When spellbooks get wet


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 427 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Waterproof bag. 5sp.

We keep our stuff that can get water ruined in these. But on a shipwreck u need to think outside the box. Lots of classes have crappy stuff that can happen like familiars dieing etc, wizards just happen to have and extra harsh one.

Grand Lodge

Spahrep wrote:

Waterproof bag. 5sp.

We keep our stuff that can get water ruined in these. But on a shipwreck u need to think outside the box. Lots of classes have crappy stuff that can happen like familiars dieing etc, wizards just happen to have and extra harsh one.

And this item is were in the corebook?!? Hell I´ll even give you the AGP or GMG.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Cold Napalm wrote:
Spahrep wrote:

Waterproof bag. 5sp.

We keep our stuff that can get water ruined in these. But on a shipwreck u need to think outside the box. Lots of classes have crappy stuff that can happen like familiars dieing etc, wizards just happen to have and extra harsh one.

And this item is were in the corebook?!? Hell I´ll even give you the AGP or GMG.

Its in the Adventurer's Armory as well as a traveling spellbook for 10gp with 50 pages and a weight of only 1 lb.

If your DM is so stingy as to say you cannot get such a simple pair of items, I'd not want to play in that game.

However, as another poster pointed out you can purchase a spare waterskin or two and make some craft checks to modify them. If they are waterproof enough to hold water they should also be enough to ward it off.

Grand Lodge

Lokie wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Spahrep wrote:

Waterproof bag. 5sp.

We keep our stuff that can get water ruined in these. But on a shipwreck u need to think outside the box. Lots of classes have crappy stuff that can happen like familiars dieing etc, wizards just happen to have and extra harsh one.

And this item is were in the corebook?!? Hell I´ll even give you the AGP or GMG.

Its in the Adventurer's Armory as well as a traveling spellbook for 10gp with 50 pages and a weight of only 1 lb.

If your DM is so stingy as to say you cannot get such a simple pair of items, I'd not want to play in that game.

However, as another poster pointed out you can purchase a spare waterskin or two and make some craft checks to modify them. If they are waterproof enough to hold water they should also be enough to ward it off.

I know where they are from...the point is that they are not core items and so can not be assumed to be a part of a core game. Yes you can houserule making one from waterskin as well...but once again, not a set of core rules and so can not be assumed to be a part of the core game.

Contributor

Honestly I always went with the assumption that backpacks and books were both somewhat water resistant to begin with, and with Prestidigitation and Mending as memorized cantrips, nothing's going to destroy the spellbook short of incineration.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Cold Napalm wrote:

*SNIP*

I know where they are from...the point is that they are not core items and so can not be assumed to be a part of a core game. Yes you can houserule making one from waterskin as well...but once again, not a set of core rules and so can not be assumed to be a part of the core game.

Creativity is the name of the game.

Making use of equipment in strange ways IS part of the core game. Any GM/DM that would not allow a PC with the skills and tools to make a craft check to modify a waterskin into a water resistant bag should be stripped of the title.

Its not a "house-rule" ... craft skills are part of the game. Any GM not allowing creative uses of said skills is doing more harm to our hobby than good.

Grand Lodge

Lokie wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:

*SNIP*

I know where they are from...the point is that they are not core items and so can not be assumed to be a part of a core game. Yes you can houserule making one from waterskin as well...but once again, not a set of core rules and so can not be assumed to be a part of the core game.

Creativity is the name of the game.

Making use of equipment in strange ways IS part of the core game. Any GM/DM that would not allow a PC with the skills and tools to make a craft check to modify a waterskin into a water resistant bag should be stripped of the title.

Its not a "house-rule" ... craft skills are part of the game. Any GM not allowing creative uses of said skills is doing more harm to our hobby than good.

So who made you king of RPG again? Anyone who wants to play by the rules is wrong then? And so all wizards should have ranks in craft waterproofing? Gah, your post is so full of arrogant fail.

Contributor

You know, Prestidigitation, in addition to being able to dry out a wet book, would also be able to waterproof a dry book, at least for one hour. And since Pathfinder lets wizards continually cast Prestidigitation, the book ever getting wet would be a non-issue unless the wizard is knocked unconscious, in which case losing hold of his backpack is always a problem.

In 1st ed there was also the Wrap cantrip that let you conjure any sort of wrapper you pleased including waterproof ones. It's generally interpreted that all the old cantrips that have not been reprinted as new cantrips are now covered under prestidigitation. Want to summon a bumblebee or conjure a rose? Use Prestidigitation. Conjuring a perfectly waxed waterproof paper wrapping is well within the bounds of the spell.


Cold Napalm wrote:


So who made you king of RPG again? Anyone who wants to play by the rules is wrong then? And so all wizards should have ranks in craft waterproofing? Gah, your post is so full of arrogant fail.

Where are the rules that prohibit this? Where are the rules that say no such things exists in the core game?

