My party got into an argument about some books that were found, including some spellbooks. It ended with the fighter setting them on fire. They burned for 2-3 minutes, then were doused with water to put the fire out.
Can mending fix these books?
|
Depends...how did they get set on fire and what were they made of? Paper? 2-3 min and it's ash. Parchment...umm HOW did the fighter set this on fire? Try to set a leather jacket on fire with flint and steel or a match (tindertwig) and tell me how easy that was. A parchment book is actually HARDER to set on fire then that. If it was tossed into an existsing flame, it depends on how hot the coals are...but generally speaking a parchment book would take some time to get consumed unless you buried it in the hot coals.
flint+steel and the books were used to start the fire = yes
tossed into the fireplace /campfire= no.
if i was your party wizard during the next fight i would ask "can i cast bull strength/protection from evil on you" ... and then curse the fighter with impotence (no save)
Depends...how did they get set on fire and what were they made of? Paper? 2-3 min and it's ash. Parchment...umm HOW did the fighter set this on fire? Try to set a leather jacket on fire with flint and steel or a match (tindertwig) and tell me how easy that was. A parchment book is actually HARDER to set on fire then that. If it was tossed into an existsing flame, it depends on how hot the coals are...but generally speaking a parchment book would take some time to get consumed unless you buried it in the hot coals.
The fighter used the flaming blade of his magic sword.
I think this is DM purview at this point. If they are (pardon the pun) toast then no. But if they are only damaged then yes.
The easy way to figure this out is to "do the math". Figure out the fire damage the books received and the burn damage for each round. Then compare that to the HP of a spell book. If the number is still positive then mending should be able to do it.
The DM may give a % chance based upon how many HP were left to see if some of the specific spells were damaged too much to recover. (ie you have a book with blank pages.)
A blank wizards spellbook is 15GP. For 100 pages I would say it's just paper.
The fighter used the flaming blade of his magic sword.
Strict raw it might survive....
lets assume that we can treat parchment as leather. (which it more resembles than paper)
it has a hardness of 2 and 5 hp per inch of thickness, lets say 2 inches (which is a big honking book) so 10 hp
even if you assume that fire does half damage to objects (which is standard, but you could easily argue that parchment is vulnerable to fire) , and it takes said damage before applying hardness (as per the rules), then the 1d6 damage from flaming needs to be a 6 to do any damage. (5 /2= 2.5 round down in d7d = 2 -2 hardness =0.) 6/2=3 -2= 1
10 rounds per minute, so 20 rounds = 3.33 points of damage on average 30 rounds= 5 points of damage.
A blank wizards spellbook is 15GP. For 100 pages I would say it's just paper.
15 gp isn't a lotto an adventure but its still a lot of money.
an average untrained worker earns 1sp per day. lets assume that someone earns 5 dollars an hour, that sets 1 sp= 40 dollars
15 gp * 10sp/1gp * 40 dollars/1sp= 6,000 dollars ... thats some high quality leather bound equipment there.
I would say a piece of paper is vulnerable to fire, but a book is not. A solid phone book tossed into the fire will burn and darken on the outside but take a while to burn fully to the middle.
I would give a leather bound paper spell book a hardness of 2 and 10 hit points in the closed position. If the book were opened prior to the attack I would give it hardness zero and 5 hit points.
Trying to burn a closed book covered in leather is harder then a person opening the book up and letting air into the pages before trying to light it on fire.
I would say a piece of paper is vulnerable to fire, but a book is not. A solid phone book tossed into the fire will burn and darken on the outside but take a while to burn fully to the middle.
I would give a leather bound paper spell book a hardness of 2 and 10 hit points in the closed position. If the book were opened prior to the attack I would give it hardness zero and 5 hit points.
Trying to burn a closed book covered in leather is harder then a person opening the book up and letting air into the pages before trying to light it on fire.
