cantrip slots since he doesn't need a spellbook for it).
i interpret it in this way....
There is only so much of a spellbook one person can logically carry on their person all day every day.There has to be a limit somewhere. This gives the GM some sort of idea where to limit it.
Now if you were to hire a henchman, take on an apprentice and let them carry a book or drag them around in a cart, you could virtually drag your whole library around as long as it isn't obscene amount of books.
That's a bit overkill.
Previous D&D editions suggested that a wizard maintains a "traveling spellbook" that he carries off into dungeons and other dangers, while his main spellbook remains safely home in his tower.
Of course, this smaller "traveling" spellbook doesn't have all of his spells in it, and each day when he's in that dungeon, he's only able to prepare spells in that book, unless he wants to teleport home to read the big book.
Even so, with bags of holding and other magical storage devices, it would be no problem for a wizard to haul around a dozen, or a hundred, spellbooks, each with 100 pages, if he wanted to. That would be an obscene about of books, but entirely possible to drag around nonetheless.
There are clearly other ways to limit it. Heck, the costs alone are limiting my wizard from copying half of the spells he's found in two small spellbooks so far.
And even if it were an intended limit, given the class design of wizards having fewer spells per day but more choices than sorcerers, it's odd that this limit puts the wizards choices at 62 spell levels less than sorcerers.
FWIW, I think the former is in need of an erratum (or in the Paizo parlance, a "clarification"). My assumption is that the "already in your spellbook" term is making a stupid assumption: that you could afford to, and chose to, scribe the spell in your own book after passing the Spellcraft check to learn it from an external source. It's only the latter which is mechanically important - that you have legitimately passed the "fit it in your head" test.Under the "Borrowed Spellbooks" section, it says the wizard can prepare from a borrowed spellbook but only if he already has that spell in his own spellbook.
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.
Hmmmm, a paradox doth exist here...
I would agree with this erratum/clarification.
I hate to quibble, but we're making assumptions here. I was hoping for something more substantial.
I've already made my own assumptions and interpretations (or houserules) to handle it, although I may have a hard time impressing my DM until I find something more concrete.
...
You are the first person I've heard suggest there is a 1 spellbook limit on wizards. Maybe you think it's a perfectly logical reading but that's not how I read it and none of the GMs I've played with have ever used the rule that way.
To be honest, I kind of like it. I might just adopt it as a house rule.
Heh, I don't like it at all. Yeah, yeah, I'm playing a wizard and this rule is crushing his wizardly spirit, but that's in only one campaign. I'm a rogue in another and the DM in a third. And I want the rule fixed in all of them.
As for adopting this as a campaign rule, you may first want to evaluate the fact that it limits wizards to having less than 2/3 the number of known spells as sorcerers, which is absolutely the opposite of the intended class design, so some alteration may be in order before this is a suitable rule for adoption, else nobody in their right mind would play anything other than sorcerers.
I would agree with this erratum/clarification.
Erratum/ clarifications are fixing typos or for fixing something that's worded poorly. This is an outright rules change, there is a big difference.
I hate to quibble, but we're making assumptions here. I was hoping for something more substantial.
I've already made my own assumptions and interpretations (or houserules) to handle it, although I may have a hard time impressing my DM until I find something more concrete.
...
You are the first person I've heard suggest there is a 1 spellbook limit on wizards. Maybe you think it's a perfectly logical reading but that's not how I read it and none of the GMs I've played with have ever used the rule that way.
To be honest, I kind of like it. I might just adopt it as a house rule.
Heh, I don't like it at all. Yeah, yeah, I'm playing a wizard and this rule is crushing his wizardly spirit, but that's in only one campaign. I'm a rogue in another and the DM in a third. And I want the rule fixed in all of them.
As for adopting this as a campaign rule, you may first want to evaluate the fact that it limits wizards to having less than 2/3 the number of known spells as sorcerers, which is absolutely the opposite of the intended class design, so some alteration may be in order before this is a suitable rule for adoption, else nobody in their right mind would play anything other than sorcerers.
Eh, just did the math, it's not even limiting until they reach 9th level or so. Then it's a one time expense which is trivial compared to the cost of any other classes expected equipment. The limit of spells per level based on INT makes a lot more sense.
If you are beat an enemy wizard his spellbook does not vanish.I never suggested the spellbook vanishes.
Clearly the wizard can copy spells from that enemy's spellbook into his own.
In Age of Worms Allustan has a traveling spellbook, and the main book.Not a Pathfinder AP, but it is a handy reference for resolving 3.x concerns.