Many things that we use in almost every adventure aren't mentioned in the core rulebook. Just because they aren't mentioned doesn't mean they don't exist.

Contributor

stringburka wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:


So who made you king of RPG again? Anyone who wants to play by the rules is wrong then? And so all wizards should have ranks in craft waterproofing? Gah, your post is so full of arrogant fail.

Where are the rules that prohibit this? Where are the rules that say no such things exists in the core game?

Many things that we use in almost every adventure aren't mentioned in the core rulebook. Just because they aren't mentioned doesn't mean they don't exist.

Exactly.

There have been chickens for sale in the game for ages but it's not until recently with Kobold Quarterly that someone thought to give them stats.

Just because waterproof bags were finally statted up and priced in Adventurer's Armory doesn't mean that these are suddenly all new products to hit the market that were never available before.

One assumes the PC wizard isn't the first one to ever step on a boat or go anywhere near a river so it's reasonable to assume that traveling spellbooks come with some form of waterproofing otherwise they wouldn't be much use for traveling.


Cold Napalm wrote:
Gah, my post is so full of arrogant fail.

Fixed it for you.

Grand Lodge

stringburka wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:


So who made you king of RPG again? Anyone who wants to play by the rules is wrong then? And so all wizards should have ranks in craft waterproofing? Gah, your post is so full of arrogant fail.

Where are the rules that prohibit this? Where are the rules that say no such things exists in the core game?

Many things that we use in almost every adventure aren't mentioned in the core rulebook. Just because they aren't mentioned doesn't mean they don't exist.

And once you need to make up a cost (because crafting rules are based on costs), then you are firmly in houserule land and I know of some groups that would not allow such. So your saying they are playing the game wrong then? They are playing by the strict rule set...if the DM makes a houserule that is clearly known to all players that wizards MUSt take craft watrproofing to make a DM made up cost item to prevent their spellbooks from going poof, then fine, that's that ONE game...but to the poor players who play in a game where they are sticking to rules within the book (i.e. the BASE assumption of a general game even if no actually game is run as such)...then yeah you can't craft something that has no costs...nor can you buy something that has no cost.

Shadow Lodge

Cold Napalm wrote:
And once you need to make up a cost (because crafting rules are based on costs), then you are firmly in houserule land and I know of some groups that would not allow such. So your saying they are playing the game wrong then? They are playing by the strict rule set...if the DM makes a houserule that is clearly known to all players that wizards MUSt take craft watrproofing to make a DM made up cost item to prevent their spellbooks from going poof, then fine, that's that ONE game...but to the poor players who play in a game where they are sticking to rules within the book (i.e. the BASE assumption of a general game even if no actually game is run as such)...then yeah you can't craft something that has no costs...nor can you buy something that has no cost.

Any group that excludes anything that isn't specifically included in the rulebook won't get far into ANY adventure. That's because we don't want a rulebook that is so massive that it collapses in on itself to create a black hole and destroy all life on earth.

Houserules...they're better than being crushed to death by an apocolyptic black hole.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
Maybe I just like a more realistic game than most, but the old "but I'm a wizard, you don't get to target my weaknesses" line doesn't hold any water with me. At least, not as much as a saturated spellbook.

Magic spells aren't actually very realistic. You're just saying that you enjoy exploiting the weaknesses of your players' characters. That's fine, as long as they go in knowing that. It's a harsh lesson to learn on the fly, especially when it means the guy playing the wizard gets to watch everyone else contribute for a session or two.

I, however, run games in order to both have fun myself and help my players to do the same. It might be fun to destroy a wizard's spellbook, but it wouldn't happen capriciously. It would be planned well in advance and the consequences would be more interesting than "OK, now you're useless."

Contributor

Cold Napalm wrote:
And once you need to make up a cost (because crafting rules are based on costs), then you are firmly in houserule land and I know of some groups that would not allow such. So your saying they are playing the game wrong then?

In that they're making an invalid interpretation of the RAW, yes.

Many things in the game, by the RAW, do not have a fixed cost. Art Objects are a prime example. A published example may say that X art object is worth Y GP, but the cost is arbitrary and it is simply whatever the writer decided for that particular object. The next adventure may contain a similar object with Z price. Neither price is wrong. One is just more valuable than the other.

And there are plenty of art objects where the cost is not listed. You go into an old mansion and part of the scenery description includes a beautiful crystal chandelier with no price listed because it is assumed that most adventurers won't go to the trouble of taking it down and hauling it away. Then the party wizard does just that, using Animate Rope to lower it safely and Floating Disk to abscond with it.

How much is it worth? Obviously it's worth somewhat more than 0 GP, and while finding a buyer might be tricky, if the wizard hauls it off to some little inn in the middle of the woods and offers it to the innwife in trade for room and board? It would be kind of inane to have her just quote the listed prices like an automaton rather than think like a businesswoman and realize that the chandelier would spiff up the place nicely and that would be worth a lot more than a few bowls of stew and a round of drinks.

