Hey, last game we were confronted with a gold dragon (the same one that killed my last character) and we were in a bad way. I had no spells left that could turn the tide (i'm an evoker) but we had been given a 'infinite spellbook' that contained every spell up to 6th lvl from the Spell Compendium. I had the idea to use the spell Prismatic Ray straight from the book as a scroll (thereby removing it from the book).
I'm pretty sure it was legit, but any thoughts to the legality of this?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Hey, last game we were confronted with a gold dragon (the same one that killed my last character) and we were in a bad way. I had no spells left that could turn the tide (i'm an evoker) but we had been given a 'infinite spellbook' that contained every spell up to 6th lvl from the Spell Compendium. I had the idea to use the spell Prismatic Ray straight from the book as a scroll (thereby removing it from the book).
I'm pretty sure it was legit, but any thoughts to the legality of this?
Not legit. For one thing, scribing in a spellbook is a lot cheaper than scribing a scroll. Sorry :)
Not legit. For one thing, scribing in a spellbook is a lot cheaper than scribing a scroll. Sorry :)
Yeh, i see what you mean; it's like nearly 5 times the cost. But is there anything definitive written about this?
Yeh, i see what you mean; it's like nearly 5 times the cost. But is there anything definitive written about this?
Not legit. For one thing, scribing in a spellbook is a lot cheaper than scribing a scroll. Sorry :)
I think you could do this back in 1-2nd ed, but I think it was dropped in 3rd+. It was always a bad idea to do, but in extreme situations, you could.
Scrolls are spell completion items. Spellbooks are not. In previous editions you could do the old 'cast from the spellbook' trick (as others have noted. But you'll note that there are no rules for it in 3.0 or later editions. As noted above, scrolls cost a lot more than the cost to scribe a spell into your book. If you were to cast it from your book, would you lose the spell forever? If so, then you're carrying an extra-cheap mound of scrolls. If not, then we need to up the price on your spellbook to account for it now being a book of infinite spells.
|
I think you could do this back in 1-2nd ed, but I think it was dropped in 3rd+. It was always a bad idea to do, but in extreme situations, you could.
I think it was even a houserule in 1st-2nd Edition, but we certainly used it, since there were no workable scroll-creation rules (you had to be near-retirement level, before you could make even the simplest of items).
It explained why the world wasn't awash with spellbooks, left behind by every mage that had ever lived. They'd been cannibalised by their desperate successors.
Of course, this was in a game where you had a serious cap on spells known, you didn't get bonus spells for high Int, school specialisation was a 2E invention, 1st-level slots had to be blown on spells that are now cantrips, there was no Wealth-by-Level assumptions.
It was also allowed, because the pace of advancement was slower, so we didn't get to the levels where casters dominated the game, and playing a guy with 2 spells/day sucked.
Given the freebies handed out like Christmas and birthday combined, to casters in 3rd Edition, I don't see how it can possibly be justified any more.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I'd allow it. Further, I wouldn't even have it leave your spellbook.
It would, however, have a 2(or 3!) round/spell level casting time.
That Prismatic Ray would have taken a full minute to cast.
I realize this opens up wizards for even more flexibility by casting utility spells from the book and memorizing combat spells, but I don't like giving my players infinite amount of time to do anything.
If they do have infinite time, what's the difference?
|
Scrolls are spell completion items. Spellbooks are not. In previous editions you could do the old 'cast from the spellbook' trick (as others have noted. But you'll note that there are no rules for it in 3.0 or later editions. As noted above, scrolls cost a lot more than the cost to scribe a spell into your book. If you were to cast it from your book, would you lose the spell forever? If so, then you're carrying an extra-cheap mound of scrolls. If not, then we need to up the price on your spellbook to account for it now being a book of infinite spells.
This is exactly what I thought when I first read this. The fact that scrolls are spell completion items while spellbooks are not is pretty much the key reason (aside from the cost factor, that is) why you cannot cast directly from a spellbook.
|
|
I did allow this back in the pre-3.x days and still do. My rules were, and still are, that the spell that is cast is destroyed (obviously) and there is a 1% chance per spell level of the spell that was cast that the entire spellbook is destroyed.