+3
I used to have a coal stove and burning old phone books is like burning a log.|
|
Depends...how did they get set on fire and what were they made of? Paper? 2-3 min and it's ash. Parchment...umm HOW did the fighter set this on fire? Try to set a leather jacket on fire with flint and steel or a match (tindertwig) and tell me how easy that was. A parchment book is actually HARDER to set on fire then that. If it was tossed into an existsing flame, it depends on how hot the coals are...but generally speaking a parchment book would take some time to get consumed unless you buried it in the hot coals.The fighter used the flaming blade of his magic sword.
Humm half fire damage, 2 hardness...1 damage happens about once every 3 rounds...I would say the book has the broken condition and can be mended just fine. There wasn't even a reason to douse it in water as something like that would just be smoldering a parchement book and not so much setting one ablaze.
On a side note, I think the wizard should have a celestial rust monster handy on summons for the next magic sword the party fighter can use to be fed to it. Burning the wizard's hard found spellbook is a pretty dick move.
Depends...how did they get set on fire and what were they made of? Paper? 2-3 min and it's ash. Parchment...umm HOW did the fighter set this on fire? Try to set a leather jacket on fire with flint and steel or a match (tindertwig) and tell me how easy that was. A parchment book is actually HARDER to set on fire then that. If it was tossed into an existsing flame, it depends on how hot the coals are...but generally speaking a parchment book would take some time to get consumed unless you buried it in the hot coals.The fighter used the flaming blade of his magic sword.Humm half fire damage, 2 hardness...1 damage happens about once every 3 rounds...I would say the book has the broken condition and can be mended just fine. There wasn't even a reason to douse it in water as something like that would just be smoldering a parchement book and not so much setting one ablaze.
On a side note, I think the wizard should have a celestial rust monster handy on summons for the next magic sword the party fighter can use to be fed to it. Burning the wizard's hard found spellbook is a pretty dick move.
Well, the spellbooks didn't belong to the party wizard, they belonged to the enemy wizard that the fighter single-handedly, and quite brutally, killed.
Will mending work on a burnt object? The spell description says, "All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function" -- if it's burned, then some pieces are gone (because they are now ash, not pieces).
There's also a bit about it not working on "warped or otherwise transmuted" objects, but I'm not sure if "transmuted" implies only by magical means. It's certainly possible to warp an object non-magically (we accidentally warped our host's ping-pong table last month, using it to block the sun -- DOH), and one could say an object burned up has been transmuted to ash.
(Between mending and comprehend languages, archaeology ought to be really easy in D&D. Faded inscription? Mending! Lost language? Comprehend languages!)
Something like Mend is meant to fix something that is literally broken, like a sword where the blade snapped in two or a ceramic pot you dropped and wanted to fix or the page of a book that you tore out and wanted to put back. Also, I would really consider the burnt part of the book that is now ash to have been transmuted since the pages are no longer in their original form. So you could cast the spell and get some of the book repaired, but some of it would be gone forever.
Well, the spellbooks didn't belong to the party wizard, they belonged to the enemy wizard that the fighter single-handedly, and quite brutally, killed.
ALL spellbooks belong to the party wizard.
its like the wizard snagging the two handed sword when the party fighter is specialized in it
|
|
Well, the spellbooks didn't belong to the party wizard, they belonged to the enemy wizard that the fighter single-handedly, and quite brutally, killed.ALL spellbooks belong to the party wizard.
its like the wizard snagging the two handed sword when the party fighter is specialized in it
yep and not only that, it's like the wizard taking said sword and then dropping it in a volcano afterwards.
Well, the spellbooks didn't belong to the party wizard, they belonged to the enemy wizard that the fighter single-handedly, and quite brutally, killed.ALL spellbooks belong to the party wizard.
its like the wizard snagging the two handed sword when the party fighter is specialized in it
Oh really? What if you have a Mage and a Wizard? Or two wizards?
What if it's a book made from human skin with a face on the cover that moans when you touch it? Does the book still belong to the wizard?
If a character single handedly, and with no assistance from any other team member, defeats an enemy, I see no reason why they shouldn't be entitled to automatically claim the spoils from that specific enemy.
I'm not talking about 'Oh, we were fighting 5 guys, and nobody else damaged #4, I get his stuff', that's a general melee. If the fighter got seperated from the group and killed the enemy wizard while alone, he has really earned all that loot, taking out a powerful enemy by himself.