You need to make up costs for tools as well. Let's say you need some masterwork carpenter's tools. By the book, they're 50 GP. What's in that kit is not itemized, but you would assume it includes hammers, files, chisels and so on. So in the middle of the dungeon, the character with carpentry loses his masterwork hammer but not the rest of the set. Is the GM supposed to drone on that masterwork hammers are only sold as part of a full 50 GP set of masterwork carpenter's tools, and if the carpenter wants to buy a new one, he needs to buy a full set.

Meanwhile, the bard finds that she can't buy a green scarf at the bazaar because the insane woman running the clothing booth will only sell scarves as part of a full entertainer's outfit for book cost and accessories are not sold separately.

In fact, good luck trying to accessorize anything. Everyone in the illustrations is wearing earrings, brooches, bangles, necklaces and so on but the insane jeweler keeps explaining is all that he knows how to make or sell are signet rings, and only in gold. He doesn't know what he would charge for a silver one, or a brass one, and if you ask him for a cloak pin he starts gibbering and talking in tongues.

Or you decide to be sensible. You set a price for the chandelier and a DC to use Appraise to figure out that price. You assume that you can buy scarves at the bazaar and the cost of a scarf is obviously going to be less than a full entertainer's outfit. You have the jeweler list a few different prices for earrings and necklaces, and if you come to the next town where the jeweler charges more or less than the last, the GM declares that this is not inconsistent. There are some merchants who charge more or less for the same sort of goods and not all necklaces are created equal.

Similarly, the wizard wants a waterproof bag. The guy who makes wineskins and purses should reasonably know how to treat the inside of a purse so that it's watertight. He may not have it right now, but if he likes gold, he should probably be quite willing to make one.


Cold Napalm wrote:
And once you need to make up a cost (because crafting rules are based on costs), then you are firmly in houserule land and I know of some groups that would not allow such.

Coming up with a price of an unlisted object is not something I would consider a house rule. Especially with the case of a waterproof bag, which could easily be the price of a waterskin plus a little extra for customization to hold a book rather than liquid. There are so many things that don't have listed cost that it would be near impossible for a DM with creative players to not have to do something similar to the above example at some point.

Grand Lodge

sunshadow21 wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
And once you need to make up a cost (because crafting rules are based on costs), then you are firmly in houserule land and I know of some groups that would not allow such.
Coming up with a price of an unlisted object is not something I would consider a house rule. Especially with the case of a waterproof bag, which could easily be the price of a waterskin plus a little extra for customization to hold a book rather than liquid. There are so many things that don't have listed cost that it would be near impossible for a DM with creative players to not have to do something similar to the above example at some point.

Which does NOT negate a groups desire to play a more rulebased and less "creative" anything I can think of game as being badwrongfu. And when we are talking about what a rule SHOULD be, we need to assume the latter and not go well the DM can just fix it. Because some DMs DON'T. I have had a DM rules that my spellbook was ruined in the rain while it was in my backpack. He wasn't a bad DM, he was a NEW DM who went by the environmental rules without knowing all the issues. Rules should exists to prevent such. Assuming that all DM are both good and highly expierenced to be able to make up whatever rules they need on the fly is just being lazy as a rule set writer. Yeah SOME of that has to exists or we may end up with a black hole...but considering how often I see this issue come up in various games, I think a couple lines on the subject or an item in the core book or errata or FAQ is warranted.

Shadow Lodge

Possibly the dumbest thing I've done lately, but I'll pick at this scab. For those who think that the DM should never ever consider doing anything to the wizard's spellbook, I have a question for you. Would you grant the same level of "plot immunity" to:

A witch's familiar?
A fighter's Heirloom Weapon, in which he has heavily invested to enchant with a decent enhancement bonus and weapon qualities, and heavy feat and class ability on that weapon type?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Sure.


I believe Napalm's point is, if you say "Well water ruins spellbooks," then there should be a way for players to know this before their spellbook is destroyed. Having a "waterproof bag" or something similar in the core rules would do this.

When the waterproof bag is in a side splatbook, then I think it's vaguely unfair for you to assume players will know about it (see also: the numerous, numerous DMs that have complained about the splatbooks in 3e. Hypocritical much?).

The problem is, you're running an opposite game of Mother May I? You're essentially coming up with problems that your players have no idea even exist, and then you're punishing them for being unable to read your mind. Again, if there were things that actually mentioned or even hinted at water ruining spellbooks, that'd be fine. And I'd even go so far as to say that if the DM told you right from the start to cover your spellbook, that, too, would be fine. But neither of these things seem to be happening.

To put it another way, it's like if a fighter waded into the water, and then you laugh and tell him all his armor and/or weapons are ruined immidiately. Or you start giving everyone huge penalties to everything because they don't explicitly tell you that they bathe or clean their weapons. You're punishing your players for things they most likely could not have guessed on their own.