Complete Arcane also has a spellcraft check for figuring out an enemy's entire spellbook so you don't have to do it spell by spell.Also not Pathfinder, and it also doesn't seem to support directly using his spellbook as your own - all it says is that you don't have to make rolls for each spell. You roll for the whole book, and now you can copy whichever spells you like into your own book so you can prepare them.
These all support that a wizard can have more than one spellbook.Not all, but the AoW reference is a good place to start.
PF is compatible with 3.5 so unless otherwise stated the 3.5 rules should still stand. Your DM should also realize the spells that are in the spellbook are in the spellbook, not in his head. The reason why a wizard can access more spells than a sorcerer is because one is going off of memory alone, and the other has book with everything written in it. If the spells were in his head he would not need the spellbook, and there would most likely be a mechanic to pull any spell from memory. I understand its your DM that needs convincing more than you by the way. It just annoys me, even if it doesn't affect me.
Erratum/ clarifications are fixing typos or for fixing something that's worded poorly. This is an outright rules change, there is a big difference.
Ehh... seems to me a "thinko" fits the bill too. Again, my hunch is that they were thinking "spells known" and wrote down "in your spellbook" because the two are naturally associated and in most cases synonymous. This is perhaps the one and only place where that mistake actually has meaning!
Might I suggest a blessed book, so you can just avoid the problem altogether?
I have already expressed my feelings on this matter in my original post, but I'll clarify:
1. Requiring a class to use a magic item in order to access any of its core class features is poor class design. It's also unfair, since only one class (the wizard) is required to use a magic item for this reason (utilizing core class features).
2. It's a bit of an expense. My 6th level wizard has used 99 pages of his spellbook (only one page left) and he doesn't have anywhere near enough gold to buy a Blessed Book. Even if someone handed him a Blessed Book for free, he couldn't afford to scribe the remaining spells he has in the two spellbooks he's found (although I think the Blessed Book might let him scribe the spells for free, in which case, it becomes more affordable).
3. Not all game worlds have Magic Marts. Many wizards in many campaign worlds may not be able to hop into town and buy a Blessed Book whenever they want one. In some games, they might even have to find one because there may never be an opportunity to buy one.
4. A wizard can make his own Blessed Book, if he has access to the right spell, enough time and money to get the job done, and a desire to blow a feat on Craft Wondrous Items (something many wizards may not want to do). No other class is required to take a feat in order to use their core class abilities, so this is also unfairly punishing to wizards.
For those reasons, I don't like the Blessed Book answer. While you are right, with a Blessed Book, a wizard can avoid the problem altogether, to me, I find it a problem that this problem needs to be avoided by acquiring a Blessed Book.
While there is no specific page that makes the distinction between the words Spellbook or Spellbooks, there is also no mention of fighters being female. All page text that mentions sex is listed as he, his, or him. Reading too much into the rules is dangerous, but per RAW you could argue that only men can be fighters and women can by paladins.You could, but that would be silly.
Non-specific gender identity has been a staple of instructional text since women started burning their bras 40 some odd years ago. (I don't mean that rudely, I'm a staunch advocate of all that stuff IRL).
I can't accept gender identity pronouns as evidence that we are or are not reading too much into rules.
If you look at the spells per day of a level 20 wizard you find that they get four spells slots of every level. If they can only have one spellbook, then they could at most only have two spells per level with a couple of extra level 0 or 1 spells before they hit the 100 page limit.
A wizard at level 20 with a unique spell for each slot will need minimum of 184 pages before bonus spells for specialization or high intelligence. Most wizards past the midpoint will have two or three spellbooks at a minimum in their gear.
This is incorrect.
You're quoting spells/day. A wizard only needs one page in his spellbook. Let's say that page contains Magic Missile. The other 99 can be blank. He can then fill every spell slot of every level from 1-9 with Magic Missile spells, with or without Metamagic enhancements. (he can put Read Magic in all his cantrip slots since he doesn't need a spellbook for it).
I agree that is silly. That is my point. You should not have to change the words "a wizard’s spellbook" to a "wizard’s spellbook or spellbooks if he knows more spells then will fit into one spellbook." There are simplifications used in writing and I believe this is one of them just like alternating he and she rather the using one exclusively or the (s)he method. The game has rules for items with limitations and "slots". Spellbook is not listed as a limited item.
And I did not say that they could not memorize one spell over and over, I stated for a unique spell at each slot. That is clearly the designer’s intent. A character can fill the same spell into more than one slot if needed, but the intent is for those to be different in most cases. Thus it is 184 pages for one unique spell per slot.