The wizard could ask for the books, he could offer part of his treasure from other sources in exchange, but unilaterally taking it would be no more than stealing from a companion.
Well, the spellbooks didn't belong to the party wizard, they belonged to the enemy wizard that the fighter single-handedly, and quite brutally, killed.In Hackmaster.
In Pathfinder, the party wizard will have cast buff spells, or used up a wand of magic missles to get the party to that point.
What has he been doing up to that point?
As GM I would have any trap spells go off the moment any fire touches the book.
There may be valid reasons to burn a spellbook, but that isn't one of them.
So the +3 flaming greatsword gets immediately destroyed when the party comes across it, right? I mean, it was carried by a villain, and that fire's probably unnatural and evil.
Impressive, way to misconstrue and say If A then B, and if B then C, then obviously If A then D.
:)
But, I'll turn that on you. What if the +3 flaming greatsword has bones from children worked into it's handle, the flames that come off it are a baleful green, and the blade is so black that it absorbs light? That's about the melee equivalent of my original question I asked, about the tome made from human skin with a face and moans coming from it.
From an RP perspective the fighter with half a brain gives the magic books to the wizard, because that's the wizards thing. He understands and controls this kind of power, just like the fighter hangs onto the sword.
Yep, but you will notice the words I hi-lighted. It's the fighter's choice if he went out and got that loot by himself. By the same token, it's the wizard's choice if he goes out by himself and gets a +3 flaming elven curveblade. If he's an elf wizard, maybe he wants to keep that weapon for himself so he has a nice weapon to fall back on? Or maybe it's a cultural thing, he doesn't want the half-orc fighter sullying his elven forged weapon? There is a LOT of RP involved, not just number crunching.
From a players having fun at the table standpoint you don't get snarky with loot clearly tailor-made for another party member.
I agree, you also don't order other players to give you something they RP'd and risked their character's lives procuring. That's incredibly rude, and if another player was telling me I'd give him item A or else, I'd smash the thing. You don't throw your weight around in a game, you work it out IC or OOC.
Regarding proprietary look because "he did it," I seriously doubt the fighter got in position to take out the evil wizard completely on his own. By that same logic does the rogue automatically own everything in the locked chest that he opened?
Now you're not even bothering to read my post, so I'm not even going to bother answering this. If you want an answer, go back and read my original post.
Fighter destroys what could easily be either a backup spellbook or way to significantly alter the wizard's power? He gets woken up with a spider swarm every day from then on. And should count himself lucky rusting grasp is on the druid list.
And the wizard, one day after this is done, doesn't wake up at all. Escalation of this type is frankly childish, and about as mature as a 5yo.
Oh really? What if you have a Mage and a Wizard? Or two wizards?
Share. Toss a coin and see who gets the first crack at the spell book then alternate copying. Then sell the book for the exact same value it had before you started copying.
What if it's a book made from human skin with a face on the cover that moans when you touch it? Does the book still belong to the wizard?
then the fighter should call the wizard or the cleric over to make sure its not a tomb of the damned that releases the souls inside it as angry ghosts
If a character single handedly, and with no assistance from any other team member, defeats an enemy, I see no reason why they shouldn't be entitled to automatically claim the spoils from that specific enemy.
because the party is a TeAM they work together.
We had an evil campaign. The rogue snuck ahead down the cooridoor, and solod the next encounter. the dm went to hand him all the experience...until i pointed out that my kobold sorcerer did half the damage in the fight, by virtue of having cast magic weapon on the rogues bow and arrows (3.0, it was legal. )
The wizard could ask for the books, he could offer part of his treasure from other sources in exchange, but unilaterally taking it would be no more than stealing from a companion.
he only needs to borrow it to get the benefit from it. and any warrior that doesn't want his wizard slinging the best spells is out of his gourd.
And the wizard, one day after this is done, doesn't wake up at all. Escalation of this type is frankly childish, and about as mature as a 5yo.
or international politics.
A spellbook does not actually have to given to the party wizard for the wizard to benefit from it. It could just as easily be loaned to him long enough for him to copy the spells and then returned to whoever found it.