Shadow Lodge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
I believe Napalm's point is, if you say "Well water ruins spellbooks," then there should be a way for players to know this before their spellbook is destroyed.

Common sense?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
I believe Napalm's point is, if you say "Well water ruins spellbooks," then there should be a way for players to know this before their spellbook is destroyed.
Common sense?

Common sense lead the majority to believe the world was flat for thousands of years.


It makes you wonder if we're complaining enough that the staff at Pazio will nail this problem to the wall with a true fix, then publish it in Kobold Quarterly.

I've played with "Core only" and "Core + APG only" GMs. They're usually playing modules and hence more interested in the plot railroad than screwing the players. I haven't played homebrewed campaigns in a while, but if the GM is creating the world from scratch shouldn't the players be allowed some leeway in their characters' crafting?

If the wizard is smart enough to realize he/she is going to need a waterproof bag for their spellbook, I say more power to them, let 'em have it, and move the game along to more important things. Like EL+5 fights, or the DC 30 lock on the (may or may not be trapped) chest.

If the GM is going to make me roll for all of my healing potions in breakable glass vials when I fall 6 feet, make me buy a winter blanket for the wintertime, and make my character "sickened" for eating the 14th trail ration in a row, then it's time to find a new GM/group. The level of detail in the story is NOT the GM's personal whim.


Cold Napalm wrote:
stringburka wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:


So who made you king of RPG again? Anyone who wants to play by the rules is wrong then? And so all wizards should have ranks in craft waterproofing? Gah, your post is so full of arrogant fail.

Where are the rules that prohibit this? Where are the rules that say no such things exists in the core game?

Many things that we use in almost every adventure aren't mentioned in the core rulebook. Just because they aren't mentioned doesn't mean they don't exist.

And once you need to make up a cost (because crafting rules are based on costs), then you are firmly in houserule land and I know of some groups that would not allow such. So your saying they are playing the game wrong then? They are playing by the strict rule set...

I'm saying that just like how stating that your character uses his feet to move, despite their being no rules for feet, or how the DM describes blue sky despite the sky not having any RAW-defined color does not make it a house rule.

If everything that isn't clearly stated in the RAW is a house rule, the game would be impossible to play.

EDIT: How would it be more houseruling if you say "the trader offers to give you a waterproof skin if you give him 5 silver pieces" than if you say "the duke offers to give you 200gp if you bring him his kidnapped sister"?


Kthulhu wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
I believe Napalm's point is, if you say "Well water ruins spellbooks," then there should be a way for players to know this before their spellbook is destroyed.
Common sense?

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." My favorite Einstein quote :)

Especially useful when debating politics.


Kthulhu wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
I believe Napalm's point is, if you say "Well water ruins spellbooks," then there should be a way for players to know this before their spellbook is destroyed.
Common sense?

I'm fairly certain the fact that there's been debate over this nulls that argument.

The fact is, if this thread has shown anything, it's that many people will enter the game thinking "Water will not damage my spellbook." There's a huge number of reasons for this, from the gamist of "there isn't a rule" to the simulationist "No see, with these special inks and the way spellbooks are made..."

The bottom line is, it's very clearly not the automatic thought that water will damage spellbooks.


jhpace1 wrote:
It makes you wonder if we're complaining enough that the staff at Pazio will nail this problem to the wall with a true fix, then publish it in Kobold Quarterly.

Probably not, since Paizo doesn't publish said magazine.

When did the game lose the assumption that, with the exception of the fantasy, things operated like they did in the real world?

I can accept that my various game groups play different from others, but it was always a given that water was wet, fire was hot, falling hurts, and all of the above can damage that which is not protected from it.

One of our campaigns had a pyro in the party, always carried tons of jars of oil to use as Molotov Cocktails.

The pyro fell. Jars broke. Flame was nearby. Oil caught on fire. Burning happened.

And guess what? The game was fun.

The level of the story IS the GM's whim.

Seems to me the issue isn't with the GM, it's with a bunch of whiny players who want to be invincible.


ProfessorCirno wrote:


I'm fairly certain the fact that there's been debate over this nulls that argument.

The fact is, if this thread has shown anything, it's that many people will enter the game thinking "Water will not damage my spellbook." There's a huge number of reasons for this, from the gamist of "there isn't a rule" to the simulationist "No see, with these special inks and the way spellbooks are made..."

The bottom line is, it's very clearly not the automatic thought that water will damage spellbooks.

I'm fairly certain that I've never had anyone claim a spellbook was magically immune from anything in any of my games.

I started a game off by having the characters wake up on a beach, their ships having been attacked by Doomwhales. The first question out of the wizard's mouth when he found his backpack in the wreckage was 'How much damage did the water do to my spellbook?'. Not 'You unmitigated kurr, you better not argue with me about my spellbook being damaged!', not 'How can you do this to me, it's not fair! Whine hiss spit sulk!'.