I am not trying to be a jerk; my point is I think you are being too literal in your interpretation of RAW.
I hate to quibble, but we're making assumptions here. I was hoping for something more substantial.
I've already made my own assumptions and interpretations (or houserules) to handle it, although I may have a hard time impressing my DM until I find something more concrete.
...
You are the first person I've heard suggest there is a 1 spellbook limit on wizards. Maybe you think it's a perfectly logical reading but that's not how I read it and none of the GMs I've played with have ever used the rule that way.
To be honest, I kind of like it. I might just adopt it as a house rule.
Heh, I don't like it at all. Yeah, yeah, I'm playing a wizard and this rule is crushing his wizardly spirit, but that's in only one campaign. I'm a rogue in another and the DM in a third. And I want the rule fixed in all of them.
As for adopting this as a campaign rule, you may first want to evaluate the fact that it limits wizards to having less than 2/3 the number of known spells as sorcerers, which is absolutely the opposite of the intended class design, so some alteration may be in order before this is a suitable rule for adoption, else nobody in their right mind would play anything other than sorcerers.
Eh, just did the math, it's not even limiting until they reach 9th level or so. Then it's a one time expense which is trivial compared to the cost of any other classes expected equipment. The limit of spells per level based on INT makes a lot more sense.
I have found it limiting at 6th level, actually, following the rules as written.
As long as your campaign makes Blessed Books readily avialble (I assume you're talking about the Blessed Book when you refer to a one-time expense) at magic shops or in treasure hoards, then it shouldn't be a problem.
PF is compatible with 3.5 so unless otherwise stated the 3.5 rules should still stand. Your DM should also realize the spells that are in the spellbook are in the spellbook, not in his head. The reason why a wizard can access more spells than a sorcerer is because one is going off of memory alone, and the other has book with everything written in it. If the spells were in his head he would not need the spellbook, and there would most likely be a mechanic to pull any spell from memory. I understand its your DM that needs convincing more than you by the way. It just annoys me, even if it doesn't affect me.
Indeed it is more or less compatible, but we've somewhat grown tired of the power-creep in the splat books, so we mostly avoid splat. Even stuff as seemingly harmless as the Complete Arcane can be suspect, and we'd rather avoid it for now.
When it comes to Pathfinder, we're starting off on an "In for a penny, in for a pound" approach and leaving 3.x splatbooks behind - though we have trickled in a couple of the more respctable Spell Compendium spells and a few Magic Item Compendium items; but so far those have been our only indiscretions.
We know the wizard's spells are in his spellbook, not in his head.
We also accept that the sorcerer's spells are not exactly in his head (if they were, his primary casting attribute would be INT). Instead, sorcerers have some ideas in their head and they bend their wills, their forceful, wishful thinking as it were (or however else you describe using CHA to influence the laws of physics) to bring those ideas into reality. Sorcerers don't study magic or learn complex formulas - they just want something to happen hard enough that it happens. More or less.
I don't think my DM really realized that limiting to one spellbooks puts the wizard at such a disadvantage. I only reached this conclusion right as we were wrapping up a segment of that campaign and putting it on temporary hiatus (about a month ago) just after reaching level 6.
When we resume that campaign, I'd like to be prepared with all the ammunition I need to settle this once and for all.
Erratum/ clarifications are fixing typos or for fixing something that's worded poorly. This is an outright rules change, there is a big difference.Ehh... seems to me a "thinko" fits the bill too. Again, my hunch is that they were thinking "spells known" and wrote down "in your spellbook" because the two are naturally associated and in most cases synonymous. This is perhaps the one and only place where that mistake actually has meaning!
No, it is not an oops. They literally mean that the wizard has to go to the expense of scribing every single spell they want to cast into their spellbook. The expense of scribing is intended to be a barrier to wizards learning every spell on the planet.
Amoung other things they wouldn't go to the trouble of explicitly saying "You cannot use a borrowed spellbook". If the intent was for them to just learn the spells from any source.
You're quoting spells/day. A wizard only needs one page in his spellbook. Let's say that page contains Magic Missile. The other 99 can be blank. He can then fill every spell slot of every level from 1-9 with Magic Missile spells, with or without Metamagic enhancements. (he can put Read Magic in all his cantrip slots since he doesn't need a spellbook for it).I agree that is silly. That is my point. You should not have to change the words "a wizard’s spellbook" to a "wizard’s spellbook or spellbooks if he knows more spells then will fit into one spellbook." There are simplifications used in writing and I believe this is one of them just like alternating he and she rather the using one exclusively or the (s)he method. The game has rules for items with limitations and "slots". Spellbook is not listed as a limited item.
