The game last night ended with a query to the GM (me). What if I take as my Bonded Item a spellbook? Or a ring that is enchanted to be said spellbook? Or one of the High Elf style walking staffs?
The gist: Can a Bonded item be the spellbook?
By the rules no a bonded item can not be a spellbook, but the final choice is up to the DM. A ring also can't be a spellbook. I don't know if anyone tracks it but spellbooks contain 100 pages, IIRC, and once you fill those you have to buy a new spellbook.
Each spell takes up a number of pages equal to its level.In eberron one of the dragon shards can be a spell book. I forgot which one, but I don't think it holds 100 pages of spells though.
Most DM's don't subject spellbooks to such treatment(spoiled by water)*, and the player does not have detect thoughts as a real life ability so the DM should inform the player of any possible deviations from the norm that he can think of. For a wizard not to know that water can ruin the spellbook, and not take the means to protect it, is like us dropping an electronic device in water. It should be common knowledge for a wizard, and should not come up unless they are too low of a level to do anything about it, but if they can't do anything about it then that is on the DM for putting them in an auto-fail situation.
To be clear when I mean can not do anything about it I mean has no means to prevent the issue. Now if the player has the means and knowledge to prevent an issue, and just does nothing about it then he has no right to complain.
*I have had to swim before in homebrew games, and AP's have had parties fighting in water, and spellbook damage never occurred.
In the end the question is not about whether or not spellbooks can be damaged it is about how much the player knows about the DM's style of play.
|
Also, fighters should have to roll Craft (Weaponsmithing) checks to keep their swords sharp and rust-free. :P
Not true with magic weapons. They are preternaturally sharp by virtue of the enchantment bonus enchantment and require little upkeep.
Going after a wizard's spellbook is fair play. But keep in mind that you need to not turn him into a commoner with a pointy hat and lots o read magics.
If you're going to go after a spellbook... make sure the party trounces a wizard he can steal at least a partial book from. This makes him pay for not having HIS book. But doesn't totally screw him. As that will take the FUN from his gameplay, which is something the DM isn't allowed to do.
The game last night ended with a query to the GM (me). What if I take as my Bonded Item a spellbook? Or a ring that is enchanted to be said spellbook? Or one of the High Elf style walking staffs?
The gist: Can a Bonded item be the spellbook?
By the rules no a bonded item can not be a spellbook, but the final choice is up to the DM. A ring also can't be a spellbook. I don't know if anyone tracks it but spellbooks contain 100 pages, IIRC, and once you fill those you have to buy a new spellbook.
Each spell takes up a number of pages equal to its level.
In eberron one of the dragon shards can be a spell book. I forgot which one, but I don't think it holds 100 pages of spells though.
The spellshard in question is equal to exactly half the cost and half he storage of a Blessed Book.
Were we to dust off our copies of the Complete Arcane perhaps we could find some alternate spellbooks within. The staff idea has some merit.
A wizard gets a free spellbook and free spells at every level that they can scribe for free. For 15gp a wizard can buy a backup spell book at first level. For 10gp a spell the wizard can copy his/her first level spells into the spare book.
Cost of a 1st level wizard making a backup
15 gp for the book
100gp at 5 gp each for a cantrip
70 gp for 7 first level spells (assuming an 18 intelligence)
185 gold peices, which is more than twice what a wizard gets at first level.
A wizard gets a free spellbook and free spells at every level that they can scribe for free. For 15gp a wizard can buy a backup spell book at first level. For 10gp a spell the wizard can copy his/her first level spells into the spare book.Cost of a 1st level wizard making a backup
15 gp for the book
100gp at 5 gp each for a cantrip
70 gp for 7 first level spells (assuming an 18 intelligence)
185 gold peices, which is more than twice what a wizard gets at first level.
Cantrips are never expended. As far as I know, you only need to prepare cantrips in the morning if you wish to swap them out. As most wizards have a handful of cantrips they prefer I do not really see a huge issue with a wizard not backing up the cantrips at first level.
My spellbook is magically immune to water. :)
I am assuming this is the wizard's "travelling" spell book, and thus not destroying years of work. I would rule that the spell book is a magical item equivalent to the highest level spell contained there-in. It would get a saving throw accordingly.
Also, the save would have to be warrented by a special occasion. For example, specifically targeted by an elemental water attack of some sort. Maybe the entire PC ends up getting submerged in raw elemental water as the result of doing something stupid?
I think it is important to, on occasion, challenge the PC's ability to think and prepare. Sometimes the hazards of adventuring come from directions other than anticipated.