I had another wizard in another game who got hit by a dragon's acid breath. Twice. Did he try to claim his spell book was magically immune to the acid he'd laid in a puddle of for 5 turns before someone stabalized and healed him? No, he asked 'How much damage did the spell book take from the acid' as his character tried to find some new clothes to wear.

I have been GMing in various systems for 24 years, and this thread is the first time I've ever heard anyone state that a wizard's spell book is off limits and should never be touched or else you're a dick GM (and that's a direct quote, that if anything happens to the spell book it's just the GM being a dick?!?!). Insane if you ask me, but you have whatever opinion you want.


Brian E. Harris wrote:


I can accept that my various game groups play different from others, but it was always a given that water was wet, fire was hot, falling hurts, and all of the above can damage that which is not protected from it.

Not if you're a spellbook, familiar, or heirloom weapon apparently. In any of those cases, you have to modify local physics so that water is dry, but not too dry, fire is cool, but not icy, falling is non-lethal damage, and none of the above can damage any of the listed items, no matter what.


Kthulhu wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
I believe Napalm's point is, if you say "Well water ruins spellbooks," then there should be a way for players to know this before their spellbook is destroyed.
Common sense?

Yes, it should be common sense for the DMs to tell the players the house rules of their game before playing... Oh, you meant "common sense" for the players. People actually play games with you?


Allow me another querry. How many times do you check for a fighter's sword being damaged by rust, or a cleric's wooden holy symbol being warped by water damage? It's true, water affecting items crops up in games occasionally, but usually only when it seems appropriate - during a shipwreck, a flood, or similar calamity. Namely, only when the players are suddenly and unexpectedly subjected to a deluge of uncommon volume. You don't check for water damage to clothing, weapons, or most other miscelaneous gear ever time the players cross a bridge, do you? If so, then yeah, spellbooks are probably ruined. Otherwise, I'd only subject them to such consequences when you would do so for the rest of a player's gear.


martinaj wrote:
Allow me another querry. How many times do you check for a fighter's sword being damaged by rust, or a cleric's wooden holy symbol being warped by water damage? It's true, water affecting items crops up in games occasionally, but usually only when it seems appropriate - during a shipwreck, a flood, or similar calamity. Namely, only when the players are suddenly and unexpectedly subjected to a deluge of uncommon volume. You don't check for water damage to clothing, weapons, or most other miscelaneous gear ever time the players cross a bridge, do you? If so, then yeah, spellbooks are probably ruined. Otherwise, I'd only subject them to such consequences when you would do so for the rest of a player's gear.

Careful there, you're using common sense and an even handed approach.

That is not appreciated by the 'my precious spell book is off limits' crowd.

:)

EDIT : Oh, and to answer your question, any time the fighter fights a rust monster or falls over the side of a ship or down a long waterfall. Anytime the cleric is in a shipwreck, or anytime he's hit by dragon breath. Anytime the wizard is in a shipwreck, hit by dragon breath. Oh, anytime some crits with elemental damage, I may check to see if equipment is damaged. Also anytime someone dies from massive damage (like taking over 50% of their hitpoints in one hit).


Quote:
Oh, and to answer your question, any time the fighter fights a rust monster

Irrelevant point, that's the explicit purpose of the rust monster. I don't see any "Spellbook Deteriorating Monster."


Cartigan wrote:
Quote:
Oh, and to answer your question, any time the fighter fights a rust monster
Irrelevant point, that's the explicit purpose of the rust monster. I don't see any "Spellbook Deteriorating Monster."

Bookworm.

Oh, and yes, when there's a bookworm in the groups camp, I'd check for damaged books.

EDIT: Oh yes, and Cartigan, I did notice how you took 1/3rd of a sentence, quoted just that piece, and tried to make it proof of your point. You should come up with a new schtick, that one's getting very predictable.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

Kthulhu wrote:

Would you grant the same level of "plot immunity" to:

- A witch's familiar?
- A fighter's Heirloom Weapon, in which he has heavily invested to enchant with a decent enhancement bonus and weapon qualities, and heavy feat and class ability on that weapon type?

Let me change the parameters of this question: Suppose that you're running a superhero game and noticed that one of the abilities described in the rules would eliminate some PC heroes' superpowers until he went to a lot of trouble getting them restored ("First we need a vat of radioactive wastes, then an irradiated insect, and a new alien-tech power ring..."). Would you inflict that ability on your PCs? Most people would answer, "Yes, but..." and cite some limited circumstances under which such a threat would be cool (e.g.: When the PC could regain his powers as part of the current adventure, when the player has expressed a wish to change the character and needs an in-game mechanism, or as part of a brutal climactic finale to the campaign).

The instances you cite are much like that scenario: They need to be used sparingly, if at all. Only a jerk casually changes or nerfs major defining abilities of a character. Such changes can easily eliminate the player's ability to enjoy running the character and drive him to find a different game.