However, there is a giant glaring difference.
One of these simplifications is a "convention" that is widely recognized throughout the world. Using gender-neutral pronouns, or alternating gender pronouns, is as common today as referring to all gelatin dessers as "Jello" or all colas as "Cokes". Nobody questions it because we're all used to accepting it.
The other of these simplifications is not a "convention" at all. When defining a rule, one must be specific. The rule can be omitted, leaving it up to the DM to decide how to arbitrate the situation. But if it is not omitted, if the rule is printed in black and white, it is expected that the rule will be followed. Following the rule requires understanding the rule.
Instead of understanding it, you're proposing to change the text that is written, or at least, accept in our minds that it was written a different way. That's very counter-productive when talking about rules.
If you get a speeding ticket for driving 80 when the posted speed limit is 75, and you say to the judge "Well, Your Honor, I read the rule in the driver's handbook, but I took the term 'speed limit' to mean 'speed that you can exceed when you want to as long as you don't exceed it by very much'. I mean, everyone speeds a little bit, right Your Honor?" - well, you'll still have to pay the fine.
If the rules of the road allowed you to exceed the speed limit, then it would say so in the rules handbook. It doesn't say so. In fact, it says the opposite.
Much like the Pathfinder book says "Spellbook" everywhere.
And I did not say that they could not memorize one spell over and over, I stated for a unique spell at each slot. That is clearly the designer’s intent. A character can fill the same spell into more than one slot if needed, but the intent is for those to be different in most cases. Thus it is 184 pages for one unique spell per slot.
I'm not so sure that's clearly the designers' intent. It is the designer's intent that they could prepare a unique spell in every slot, but it's definitely not the intent that they must do so (in fact the text cites a specific example that they can prepare the same spell more than once), nor do I believe that the designers' intent was that wizards should prepare a unique spell in every slot.
It should be enough, however, that they could - except that after a certain level, they don't have enough pages in their spellbook to contain enough unique spells to fill every slot.
I am not trying to be a jerk; my point is I think you are being too literal in your interpretation of RAW.
Of course I am.
It's in print. It's a rule. Our group has decided to try to play Pathfinder as written, unchanged, with zero houserules, as much as possible. We vote as a group on every issue that arises, and if we accept a houserule, it's unanimous or nothing.
Allowing a wizard more than one spellbook is simple and obivous, and I fully believe the writers intended as much. Any other assumption leads to drastic problems for wizards.
However, it's not how the writers wrote the rule.
Sure, we're being too literal.
Rules must be iterpreted literally. Interpreting rules liberally is tantamount to circumventing them entirely. Criminals and their lawyers do it all the time, even though it doesn't always work. Entire court cases have been decided on a single word - and those court cases determined people's livelihood, even their very lives.
We should be able to question rules. We should be able to change rules. But first, we must be able to understand the rule in question. And to do that, we cannot allow ourselves to misunderstand, misinterpret, or misdirect the wording or the intent of the rule.
I have found it limiting at 6th level, actually, following the rules as written.
As long as your campaign makes Blessed Books readily avialble (I assume you're talking about the Blessed Book when you refer to a one-time expense) at magic shops or in treasure hoards, then it shouldn't be a problem.
10 spells per level is 70 pages. Heck... I usually don't even have 10 spells per level by 6th level. You complain about being constrained compared to the sorcerer?
Considering your success acquiring spells seems pretty unlikely your GM will suddenly get stingy and not let you buy a Blessed Book.
Having too many spells to fit into your spell book at this point isn't something to complain about.
A spellbook is purchased for 15 gp just like any other item. There is no restriction on sale.
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.
From the PRD
Spellbook, Wizard's: A spellbook has 100 pages of parchment, and each spell takes up one page per spell level (one page each for 0-level spells).
If the one spellbook idea is RAI then how will all his spells fit? Even if a wizard never copied spells to his spell book he would run out of pages.
An int of 15 should give for 2 extra first level spells
0x20=20
1x5=5
2x4=8
3x4=12
4x4=16
5x4=20
6x4=24
105 pages. Is this supposed to mean you don't get anymore spells beyond 12th level, and once again if you buy scrolls you would stop gaining spells before you even made it to 12th level.