I actually ran a cleric of knowledge in a Eberron campaign set in Sharn who payed for his routine expenses and upkeep by making a spellbook the party had looted available for copying to like minded adventurers, students, and scholars looking for spells. Later, when a wizard joined the party, he let the wizard have free access to the book for any spells she didn't have, but he still kept it, as it was still providing him a modest, but steady, income. So the fighter was well within his rights, provided he was truly the only one involved in the killing of the opponent, to claim the book as his own, and do whatever he wanted with it. At the same time, the wizard would certainly be within his rights to hold that over the fighter's head in the future. "If you had let me copy <enter spell name here> from that book you looted before you destroyed it, I could have gotten you out of that mess without you going to jail and paying a 1k gold fine."
As far as repairing the book after being burnt, a make whole should bring it back completely as long it it wasn't completely destroyed, which would be difficult unless the fighter specifically set the individual pages on fire. A mend spell could probably fix minor damage on a page, but not restore any magical properties to the ink. Since at least the ink could be considered magical, the hardness and hp of the book should also be increased at least a little bit, as should possibly its resistance to fire. I would probably roll dice to see how many pages, if any, were damaged, and to what extent they were damaged, since your average spellbook, as a whole, would almost certainly be able to survive the scenario described in the op,even if some pages were badly singed or burnt. Than roll to see how many damaged pages actually had spells written on them at the time. From there, determine what spells were affected, allow mending to repair any "broken" pages, allow mend whole to restore any spells on "broken" pages, subtract the number of "destroyed" pages, and move on.
Ok,
I'll put it down to an honest mistake Phenri.
You seem to be under the impression that I was lumping all those 'what ifs' into one big string. I was not. I was pointing out that there are valid reasons why a fighter might not give the spell book to the wizard. The original statement was it was 'stupid' and there was 'never a good reason' not to give the spell book to the wizard. I was pointing out different scenarios where it might not make sense to give it to him. To clarify...
The fighter is LG, and the wizard is CN. However, the fighter believes the spell book has necromancy spells in it (which he is opposed to the use of).
OR
The fighter is CN and a greedy curr, and he managed to get the book first, so it's his. This is an RP situation, and it would be perfectly valid for the character to RP his fighter as refusing to give up his 'precious'.
OR
The fighter was off on his own (because he was the only player that showed up) and the GM ran him solo, he killed the wizard after a lot of plotting and fighting. Next week, everyone shows up, and the wizard screams for his 'precious' he had nothing to do with.
You are reading an awful lot into the base description of the events (with no details) and then telling me I am putting 20 ifs together into an outrageous story that beggars belief. I don't think so.
|
|
The fighter is LG, and the wizard is CN. However, the fighter believes the spell book has necromancy spells in it (which he is opposed to the use of).
So use being lawful stupid as an excuse to be a dick.
The fighter is CN and a greedy curr, and he managed to get the book first, so it's his. This is an RP situation, and it would be perfectly valid for the character to RP his fighter as refusing to give up his 'precious'.
And now we're being chaotic stupid to be a dick
The fighter was off on his own (because he was the only player that showed up) and the GM ran him solo, he killed the wizard after a lot of plotting and fighting. Next week, everyone shows up, and the wizard screams for his 'precious' he had nothing to do with.
Fine, IF this happened the wizard was ALSO being a dick. But the fighter is also being a dick still.
Using RP as an excuse to be a dick makes you an even bigger one.
|
It's perfectly reasonable for the other players AND the other characters to not trust the wizard with whatever power may have turned the recent NPC mad. It's perfectly reasonable for them to not trust the wizard with too many spells. It's also perfectly reasonable for a wizard to make his own dang spells if he feels like it.
No PC ought to feel entitled to anything looted off an enemy, ever.
It's perfectly reasonable for the other players AND the other characters to not trust the wizard with whatever power may have turned the recent NPC mad. It's perfectly reasonable for them to not trust the wizard with too many spells. It's also perfectly reasonable for a wizard to make his own dang spells if he feels like it.
No PC ought to feel entitled to anything looted off an enemy, ever.