As always, a good DM will keep his players in mind. A challenge to the PC's spell book is fair game for an experienced player. This would be cruel to a newer player.
Cantrips are never expended. As far as I know, you only need to prepare cantrips in the morning if you wish to swap them out. As most wizards have a handful of cantrips they prefer I do not really see a huge issue with a wizard not backing up the cantrips at first level.
Nope. Your cost is still at 85 gold pieces, more than most first level wizards have.
edit: whoops its half the cost when you're duplicating it. Still, its a very signifigant investment for a first level character.
DM's create the world and decide how certain physics work and certain magical items function. If the wizards player think that bags of holding are waterproof because they're air tight and the DM thinks that they're not waterproof... then in that world they're not waterproof. That is however, something the DM should warn the player about BEFORE the wizard hops in the water. The wizard lives in your world, he should be familiar with some of the basic rules even if the player is not
Cantrips are never expended. As far as I know, you only need to prepare cantrips in the morning if you wish to swap them out. As most wizards have a handful of cantrips they prefer I do not really see a huge issue with a wizard not backing up the cantrips at first level.
Nope. Your cost is still at 85 gold pieces, more than most first level wizards have.
Nope what? No you cannot have a backup?
Average is 70gp. Depending on rolls or point buy you may not have a 18 INT at first level. So between not copying every spell or possibly rolling high on wealth you can at least cover your bread and butter spells. OR... you can just copy your everyday spells and bring just those with you.
A wizard who "MUST" have everything backed up can simply pick up the appropriate trait to get the 900gp starting wealth.
*SNIP*
DM's create the world and decide how certain physics work and certain magical items function. If the wizards player think that bags of holding are waterproof because they're air tight and the DM thinks that they're not waterproof... then in that world they're not waterproof. That is however, something the DM should warn the player about BEFORE the wizard hops in the water. The wizard lives in your world, he should be familiar with some of the basic rules even if the player is not
Oh... no doubt there. If I'm playing that serious a game its laid out in front of my players before the game starts.
My group always kinda agrees ahead of time on what kind of game we want. Either we are very lax and handwave the small stuff or we track things down to the last coin, rust spot, spell component, or pound.
Nope what? No you cannot have a backup?
That's what i said. There's an entire sentence there after nope.
Average is 70gp. Depending on rolls or point buy you may not have a 18 INT at first level.
Or they could have a 20.
So between not copying every spell or possibly rolling high on wealth you can at least cover your bread and butter spells. OR... you can just copy your everyday spells and bring just those with you.
Which defeats the entire point of being a wizard, if you're going to shrink your spell selection down to being a sorcerer why not be a sorcerer?
This also leaves little/nothing for regular adventuring equipment, which will screw you over if you don't have it.
A wizard who "MUST" have everything backed up can simply pick up the appropriate trait to get the 900gp starting wealth.
not everyone does traits.
The game last night ended with a query to the GM (me). What if I take as my Bonded Item a spellbook? Or a ring that is enchanted to be said spellbook? Or one of the High Elf style walking staffs?
The gist: Can a Bonded item be the spellbook?
By the rules no a bonded item can not be a spellbook, but the final choice is up to the DM. A ring also can't be a spellbook. I don't know if anyone tracks it but spellbooks contain 100 pages, IIRC, and once you fill those you have to buy a new spellbook.
Each spell takes up a number of pages equal to its level.
In eberron one of the dragon shards can be a spell book. I forgot which one, but I don't think it holds 100 pages of spells though.The spellshard in question is equal to exactly half the cost and half he storage of a Blessed Book.
Were we to dust off our copies of the Complete Arcane perhaps we could find some alternate spellbooks within. The staff idea has some merit.
I was assuming core and rules legal when he asked about the spellbook. I offered the Eberron idea as an alternate. I did check complete arcane, but I did not find any alternate spellbooks unless you just meant ones made of alternate materials, but I think that had been mentioned earlier in the thread.
PS:Thanks for the info on the shard. I was too lazy to look it up.
Also, fighters should have to roll Craft (Weaponsmithing) checks to keep their swords sharp and rust-free. :PNot true with magic weapons. They are preternaturally sharp by virtue of the enchantment bonus enchantment and require little upkeep.
Going after a wizard's spellbook is fair play. But keep in mind that you need to not turn him into a commoner with a pointy hat and lots o read magics.
If you're going to go after a spellbook... make sure the party trounces a wizard he can steal at least a partial book from. This makes him pay for not having HIS book. But doesn't totally screw him. As that will take the FUN from his gameplay, which is something the DM isn't allowed to do.