On the other hand, you want to "keep things real", preventing players from taking things like their spellbooks (or familiars, or heirloom swords) for granted. Give them too much "plot protection" and players start to assume they never have to worry about such items. Down that path lies the "tyranny of fun" or Monty-Haulism.


mdt wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Quote:
Oh, and to answer your question, any time the fighter fights a rust monster
Irrelevant point, that's the explicit purpose of the rust monster. I don't see any "Spellbook Deteriorating Monster."

Bookworm.

Oh, and yes, when there's a bookworm in the groups camp, I'd check for damaged books.

So where is that in the PFRD or even the 3.x SRD? Oh right...

Let's just give all the bad guys Supersoakers to defeat the Wizard with.


Cartigan wrote:

So where is that in the PFRD or even the 3.x SRD? Oh right...

Let's just give all the bad guys Supersoakers to defeat the Wizard with.

So, since the rust monster is in the SRD, it's OK to use it without player consent, but the bookworm is verboten since it's not in the SRD?


Brian E. Harris wrote:
Cartigan wrote:

So where is that in the PFRD or even the 3.x SRD? Oh right...

Let's just give all the bad guys Supersoakers to defeat the Wizard with.
So, since the rust monster is in the SRD, it's OK to use it without player consent, but the bookworm is verboten since it's not in the SRD?

He made some argument that the presence of the Rust Monster completely voids. The Rust Monster is a monster specifically designed to rust stuff. It's not just water and poor care rusting stuff, it's a magical beast whose sole purpose is to rust something. And yes, it being in the SRD does make a difference. Why the hell should a player expect something to occur that is NOT IN THE RULES THEY UNDERSTAND THE GAME TO BE PLAYED BY? I expect the bloody DM to tell me when he changes the systems rules. A Rust Monster is in the rules. Supersoakers being Wizard bane is not.


Cartigan wrote:


He made some argument that the presence of the Rust Monster completely voids. The Rust Monster is a monster specifically designed to rust stuff. It's not just water and poor care rusting stuff, it's a magical beast whose sole purpose is to rust something. And yes, it being in the SRD does make a difference. Why the hell should a player expect something to occur that is NOT IN THE RULES THEY UNDERSTAND THE GAME TO BE PLAYED BY? I expect the bloody DM to tell me when he changes the systems rules. A Rust Monster is in the rules. Supersoakers being Wizard bane is not.

Wow Cartigan,

Take a valium or something. I'd bother discussing it with you, but you are constitutionally incapable of even having a real debate on anything. All you can do is pick half a sentence out of a paragraph of text, and then scream to the heavens that the person you are quoting is wrong and evil and too stupid to post. God what an arrogant ****.

For the record, here is my 'argument that negates rust monsters'. It was in response to 'What situations do you check for item damage to the fighter or the wizard'.

MDT wrote:


Oh, and to answer your question, any time the fighter fights a rust monster or falls over the side of a ship or down a long waterfall. Anytime the cleric is in a shipwreck, or anytime he's hit by dragon breath. Anytime the wizard is in a shipwreck, hit by dragon breath. Oh, anytime some crits with elemental damage, I may check to see if equipment is damaged. Also anytime someone dies from massive damage (like taking over 50% of their hitpoints in one hit).

Note that you, Cartigan, ignored everything but five words in that entire answer. Grow up.


Brian E. Harris wrote:
Cartigan wrote:

So where is that in the PFRD or even the 3.x SRD? Oh right...

Let's just give all the bad guys Supersoakers to defeat the Wizard with.
So, since the rust monster is in the SRD, it's OK to use it without player consent, but the bookworm is verboten since it's not in the SRD?

No, the problem is when the DM literally makes up a threat on his own and then punishes the players for not knowing about it.

It's like if, halfway through the dungeon, you just decided the fighter died because there was a completely invisible monster that was utterly undetectable in front of him and if he had just used this one ability from this one splatbook he would've avoided it. Also the monster was made up by the DM.


ProfessorCirno wrote:


No, the problem is when the DM literally makes up a threat on his own and then punishes the players for not knowing about it.

It's like if, halfway through the dungeon, you just decided the fighter died because there was a completely invisible monster that was utterly undetectable in front of him and if he had just used this one ability from this one splatbook he would've avoided it. Also the monster was made up by the DM.

I see, so, in your game, every character has the Bestiary tattooed to their inner eyelids? Every character, regardless of class type of skill level, knows of every monster in the world? Because that's your argument. If monster A doesn't exist in the bestiary, the DM can't use it in an adventure.

I don't run adventure paths, but I'm pretty certain they contain unique critters that don't exist in the Bestiary, and the characters (and players) may not even know what they are. So I suppose you'll have to burn any APs you have. :)


It's been pointed out numerous times that a spellbook is a weakness that comes along with the wizard class, and I agree, but I personally think there are plenty of (and more interesting) ways to exploit that weakness without adding mundane wear and tear to the list.