Note that I have actually never even seen a wizard DO this in the 3.x days, even though I DM'd one or more campaigns pretty much continually since 3.0 was released.
If I saw a player trying to be a weasel and buying multiple spellbooks with one spell each I'd just slap him and nix the rule.
I think it was even a houserule in 1st-2nd Edition, but we certainly used it, since there were no workable scroll-creation rules (you had to be near-retirement level, before you could make even the simplest of items).
On a lark, I dusted off my copies of the 1st and 2nd ed PHB and DMGs. A quick perusal showed no mention of using spellbooks like scrolls. I recall an adventure where a mad wizard was tearing out pages and using them. It might have first appeared in a module and was house ruled from there. Or done as an option in Dragon magazine. It would be interesting to find the root of this rule; did it show up somewhere official, or is it a grass-roots houserule used by multiple groups
On a lark, I dusted off my copies of the 1st and 2nd ed PHB and DMGs. A quick perusal showed no mention of using spellbooks like scrolls. I recall an adventure where a mad wizard was tearing out pages and using them. It might have first appeared in a module and was house ruled from there. Or done as an option in Dragon magazine. It would be interesting to find the root of this rule; did it show up somewhere official, or is it a grass-roots houserule used by multiple groups
I think it was even a houserule in 1st-2nd Edition, but we certainly used it, since there were no workable scroll-creation rules (you had to be near-retirement level, before you could make even the simplest of items).
1st Edition Unearthed Arcana IIRC.
1st Edition Unearthed Arcana IIRC.
You are correct. Page 80.
"Direct casting of a spell from a spell book automatically destroys that spell. There is also a 1% chance per level of the spell that the spells immediately preceding and following the spell cast will be likewise be destroyed. There is an additional 1% chance that the casting of the spell directly from the spell book will destroy the entire book"
There is a bit more, but that's the relevant bit...
|
Book of Infinite Spells is an artifact. You have a generous DM.
I'd be curious where the "power" for the spell is coming from. Scrolls are prepared much like a battery to store spell energy in the pages themselves, locking energy into squid ink with crumbled unicorn hooves (or the like). If all spellbooks are actually scrolls, every wizard is carrying around a boatload of power in his/her hands.
I also would allow grimoire casting, but generally, would increase the times to minutes instead of rounds...this allows wizards to have their utility spells in the spellbook whilst they can have their combat spells in memory.
Book of Infinite Spells...wow...it could actually generate all the power needed to cast the spell normally. With it being an artifact I would have allowed the spell to be cast normally, but the feedback to cat the spell would have caused damage equal to the level to the caster, Fort Save for 1/2 DC 20+2/Spell Level.
That's how I would handle it...that's my 2 cents. =D
YMMV
I'd allow it. Further, I wouldn't even have it leave your spellbook.
It would, however, have a 2(or 3!) round/spell level casting time.That Prismatic Ray would have taken a full minute to cast.
I realize this opens up wizards for even more flexibility by casting utility spells from the book and memorizing combat spells, but I don't like giving my players infinite amount of time to do anything.
If they do have infinite time, what's the difference?
Hmmm, intersting, but useless in combat.
He said they were in a bad way. It's hard to imagine being in a bad way and then being saved by a spell that takes 10 melee rounds to cast - I'm sure "bad way" would have turned into "dead way" before those 10 rounds were completed.
Not to mention interruptions. Even if he picked a spell that only takes 2-3 rounds (as you suggest), any enemy with half a brain will target the wizard-looking guy reading something arcane out of a book. With all the damage that can be piled on in 2-3 rounds, nobody would ever get a spell off that way.
Which means your houserule is only useful for out-of-combat stuff.