You don't have to remove or destroy the entire spellbook to target the spellbook. Just damage some pages so that until the wizard can get his hands on a mending or make whole, depending on how bad the damage is, and possibly a small amount of replacement ink (costing the same percentage that repairing an item using the craft skill would cost), his spell selection is somewhat more limited than usual. This should get the point across without rendering the character unplayable. If the wizard has the ability to repair it on the spot, kudos for him for being prepared, let him enjoy the satisfaction that being prepared can provide, and move on the next challenge. The point is that a reasonable challenge was made, and through the actions of the player was overcome, not that the DM was trying to screw over the player.
You don't have to remove or destroy the entire spellbook to target the spellbook. Just damage some pages so that until the wizard can get his hands on a mending or make whole, depending on how bad the damage is, and possibly a small amount of replacement ink (costing the same percentage that repairing an item using the craft skill would cost), his spell selection is somewhat more limited than usual. This should get the point across without rendering the character unplayable. If the wizard has the ability to repair it on the spot, kudos for him for being prepared, let him enjoy the satisfaction that being prepared can provide, and move on the next challenge. The point is that a reasonable challenge was made, and through the actions of the player, whether they be proactive measures already in place or something the character had to do after the challenge was apparent, was overcome, not that the DM was trying to screw over the player.Also, fighters should have to roll Craft (Weaponsmithing) checks to keep their swords sharp and rust-free. :PNot true with magic weapons. They are preternaturally sharp by virtue of the enchantment bonus enchantment and require little upkeep.
Going after a wizard's spellbook is fair play. But keep in mind that you need to not turn him into a commoner with a pointy hat and lots o read magics.
If you're going to go after a spellbook... make sure the party trounces a wizard he can steal at least a partial book from. This makes him pay for not having HIS book. But doesn't totally screw him. As that will take the FUN from his gameplay, which is something the DM isn't allowed to do.
I was assuming core and rules legal when he asked about the spellbook. I offered the Eberron idea as an alternate. I did check complete arcane, but I did not find any alternate spellbooks unless you just meant ones made of alternate materials, but I think that had been mentioned earlier in the thread.PS:Thanks for the info on the shard. I was too lazy to look it up.
Hrmm... Actually now that I think on it the info is in a old 3.0 splatbook Tome and Blood. There is a whole section on alternate spellbooks.
They even included using tatoos and how many pages of spells you could put on various places on the body.
Nope what? No you cannot have a backup?That's what i said. There's an entire sentence there after nope.
Average is 70gp. Depending on rolls or point buy you may not have a 18 INT at first level.Or they could have a 20.
So between not copying every spell or possibly rolling high on wealth you can at least cover your bread and butter spells. OR... you can just copy your everyday spells and bring just those with you.Which defeats the entire point of being a wizard, if you're going to shrink your spell selection down to being a sorcerer why not be a sorcerer?
This also leaves little/nothing for regular adventuring equipment, which will screw you over if you don't have it.
A wizard who "MUST" have everything backed up can simply pick up the appropriate trait to get the 900gp starting wealth.not everyone does traits.
Now, I'm not sure what games you've played in, but at first level the majority of wizards tend to stick to a handful of spells and cast those same spells every day at first level in the games I've played in. Usually this trend lasts only till second level when the wizard gets more options... which also does not take very long to reach in most cases.
Sure its investment...but for the wizard who feels there is a danger, the investment would be well worth it.
Not every adventure leaves the city... and not every adventure requires you to have specific adventuring equipment. For a creative player, lack of adventuring equipment is but a minor setback and not one that should "screw" you. Even if you were tossed into the wilds, the survival skill would provide what you NEED such as food, fire, and shelter.
Now, granted if your campaign is one in a hostile environment such considerations could change things and limit your options.
|
Once again, people who are for the destruction of spellbook by water is forgetting that 1) there is NO core way to protect a spellbook beyond getting a blessed book. Which don't get me wrong is something any wizard does as soon as they can afford it...but it isn't something available for many levels (and in kuthulu's game maybe NEVER available it sounds like). and 2) your under the assumption that a safe base of operation exists for your game. Sorry, but the majority of AP do not allow for this. And quite frankly the majority of home games I have run or played don't allow for this either. At least until you can greater teleport and plane shift...which is even MORE levels then the blessed book. If rules for waterproofing as a spell, item or magical enchanment existsed in the core rules, then yes if the payer doesn't partake, then it is fair game. Without such rules, it basically amounts to rocks fall, you die (no save).
|
If the wizard's spellbook wasn't intended to at least an OCCASIONAL/POTENTIAL target for destruction/damage/theft/etc, it wouldn't exist as a physical item. There's no real difference between a spellbook that's absolutely immune to everything, and having the wizard just store every spell he's learned in his mind, but only being able to prepare a certain amount each day. Well, other than a bit of encumbrance.
|
|
If the wizard's spellbook wasn't intended to at least an OCCASIONAL/POTENTIAL target for destruction/damage/theft/etc, it wouldn't exist as a physical item. There's no real difference between a spellbook that's absolutely immune to everything, and having the wizard just store every spell he's learned in his mind, but only being able to prepare a certain amount each day. Well, other than a bit of encumbrance.