That being said, I think that substantial support has been brought to bear for both sides of this argument, and it ultimately depends on what type of game you want to run/play. Two examples.

The last major game I played in was high fantasy and high action. PCs were powerhouses and so were most of the foes. It lent itself to highly cinematic play. We supplanted a vampire queen, fought of a siege, and formed a new city comprised of a myriad of demihuman races. I certainly would have made a fuss of my wizard had lost his spellbook fording a river in a game like this.

On the other hand, one of the most memorable games I've ever played in was a 3.5 Ravenloft game with a high degree of sheer grit rubbed into the GM's style. Our PCs were constantly brutalized, but always given a fighting chance. We faced problems that we'd never had to deal with before, many of the adventures focused on mere survival, or on recovery. I still fondly recall the massive celebration because we'd finally restored our ability scored to where they'd been at 1st level (they'd been reduced for 3 straight session), and fighting over who got to wield the magic club (we didn't know what it did, just that it was magic, and we suspected it was cursed. It wasn't). In this campaign, I would have personally relished the challenge of rationing my remaining spells until I could get my hands on a new spellbook.


mdt wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


He made some argument that the presence of the Rust Monster completely voids. The Rust Monster is a monster specifically designed to rust stuff. It's not just water and poor care rusting stuff, it's a magical beast whose sole purpose is to rust something. And yes, it being in the SRD does make a difference. Why the hell should a player expect something to occur that is NOT IN THE RULES THEY UNDERSTAND THE GAME TO BE PLAYED BY? I expect the bloody DM to tell me when he changes the systems rules. A Rust Monster is in the rules. Supersoakers being Wizard bane is not.

Wow Cartigan,

Take a valium or something. I'd bother discussing it with you, but you are constitutionally incapable of even having a real debate on anything. All you can do is pick half a sentence out of a paragraph of text, and then scream to the heavens that the person you are quoting is wrong and evil and too stupid to post. God what an arrogant ****.

For the record, here is my 'argument that negates rust monsters'. It was in response to 'What situations do you check for item damage to the fighter or the wizard'.

MDT wrote:


Oh, and to answer your question, any time the fighter fights a rust monster or falls over the side of a ship or down a long waterfall. Anytime the cleric is in a shipwreck, or anytime he's hit by dragon breath. Anytime the wizard is in a shipwreck, hit by dragon breath. Oh, anytime some crits with elemental damage, I may check to see if equipment is damaged. Also anytime someone dies from massive damage (like taking over 50% of their hitpoints in one hit).
Note that you, Cartigan, ignored everything but five words in that entire answer. Grow up.

None of that voids the point the Rust Monster's sole purpose is to rust metal. It doesn't fit. It's like a Sesame Street episodes where three greyhounds are firemen and another one is Elmo - not a dog dressed as Elmo, but Elmo.


mdt wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:


No, the problem is when the DM literally makes up a threat on his own and then punishes the players for not knowing about it.

It's like if, halfway through the dungeon, you just decided the fighter died because there was a completely invisible monster that was utterly undetectable in front of him and if he had just used this one ability from this one splatbook he would've avoided it. Also the monster was made up by the DM.

I see, so, in your game, every character has the Bestiary tattooed to their inner eyelids? Every character, regardless of class type of skill level, knows of every monster in the world? Because that's your argument.

No, it isn't.


Cartigan wrote:
mdt wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


He made some argument that the presence of the Rust Monster completely voids. The Rust Monster is a monster specifically designed to rust stuff. It's not just water and poor care rusting stuff, it's a magical beast whose sole purpose is to rust something. And yes, it being in the SRD does make a difference. Why the hell should a player expect something to occur that is NOT IN THE RULES THEY UNDERSTAND THE GAME TO BE PLAYED BY? I expect the bloody DM to tell me when he changes the systems rules. A Rust Monster is in the rules. Supersoakers being Wizard bane is not.

Wow Cartigan,

Take a valium or something. I'd bother discussing it with you, but you are constitutionally incapable of even having a real debate on anything. All you can do is pick half a sentence out of a paragraph of text, and then scream to the heavens that the person you are quoting is wrong and evil and too stupid to post. God what an arrogant ****.

For the record, here is my 'argument that negates rust monsters'. It was in response to 'What situations do you check for item damage to the fighter or the wizard'.

MDT wrote:


Oh, and to answer your question, any time the fighter fights a rust monster or falls over the side of a ship or down a long waterfall. Anytime the cleric is in a shipwreck, or anytime he's hit by dragon breath. Anytime the wizard is in a shipwreck, hit by dragon breath. Oh, anytime some crits with elemental damage, I may check to see if equipment is damaged. Also anytime someone dies from massive damage (like taking over 50% of their hitpoints in one hit).
Note that you, Cartigan, ignored everything but five words in that entire answer. Grow up.