Forget it, you can't reason with 'He's a WiZarD! He get's the spell books! Give him precious!'. I tried. No matter how reasonable you are, nor what situation, there are some people who are morally certain that the wizard get's all spells, no matter what.
Since the original question has been answered(use make whole to be sure) the original poster may not even be still reading this. If he or she is, maybe they will give details as to why the fighter might be acting this way.
As I've said, there are reasons to burn a spell book, but having killed the original owner with what they think is single handedly, isn't one of them.
|
|
It's perfectly reasonable for the other players AND the other characters to not trust the wizard with whatever power may have turned the recent NPC mad. It's perfectly reasonable for them to not trust the wizard with too many spells. It's also perfectly reasonable for a wizard to make his own dang spells if he feels like it.
No PC ought to feel entitled to anything looted off an enemy, ever.
I'm sorry, but this just leads to game breakdown. If you can't trust the other PLAYERS at the table, you have no buisness gaming together at all. If you character doesn't trust the other people you are entrusting your LIFE to, they honestly have no buisness adventuring together as well. However if playing I wanna be a dick makes your group happy because they can be emo and deep and stuff, go for it...but your still being a dick.
If you character doesn't trust the other people you are entrusting your LIFE to, they honestly have no buisness adventuring together as well.
Except that this is actually a fairly common trope, especially if you have parties with varying alignments and/or religions represented. Going so far as to actually try to destroy the spellbook is an extreme example, but still not all that far fetched given some of the parties I've been in. I have actually seen something very similar to this, so I have no problem imagining multiple reasonable scenarios that could have led up to the fighter's actions. The classic setup of thief, cleric, fighter, and wizard, when done with the more commonly held attitudes of how they should be played personality wise, in particular lends itselfs to such in party conflicts. Based on what some people seem to think the rogue and wizard is all about, I wouldn't want to play a cleric just because pretty much any character I would make would have a hard time justifying staying in the same party as them without constant DM intervention shaping the story in such a way that external pressure on the party was greater than the pressure coming from within.
The player part you were right about though; it is completely different when the players don't trust each other. It is possible to have complete trust between players, but have the characters being only in the same party because extreme conditions require it; the reverse, where the characters all implicitly trust each other, but the players can't stand each other, is not true.
I'm sorry, but this just leads to game breakdown. If you can't trust the other PLAYERS at the table, you have no buisness gaming together at all. If you character doesn't trust the other people you are entrusting your LIFE to, they honestly have no buisness adventuring together as well. However if playing I wanna be a dick makes your group happy because they can be emo and deep and stuff, go for it...but your still being a dick.It's perfectly reasonable for the other players AND the other characters to not trust the wizard with whatever power may have turned the recent NPC mad. It's perfectly reasonable for them to not trust the wizard with too many spells. It's also perfectly reasonable for a wizard to make his own dang spells if he feels like it.
No PC ought to feel entitled to anything looted off an enemy, ever.
You are continually conflating player with character. Nobody said you couldn't trust the players. It is, however, rather common for one character not to trust another character. Raistlin Magister was never trusted, not even fully by his brother (loved, but not trusted).
EDIT: And do you think you could possibly post a message without spewing 'You're a dick' all the time?
|
|
A blank wizards spellbook is 15GP. For 100 pages I would say it's just paper.15 gp isn't a lotto an adventure but its still a lot of money.
an average untrained worker earns 1sp per day. lets assume that someone earns 5 dollars an hour, that sets 1 sp= 40 dollars
15 gp * 10sp/1gp * 40 dollars/1sp= 6,000 dollars ... thats some high quality leather bound equipment there.
Lol! This is fun, the only thing you proved is how worthless the dollar is in relation to gold and silver!
|
|
Will mending work on a burnt object? The spell description says, "All of the pieces of an object must be present for this spell to function" -- if it's burned, then some pieces are gone (because they are now ash, not pieces).
There's also a bit about it not working on "warped or otherwise transmuted" objects, but I'm not sure if "transmuted" implies only by magical means. It's certainly possible to warp an object non-magically (we accidentally warped our host's ping-pong table last month, using it to block the sun -- DOH), and one could say an object burned up has been transmuted to ash.