Yes when there are RULES that give the players a chance to ACTUALLY prevent said actions. A wizard who gets captureed by magic hating barbarians may have his spellbook destroyed by the barbarian tribe...now assuming this doesn't happen by deux ex machina, then it was the fault of the player for having that happen. When a player BY CHOICE jumps in the ocean with his spellbook on him, yes feel free to destroy away. When you dues ex machnina him being a sinking ship, then no. It's not that the spellbook is sacred and can never be targeted, but it should never be targeted in a way where the player has NO options to protect the book. If you plot hook the players unto a sinking ship and have no rules for making the book waterproof, then yes the book SHOULD get plot protection.
Hmmm... seen that somewhere. ;)*clip*
If we go completely and utterly by the RAW, with no regard for common sense, a brick that falls on your head randomly bypasses DR, while a brick that's thrown at you by an angry orc does not.
*clip*
I believe I've publically supported that interpretation in the past.
If you plot hook the players unto a sinking ship and have no rules for making the book waterproof, then yes the book SHOULD get plot protection.
If the DM ever does something like that in a game I'm playing, there are bigger issues than the attack on the spellbook.
If the DM ever does something like that in a game I'm playing, there are bigger issues than the attack on the spellbook.
If you plot hook the players unto a sinking ship and have no rules for making the book waterproof, then yes the book SHOULD get plot protection.
Which is most of the reason myself and some others are objecting to attacks on the spellbook.. they seem more directed at the wizards player and wizards in general (case in point the iwin rant above)
Which is most of the reason myself and some others are objecting to attacks on the spellbook.. they seem more directed at the wizards player and wizards in general (case in point the iwin rant above)If the DM ever does something like that in a game I'm playing, there are bigger issues than the attack on the spellbook.
If you plot hook the players unto a sinking ship and have no rules for making the book waterproof, then yes the book SHOULD get plot protection.
Except that reasonable challenges to the spellbook, where the player is aware of the possible danger, are not attacks on the player. It does tend to involve the use of the environment as a challenge, which very few people do, but done under the right circumstances and within reason, it is a perfectly legitimate tactic.
Also, I have pointed out several times you don't have to destroy the entire thing, since even losing a few pages is enough to challenge the wizard into figuring out different uses for the spells he still has, at least until he can get the damaged pages repaired.
Also, I have pointed out several times you don't have to destroy the entire thing, since even losing a few pages is enough to challenge the wizard into figuring out different uses for the spells he still has, at least until he can get the damaged pages repaired.
Thank you for presenting your point so reasonably. Some of the posts here tend to distract from reasoned discussion with their confrontational tone.
Years ago, I ran a scenario in which the party traversed a howling wilderness. In an early scene, some of the villains managed to stun the party's barbarian, and in an ill-considered burst of inspiration on my part, they tossed his greataxe over a cliff. There was no realistic prospect of recovering or replacing it during that game.
I then got to watch the barbarian's player mope his way through the rest of the scenario, his destructive might nerfed by the party's pitiful selection of alternative weapons. ("I swing my... short sword.") He stuck with the game, since he was a "team player", but his heart clearly wasn't in it.
A wizard without spells for several games, through no particular fault of my own? I'd feel the same way as that barbarian's player. On the other hand, if only some spells were damaged, I'd welcome the challenge to my versatility.
Removed some posts. Please keep your conversation civil.
Whereas I think that which class a player chooses at character creations shouldn't have any bearing on the "s#!t happens" factor that applies to them.
GM: ...and the rust monster eats your armor.
Fighter: Such is the life of an adventurer.GM: ...and a bookworm has eaten several spells out of your spellbook.
Wizard Player: (Profane Rant)
In some cases, I disagree with your contention that your chosen examples are comparable. In other examples, I would object just as strenuously to the abusive situation, no matter what class was involved.