None of that voids the point the Rust Monster's sole purpose is to rust metal. It doesn't fit. It's like a Sesame Street episodes where three greyhounds are firemen and another one is Elmo.

Alright, so don't use Rust Monsters in your game.


martinaj wrote:


Alright, so don't use Rust Monsters in your game.

It's like you people aren't even trying.

Person A: "Here, let me present this argument to you explaining how 'water destroying spellbooks is not in the rules' and players aren't going to think of it and other perfectly good sense."
You guys: "RAGGAGHAHAHAGAHAHAGAH"

Shadow Lodge

Cartigan wrote:
Yes, it should be common sense for the DMs to tell the players the house rules of their game before playing... Oh, you meant "common sense" for the players. People actually play games with you?

Let me ask you something. Have you NEVER had to make a decision mid-game about something that you hadn't really thought would come up? I think the key to being a good GM isn't necessarily to tell players all "house rules" up front, but to be consistant with their use. And sometimes, yes, you don't tell someone up front because it's pretty goddamn obvious. Like, you know, prolonged exposure to dirty water probably won't be too good for a book. There's also no rule in the Core Rulebook for BURNING a book. I guess in your games that means ALL book are immune to fire.

The Core Rulebook is NOT meant to have rules to cover all situations. If it did, a GM wouldn't actually even be necessary. You could just run pre-published adventures with players taking turns rolling dice for the monsters and NPCs.

Cartigan wrote:
Irrelevant point, that's the explicit purpose of the rust monster. I don't see any "Spellbook Deteriorating Monster."

Bookworm. It's in the d20 SRD, and in the Tome of Horrors (a resource the Paizo pulls from often).

Cartigan wrote:
And yes, it being in the SRD does make a difference. Why the hell should a player expect something to occur that is NOT IN THE RULES THEY UNDERSTAND THE GAME TO BE PLAYED BY? I expect the bloody DM to tell me when he changes the systems rules. A Rust Monster is in the rules. Supersoakers being Wizard bane is not.

First off, for Pathfinder, it's refered to as the PRD. Secondly, do you really think that if it's not in the Bestiary, it shouldn't be allowed? Cannot the GM create his own monsters, or pull them from other sources? One of the great things about Pathfinder's backwards compatibilitly is the ability of the GM to pull from a full decade's worth of d20 material. While many of the splatbooks weren't really worth it, being filled with equal parts unbalanced crap and filler, some of the monster books are great. I'm talking both WotC and 3PP here.

Also, to turn your favorite phrase on you, enough with the strawman. "Supersoakers" are not what we're talking about. Nobody here is saying that a few drops, or even a brief submersion, would ruin a book. We're talking lengthy exposure to very dirty water (quite possibly very dirty salt water).


Cartigan wrote:
martinaj wrote:


Alright, so don't use Rust Monsters in your game.
It's like you people aren't even trying.

What I'm saying is that you're focusing an awful lot on the inclusion of the Rust Monster in the bestiary. Yep. It's more dangerous for a fighter than it is to a wizard. However, it's also a far less common hazard than the one the OP mentioned, and it's one the party is going to face when a GM wants thems to face it (unless they just love their random encounter tables). By the same token, I would argue that spellbooks should not be randomly destroyed as a side effect of another hazard when the rest of your gear wouldn't be given another thought. Not that you should take feel obliged to treat a spellbook gently - I'm just saying that you treat it like you would any other gear.

If you want to cripple your fighter, toss a rust monster their way. If you want to screw with the wizard, have a clever villain take a called shot at their book.

If you take this draconian approach to spellbook maintenance, your wizard is going to become so obssessive with guarding their precious tome that's its going to detract from other aspects of your game.


Yes, Rust Monsters suck and when people run into them, they all run around scared like little ninnies. And Black Pudding. And random slimes.
But those are all things in the rules as written. Players may hate them, but they recognize that they might show up and ruin everyone's day. A Wizard doesn't walk around expecting rain to wash the spells off his very expensive spellbook because it isn't in the rules. Just as Mr Paladin doesn't expect his sword to rust because he didn't explicitly say he oils it every day. Players cannot expect something to occur to them that is not in the rules unless explicitly laid out for them. And before you come howling "common sense!!!11!1!eleven" - what bloody common sense? "Oh, of course I can morph myself into a troll, it's common sense! This is a game with explicit rules for the playing of said game, not the real world.


Kthulhu wrote:
And sometimes, yes, you don't tell someone up front because it's pretty goddamn obvious. Like, you know, prolonged exposure to dirty water probably won't be too good for a book.

And like the ability to turn into an Eagle and fly around conjuring lightning bolts and giants out of midair?

Quote:
First off, for Pathfinder, it's refered to as the PRD.

If you want to be a pretentious ass about it, I can point out "SRD" means "System Reference Document" and "Pathfinder" is a "System."

251 to 300 of 427 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / When spellbooks get wet All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.