(Between mending and comprehend languages, archaeology ought to be really easy in D&D. Faded inscription? Mending! Lost language? Comprehend languages!)
Hmm, Mending would be too good for the repair of a spellbook (at least in so far as learning/transcribing spells are concerned). However, Make Whole I would say could do it as the spell specifically mentions repairing magical items.
Mending should repair a single page, while Make Whole would fix the whole spellbook, unless the GM has ruled that the entire book is burnt to nothing more than ashes and charcoal. In that case, Limited Wish should fix the book, though a surer and cheaper method would be Polymorph Any Object to turn the pile of ashes back into a book.
This last method is the only reason any sane wizard would put Explosive Runes on his spellbook.
|
|
I'm sorry, but this just leads to game breakdown. If you can't trust the other PLAYERS at the table, you have no buisness gaming together at all. If you character doesn't trust the other people you are entrusting your LIFE to, they honestly have no buisness adventuring together as well. However if playing I wanna be a dick makes your group happy because they can be emo and deep and stuff, go for it...but your still being a dick.It's perfectly reasonable for the other players AND the other characters to not trust the wizard with whatever power may have turned the recent NPC mad. It's perfectly reasonable for them to not trust the wizard with too many spells. It's also perfectly reasonable for a wizard to make his own dang spells if he feels like it.
No PC ought to feel entitled to anything looted off an enemy, ever.
You are continually conflating player with character. Nobody said you couldn't trust the players. It is, however, rather common for one character not to trust another character. Raistlin Magister was never trusted, not even fully by his brother (loved, but not trusted).
Umm lyrax brought up that it was okay for players to not trust each other...so no confusion there. Playing with players you don't trust is just a horrible idea. As for characters...yeah it's a trope...but it's one that is best for books, not games. Games usually end badly using that trope.
Yeah, when the game gets to this point, many DMs add the Rod of Orcus, wait till the TPK and last character standing becomes an NPC, then next game night tell anyone who shows up how you run the game and give them new blank character sheets.
I'm thinking there is something ugly going on between the players of the Fighter and Mage. As I've said, Pathfinder is not designed for Player versus Player. Hackmaster is. I can't find much about controlling bad roleplayers in the Core Rulebook(Second printing) so it's your call. Good luck with all that.
|
I'm surprised certain individual haven't turned up to rant about how unpossible it is for the fighter to have killed the wizard, how how the OP is DOING IT WRONG.
If nobody else was there, and the fighter won the battle himself (and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems none of the other players even showed up for the session), it's his right to do whatever he damn well pleases with any treasure gained.
I would simply say DM Call, if he says ok, then go for it, if he says no kill the fighter (if you are the mage^^).
If you are the DM, it's total up to you, you can go RAW, but I would tell the player (if there were some nice spells in the book) they can use repair etc., like at a sundered magic weapon.
So the wizard has been standing around doing Sudokus during all combats? Even if he or she cast mirror image that's still drawing enemy fire. What, do they think the fighter drew the single combat card? A real detective would have both the fighter and wizard dragged into court for some truth spells.
|
|
Yes, I did say that not every player will trust the wizard player with every single spell in existence. Because I know some players who, if they get a spell that nukes the whole party, will use it.
Then you should not play with that player....or at least that player when they play a wizard. If you can't trust the other players or the DM, then a spellbook getting burnt isn't even remotely the real issue.
Yes, I did say that not every player will trust the wizard player with every single spell in existence. Because I know some players who, if they get a spell that nukes the whole party, will use it.
Fireball
Yaaaaaaaaaaa.... Me make room go BOOOOOOMMMMM !!!
So the wizard has been standing around doing Sudokus during all combats? Even if he or she cast mirror image that's still drawing enemy fire. What, do they think the fighter drew the single combat card? A real detective would have both the fighter and wizard dragged into court for some truth spells.
Court... What your 3rd level cleric .. does not pop a Zone of Truth down during Treasure Separation Time? Do you really trust that rogue, bard, and necromancer with your share of the loot!!