Putting a paladin into a "fall or die" dilemma with no way out is BS. If a GM pulled such a stunt, he'd better have a cool plan prepared to justify it, such as a really cool adventure built around the paladin's subsequent quest for redemption. This also isn't the same as putting the paladin in a situation that challenges his ingenuity, faith, and tactical acumen, nor does it mean that he should be immune to the consequences of poor judgment calls.
Destroying a fighter's most prized magic items could be another BS move. Did he have the chance to anticipate the encounter? Does he have ways to distract or delay the creature? If the situation is a true "hose job", the fighter would be well within his rights to beef about it....
GM: "So the well-nigh-indetectable pit trap deposits Sir Paramour at the bottom of a 100 ft. pit. He takes (roll, roll...) 38 points of damage and is prone. He is also automatically surprised by the family of rust monsters nesting in the chamber under the pit."
Player: (Profane rant)
Also, I have pointed out several times you don't have to destroy the entire thing, since even losing a few pages is enough to challenge the wizard into figuring out different uses for the spells he still has, at least until he can get the damaged pages repaired.Thank you for presenting your point so reasonably. Some of the posts here tend to distract from reasoned discussion with their confrontational tone.
Years ago, I ran a scenario in which the party traversed a howling wilderness. In an early scene, some of the villains managed to stun the party's barbarian, and in an ill-considered burst of inspiration on my part, they tossed his greataxe over a cliff. There was no realistic prospect of recovering or replacing it during that game.
I then got to watch the barbarian's player mope his way through the rest of the scenario, his destructive might nerfed by the party's pitiful selection of alternative weapons. ("I swing my... short sword.") He stuck with the game, since he was a "team player", but his heart clearly wasn't in it.
A wizard without spells for several games, through no particular fault of my own? I'd feel the same way as that barbarian's player. On the other hand, if only some spells were damaged, I'd welcome the challenge to my versatility.
Of course a Barbarian with a Shortsword is what? Only a partial bit less effective? The difference between swinging a shortsword and a great axe is an average of what? 5 points for an 18 str Barbarian? A Wizard who has lost his spellbook for more than a day can... read magic. Hurray, we have deprived a party character of 99% effectiveness. The Barbarian has taken an ego blow, the Wizard has taken a death blow.
Of course a Barbarian with a Shortsword is what? Only a partial bit less effective? The difference between swinging a shortsword and a great axe is an average of what? 5 points for an 18 str Barbarian? A Wizard who has lost his spellbook for more than a day can... read magic. Hurray, we have deprived a party character of 99% effectiveness. The Barbarian has taken an ego blow, the Wizard has taken a death blow.Also, I have pointed out several times you don't have to destroy the entire thing, since even losing a few pages is enough to challenge the wizard into figuring out different uses for the spells he still has, at least until he can get the damaged pages repaired.Thank you for presenting your point so reasonably. Some of the posts here tend to distract from reasoned discussion with their confrontational tone.
Years ago, I ran a scenario in which the party traversed a howling wilderness. In an early scene, some of the villains managed to stun the party's barbarian, and in an ill-considered burst of inspiration on my part, they tossed his greataxe over a cliff. There was no realistic prospect of recovering or replacing it during that game.
I then got to watch the barbarian's player mope his way through the rest of the scenario, his destructive might nerfed by the party's pitiful selection of alternative weapons. ("I swing my... short sword.") He stuck with the game, since he was a "team player", but his heart clearly wasn't in it.
A wizard without spells for several games, through no particular fault of my own? I'd feel the same way as that barbarian's player. On the other hand, if only some spells were damaged, I'd welcome the challenge to my versatility.
You missed the part that a book can be only partially damaged. This is a big difference from a weapon that is usable or it isn't.
The difference between swinging a shortsword and a great axe is an average of what? 5 points for an 18 str Barbarian? A Wizard who has lost his spellbook for more than a day can... read magic. Hurray, we have deprived a party character of 99% effectiveness. The Barbarian has taken an ego blow, the Wizard has taken a death blow.
I think you missed my point: I agree with you! The barbarian player was unhappy because the one thing that defined his character most ("Hits really hard!") was taken from him. A wizard without spells may still come up with ways to contribute, but it's not really the same as doing what he was designed to do.
(BTW, the damage loss averaged out to 9 points per hit, as the rules of the time didn't allow light weapons to use Power Attack. It was a discouraging experience for that low level character.)
If it'll help sort things out and keep things civil...
The Creative Director says that soaking a spellbook won't ruin it. That's just not fair to the wizard.
Thank you!
Loving the Golem
If it'll help sort things out and keep things civil...
The Creative Director says that soaking a spellbook won't ruin it. That's just not fair to the wizard.