Erratum/ clarifications are fixing typos or for fixing something that's worded poorly. This is an outright rules change, there is a big difference.Ehh... seems to me a "thinko" fits the bill too. Again, my hunch is that they were thinking "spells known" and wrote down "in your spellbook" because the two are naturally associated and in most cases synonymous. This is perhaps the one and only place where that mistake actually has meaning!No, it is not an oops. They literally mean that the wizard has to go to the expense of scribing every single spell they want to cast into their spellbook. The expense of scribing is intended to be a barrier to wizards learning every spell on the planet.
Amoung other things they wouldn't go to the trouble of explicitly saying "You cannot use a borrowed spellbook". If the intent was for them to just learn the spells from any source.
I think you may have missed the origin of this little sidetrack regarding the erratum. It sprang from the inconsistent rules in the Arcane section of the Magic chapter of the book.
Under the "Borrowed Spellbooks" section, it says the wizard can prepare from a borrowed spellbook but only if he already has that spell in his own spellbook.
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.
These two rules say exactly the opposite and they completely contradict one another.
This is very definitely an "oops" and it needs clarification from Paizo.
But you are right. If a wizard wants to cast a spell, he must prepare it from his own spellbook, not from a borrowed one, and he must go to the expense of scribing it into his own book. It is a limiting factor.
By the way, in this case, the erratum is obvious.
Under the rule for copying a spell into your spellbook, it very specifically describes the process of deciphering, making a spellcraft check, then copying the spell into your own spellbook, none of which requires preparing it. Once copied, you're free to prepare it as you wish.
Under the rule for replacing a lost spellbook using spells from a borrowed spellbook, you are doing exactly the same thing. You lost your spellbook, so you got another one. Now you are copying spells from a borrowed spellbook to your spellbook - there is no reason not to use the previously established rules for copying a spell from a borrowed book.
Clearly it's this second rule, the one that says a spell must be prepared and then written into your new spellbook that is in error, as it directly conflicts previous rules and we already have rules in place to handle copying spells from a borrowed spellbook.
QED.
I have found it limiting at 6th level, actually, following the rules as written.
As long as your campaign makes Blessed Books readily avialble (I assume you're talking about the Blessed Book when you refer to a one-time expense) at magic shops or in treasure hoards, then it shouldn't be a problem.
10 spells per level is 70 pages. Heck... I usually don't even have 10 spells per level by 6th level. You complain about being constrained compared to the sorcerer?
Considering your success acquiring spells seems pretty unlikely your GM will suddenly get stingy and not let you buy a Blessed Book.
Having too many spells to fit into your spell book at this point isn't something to complain about.
I have found two spellbooks. One of them had about 4 spells per level up through level 6 spells (I haven't even tried to scribe the level 4, 5, or 6 stuff yet) and one had quite a few lower level spells and only a couple of 3rd and 4th level.
I also visited the academy where I apprenticed (pre-game) when I was 4th level and they let me purchase any spell I wanted at half-price, so I loaded up. Probably too much. But I couldn't resist the price with my alumnus discount, and with a bonded item, I felt the chance to pile on a bunch of one-shot utility spells that I could call on once/day without preparing them was a really good idea.
And don't forget that my spellbook began the game with 20 pages used up for all Cantrips.
(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.
Lol, beat you to that point by a hair Wraithstrike.
You do know it is part of the forum rules to never ninja anyone named Wraithstrike. Now you have to delete your post.
(whispers to other forum members)-->He wont see it coming.
Am I the only one who saw what the topic starter did here?
Amazing find!
This thread delivers ;-)
The challenge is 'easy': find a phrase in the core rulebook which not indirectly indicates you can have more than 1 spellbook, but at least creates a clear paradox with the rule of only 1 spellbook. The only argument that came close was the 4 slots per spell level at lvl 20, but that was countered neatly with the magic missile example hehe.
*grabs popcorn*
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.
Am I the only one who saw what the topic starter did here?
Amazing find!
This thread delivers ;-)
The challenge is 'easy': find a phrase in the core rulebook which not indirectly indicates you can have more than 1 spellbook, but at least creates a clear paradox with the rule of only 1 spellbook. The only argument that came close was the 4 slots per spell level at lvl 20, but that was countered neatly with the magic missile example hehe.*grabs popcorn*
Yeah, yeah, I know I'm taking this way farther than it has to go.
It's just that I presented all this to the DM right before we put that campaign on hold, and he was pretty adamant about following the written rule.
There have been many good circumstantial arguments, and a few mistaken assumptions, but I haven't seen anything that I feel will convince the DM.
I, on the other hand, was convinced that wizards should get multiple spellbooks before I wrote the OP - I am just looking for proof (proof that I don't think exists in the book, or one of us would have found it by now).