And even at that, if the spell remains in the book as you suggest, this makes wizards into gods. They never have to prepare any non-combat spells. They don't need to prepare Knock, Tongues, Rope Trick, etc. (there's a huge list, actually) so instead, they can fill every slot with combat spells.
Which, finally, means there is almost no chance to catch a wizard out of spells in combat because he won't have any slots consumed with junk he cannot cast in the battle.
Are you sure you want them so godly?
Scrolls are imbued with magic power, which is why even non-casters can use them. Spell books are not imbued and spells cannot be directly cast out of them because of this. This is D&D, after all, and not Sabrina the Teenage Witch or Charmed. That said, I would rule that if a wizard still had spells prepared, but not the one that was needed, that he could channel that prepared magic into casting a different spell from his book with a risk of losing that spell from the book upon casting. The spell used from the book would have to be lower level than the one memorized as well because of the greater cost in magical energy to try and cast in this way.
We play with this as a house rule, and it really doesn't break the economy.
If you cast a spell from your book, the spell is erased from your book. To get the spell back you have to either:
1. Buy a scroll of the spell at full price, and make the spellcraft check to learn the spell.
2. Pay another wizards to teach you the spell.
3. Find a spellbook with that spell in it and make the spellcraft check to learn the spell.
4. Pick the spell as a new spell the next time you level up.
The only one of those options that is cheaper than a scroll of the same spell, and that option requires a bit of luck.
|
|
Allowing wizards to do this just breaks the bank by giving them a huge financial advantage and the ability to have a spell handy for EVERY situation, regardless of whether they memorized it (as Blake notes).
A spell of 6th level costs 360gp to scribe in. That's a huge savings over a 6th level scroll that costs 1,650gp to buy.
So, rather than waste my $$ on the Scribe Scroll feat (825gp a pop for the above spell), I'm filling in spellbooks like a madman at half the price. Heck, when I'm done, I might sell them for a big profit.
And, as noted, spellbooks aren't magical. They don't provide the energy to cast spells. If so, one dispel magic is going to obliterate your wizard. There's only one spellbook that allows casting straight from it, and it's an artifact.
It's a game-breaker imo.
Allowing wizards to do this just breaks the bank by giving them a huge financial advantage and the ability to have a spell handy for EVERY situation, regardless of whether they memorized it (as Blake notes).
A spell of 6th level costs 360gp to scribe in. That's a huge savings over a 6th level scroll that costs 1,650gp to buy.
So, rather than waste my $$ on the Scribe Scroll feat (825gp a pop for the above spell), I'm filling in spellbooks like a madman at half the price. Heck, when I'm done, I might sell them for a big profit.
And, as noted, spellbooks aren't magical. They don't provide the energy to cast spells. If so, one dispel magic is going to obliterate your wizard. There's only one spellbook that allows casting straight from it, and it's an artifact.
It's a game-breaker imo.
Wizards are required to have lots of gear to support themselves, THEN they're expected to have expensive expendables to support the party...
In addition they have to BUY the spells to begin with, (except for the free ones per level.)
Allowing wizards to use the grimoire at 1 minute cast time is NOT a game breaker.
Spellbooks are already worth more than their cost to inscribe the spells in them, so if you have a player than wants to spend his downtime creating spellbooks, he can already do that.
Wizards casting spells from a grimoire is fantasy trope, that's why I allow it in my games...
Sorry, i should have specified, the spellbook is not an artifact, just a magic item the DM made up. For all intents and purposes it is a normal spellbook.
It was something i haven't even attempted since 2nd ed. and just occured to me in desperation. One round more and it was surely a TPK.
So, the consensus is because it's not a spell-completion item, you can't do it from 3.X onwards?
I'm pretty sure that's right but is there anything in the RAW that says this? I haven't found anything.
I've let sorceres use spellbooks as scrolls. Something to do with all those spellbooks. It haven't been game breaking because first you have found spellbook [full-round maybe more] and casting is also full-round action. I use this method with low-level spell books [ie. max. 3th level spells]. With higher level spells casting takes more time because spells are more complex.