What if it burns? What if it's stolen? Or is it just not a fair target at all?
James, I usually respect your opinion, but I think this time you overstep yourself. This issue is in the purview of the DM. Depending on the game I'm running, a spell book can be vulnerable. If it is, the wizard will know it ahead of time and be expected to take care of it.
On the other hand:
Creative Director
|
James, I usually respect your opinion, but I think this time you overstep yourself. This issue is in the purview of the DM. Depending on the game I'm running, a spell book can be vulnerable. If it is, the wizard will know it ahead of time and be expected to take care of it.
Know what? The ENTIRE GAME is the purview of the GM. That doesn't mean I should never provide rules advice though. Especially if you're coming onto the boards FOR that advice. If you as the GM are comfortable making your own decisions about rulings, great! Not everyone feels that way though, otherwise there'd be a lot fewer threads like this.
I guess I just don't see why me stepping in to talk on what happens to soggy spellbooks is different than any other ruling...
|
|
James, I usually respect your opinion, but I think this time you overstep yourself. This issue is in the purview of the DM. Depending on the game I'm running, a spell book can be vulnerable. If it is, the wizard will know it ahead of time and be expected to take care of it.Know what? The ENTIRE GAME is the purview of the GM. That doesn't mean I should never provide rules advice though. Especially if you're coming onto the boards FOR that advice. If you as the GM are comfortable making your own decisions about rulings, great! Not everyone feels that way though, otherwise there'd be a lot fewer threads like this.
I guess I just don't see why me stepping in to talk on what happens to soggy spellbooks is different than any other ruling...
You guys are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
If you don't come to the boards for feedback, particularly from the developers, why come to the boards?
If it'll help sort things out and keep things civil...
The Creative Director says that soaking a spellbook won't ruin it. That's just not fair to the wizard.
[grumble]
Psh...I bet the creative director plays a wizard!
[/grumble]
Seriously though...this is one of the reasons I love paizo. Its always great to hear opinions from those behind the books.
I'd never target a wizards spellbook specifically...unless of course the BBEG knew that the wizard has that spell of ultimate BBEG slaying. In a game where this sort of realism is being all my players walk into it with eyes wide open, knowing ahead of time that this will be the case.
Oh and yes I do have the other PC's worry about damage to equipment from salt water. Metal weapons and armor rusting, glue de-laminating, etc...
Constant immersion in salt water is one of the most horrible things you can do to even modern day equipment. We just happen to be able to give thanks for rubbers and plastics.
Yet, it just seems to me that a book filled with highly precise mystic diagrams and formula that must be memorized "perfectly" to get the magic to work is vulnerable to even a small amount of damage. When you memorize y instead of x because part of "X" is washed away the magic don't work. In the cases of some muds, you are introducing another source of pigmentation that can obscure the writings through staining. So, perhaps when I say ruined, I might be thinking closer to the broken condition. Its repairable, but needs to be restored to function.
|
|
I think that if the wizard's bonded object and spellbook are somehow declared "off limits" then the following strategies should also be declared "off limits" (please note that this applies to attemps by bad guys to affect the PC AND by PCs to affect bad guys):
Sunder
Disarm
Rust Monsters
Witch Familiars (rendered effectively untouchable)
I'm sure there are more examples. However, this bring up a rather interesting strategy. Simply have the witch send her familiar to scratch all bad guys to death at one hp per round. Since it's effectively immortal, being protected by fiat, there's absolutely nothing the bad guy can do to prevent itself from slowly being whittled down to -CON.
|
|
There's also the interesting example of what if the PCs decide to try to destroy the BBEG's spellbook? They sneak into his Fortress of Evilness (TM) and find his spellbook. They attempt to steal it, but for some reason not even the mightiest barbarian can lift it. Ok, screw it, they decide to burn it. For some reason, the pages won't catch fire. Damn. Ok, burn the whole fortress. As the fire rages, in the center of the inferno sits the spellbook, surrounded by the aura of spellbook immunity.
EDIT: Then again, if spellbooks, bonded objects, magical items, and the like are all "off limits" then perhaps the Fortress of Evilness (TM) should be as well. I guess it doesn't catch fire at all.
EDIT2: If a character is wearing a special magic shirt that might be ruined if you stabbed him, does he automatically gain stabbing resistance?
James, I usually respect your opinion, but I think this time you overstep yourself. This issue is in the purview of the DM. Depending on the game I'm running, a spell book can be vulnerable. If it is, the wizard will know it ahead of time and be expected to take care of it.Know what? The ENTIRE GAME is the purview of the GM. That doesn't mean I should never provide rules advice though. Especially if you're coming onto the boards FOR that advice. If you as the GM are comfortable making your own decisions about rulings, great! Not everyone feels that way though, otherwise there'd be a lot fewer threads like this.
I guess I just don't see why me stepping in to talk on what happens to soggy spellbooks is different than any other ruling...
James, first of all. Respect, mon. ~touches heart~ Respect.
I guess what set me off was that you are in many ways the voice of the rules. As such when you say, "The Creative Director says that soaking a spellbook won't ruin it. That's just not fair to the wizard." You imply that DM's who do damage or destroy a spellbook are unfair and therefore cheating or playing the game wrong.
To my mind this is about DM-player interaction and ways to challenge the party and tell a story. Obviously it's a hot-button topic. But IMO it's not a rules issue.
I would have been totally behind you channeling Ann Landers with a little interpersonal advice, "When contemplating damage or destruction of a spellbook, consider how potentially crippling it may be to the PC and how the player will handle it. I don't advise it."
I think that if the wizard's bonded object and spellbook are somehow declared "off limits" then the following strategies should also be declared "off limits" (please note that this applies to attemps by bad guys to affect the PC AND by PCs to affect bad guys):
Sunder
Disarm
Rust Monsters
Witch Familiars (rendered effectively untouchable)I'm sure there are more examples. However, this bring up a rather interesting strategy. Simply have the witch send her familiar to scratch all bad guys to death at one hp per round. Since it's effectively immortal, being protected by fiat, there's absolutely nothing the bad guy can do to prevent itself from slowly being whittled down to -CON.
Not a single one of those shuts down a character like losing his spellbook shuts down the wizard. Analogy fail. Also, hyperbole fail.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
James, first of all. Respect, mon. ~touches heart~ Respect.I guess what set me off was that you are in many ways the voice of the rules. As such when you say, "The Creative Director says that soaking a spellbook won't ruin it. That's just not fair to the wizard." You imply that DM's who do damage or destroy a spellbook are unfair and therefore cheating or playing the game wrong.
To my mind this is about DM-player interaction and ways to challenge the party and tell a story. Obviously it's a hot-button topic. But IMO it's not a rules issue.
I would have been totally behind you channeling Ann Landers with a little interpersonal advice, "When contemplating damage or destruction of a spellbook, consider how potentially crippling it may be to the PC and how the player will handle it. I don't advise it."
I think the issue is less about targeting the spellbook, and more that soaking it is a cheezy-ass way to do it.
Adventurers get wet. They march through downpours, trudge around swamps, wade across rivers, fall over waterfalls, dive off cliffs, and generally make big soaking messes of themselves at every available opportunity.
When adventurers go to SeaWorld, they sit in the splash zone.
When what amounts to normal wear and tear for an adventurer puts the spellbook at risk, what you're doing is punishing the wizard for being an adventurer.
|
|
Not a single one of those shuts down a character like losing his spellbook shuts down the wizard. Analogy fail. Also, hyperbole fail.I think that if the wizard's bonded object and spellbook are somehow declared "off limits" then the following strategies should also be declared "off limits" (please note that this applies to attemps by bad guys to affect the PC AND by PCs to affect bad guys):
Sunder
Disarm
Rust Monsters
Witch Familiars (rendered effectively untouchable)I'm sure there are more examples. However, this bring up a rather interesting strategy. Simply have the witch send her familiar to scratch all bad guys to death at one hp per round. Since it's effectively immortal, being protected by fiat, there's absolutely nothing the bad guy can do to prevent itself from slowly being whittled down to -CON.
Witch familiars basically ARE spellbooks. Just because the witch isn't the complete one-trick pony that the wizard is, does that mean that her "spellbook" shouldn't get the same level of metagaming plot immunity?
If wizard spellbooks gain metagaming plot immunity to threats like bookworms, then why shouldn't fighter's armor/weapons gain metagaming plot immunity to rust monsters?
If sunder or disarm cannot be used against a wizard's bonded object or spellbook because of it's metagaming plot immunity, then all equipment should game that same level of metagaming plot immunity.
Witches can resummon their familiars overnight (8 hours) with about half their spells (3 per spell level, counting the bonus spells) for a fairly modest gold expenditure (500g per level). Wizards cannot; they have to spend vast sums of money and time hunting down scrolls of every single spell they didn't have memorized, and then spend money on top of that to re-scribe them. In addition, Witches can actually do things other than cast spells. They have a major class feature that doesn't involve spells at all. No, it's not as good as spellcasting, but it's at least something they can do. Wizards really can't do anything without a spellbook.
Fighters without weapons or armor are many times more effective than wizards without spellbooks. It's not even a close comparison.
No one has suggested (in this thread) that bonded objects have "metagaming plot immunity" except for you.
|
|
Witches can resummon their familiars overnight (8 hours) with about half their spells (3 per spell level, counting the bonus spells) for a fairly modest gold expenditure (500g per level).
Witches aren't sorcerers. Like wizards, they can fill their familars up with an unlimited number of spells. So saying that 3 spells / spell level is half their spells is a bit dishonest. Would it make you feel any better if I said that if I did actually destroy a wizard's spellbook, I'd probably let them find a new one. Maybe one with something like 3 spells per level in it. Fair enough?
Witches can actually do things other than cast spells. They have a major class feature that doesn't involve spells at all. No, it's not as good as spellcasting, but it's at least something they can do. Wizards really can't do anything without a spellbook.
And the player chose to play a one-trick pony. Yeah, it's a good trick, but being that specialized can have it's downsides as well. Sometimes life kicks you when you're down.
Fighters without weapons or armor are many times more effective than wizards without spellbooks. It's not even a close comparison.
It's one of the benefits of having solutions that don't involve making funny gestures and playing with owlbear feces. Funny how the "Wizards are GOD!!!" crowd is so quick to accuse fighters of being the MOST dependant on equipment when loosing a single bit of equpment can turn the wizard into a smart commoner.
I think the issue is less about targeting the spellbook, and more that soaking it is a cheezy-ass way to do it.
Adventurers get wet. They march through downpours, trudge around swamps, wade across rivers, fall over waterfalls, dive off cliffs, and generally make big soaking messes of themselves at every available opportunity.
When adventurers go to SeaWorld, they sit in the splash zone.
When what amounts to normal wear and tear for an adventurer puts the spellbook at risk, what you're doing is punishing the wizard for being an adventurer.
Agreed. The odd drop of water shouldn't damage a spellbook. A good long soak might. As I posted above, I've been able to recover books and papers from basement flooding and with careful drying have preserved the majority of the text, if not the shape of the book. Others have been total losses.
However, it seemed to me the debate wandered away from the method of destruction and began to focus more on whether or not a spellbook is a fair target in general.
It irks me that the pro-wizard crowd wants their uberness without any risk.
I recognize it's a big risk, and potentially a touchy one for the player. I think it was Cartigan that compared loss of a spellbook to blindness for a fighter. I think that's a good comparison. I remember how I felt when one of my PCs was blinded. I was really angry, because suddenly the PC was pretty much useless, and I was too immature to consider ways to make it work in the story. Today, my reaction looks like one of the low points in my gaming career. But I digress.
So, adventurers get in fights with adversaries of all stripes. If I use blindness against them am I punishing them for being adventurers?
|
Creative Director
|
If it'll help sort things out and keep things civil...
The Creative Director says that soaking a spellbook won't ruin it. That's just not fair to the wizard.
[grumble]
Psh...I bet the creative director plays a wizard!
[/grumble]
Actually, the Creative Director usually plays clerics or bards.
I actually don't think wizards are NEARLY as overpowered and unstoppable as lots of folks seem to think.|
|
I actually don't think wizards are NEARLY as overpowered and unstoppable as lots of folks seem to think.
Nor do I. And despite my arguments of late, I wouldn't go out of my way to screw over a wizard. But at the same time, I don't think that the spellbook should be totally "off limits". If the player is careless, it should stand a chance of being damaged. And a long-term BBEG might decide that one of the best ways to weaken the party is to eliminate the threat the wizard presents.
Witches can resummon their familiars overnight (8 hours) with about half their spells (3 per spell level, counting the bonus spells) for a fairly modest gold expenditure (500g per level).Witches aren't sorcerers. Like wizards, they can fill their familars up with an unlimited number of spells. So saying that 3 spells / spell level is half their spells is a bit dishonest.
I've not met many witch or wizard characters with much more than 6 spells per spell level except level 1 (which has the added Int mod bonus spells). And you're dodging the point: Witches, by default, not using "metagaming plot devices" which you seem to decry, get 3 spells per spell level back the next day for 500g per Witch level. Wizards do not (and I find it amusing that you advocate metagaming plot devices to restore functionality that you took away because you refuse to use metagaming plot devices -- irony much?).
Funny how the "Wizards are GOD!!!" crowd is so quick to accuse fighters of being the MOST dependant on equipment when loosing a single bit of equpment can turn the wizard into a smart commoner.
Fighters are the most dependent on magic items. Get your rants straight.