That's my take on the argument, and I find it quite logical.I would certainly hope that you find your own point of view to be logical, but saying that doesn't really lend weight to your argument.
English isn't my main language, so sometimes I misuse expressions. What I wanted to say was "that is how I understood his argument", not that it was my argument. Thus the last sentence.
|
Your logic is poor. I already quoted the relevant rules for damaging attended objects with energy, and I already pointed out that you may have to target said object directly with a spell, rather than indirectly.Really? That's your argument? You quoted the end of the spell saying what the spell does to objects and cite that in response to my critique that the spell specifically says it only damages unattended objects.
Actually, it says
"A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does."
So unless you are holding it (or I guess wearing it) it is unattended. And if it is attended, it gets your wonderful wizard reflex save to take half damage...Paper is 0 hardness with 2 hit points per inch.
Did it suddenly become a creature, since you admit it is attended? IF the answer is no, it takes no damage.
|
|
Some folks can't even count how many characters they've made...
Seriously? You can't count how many times your party has been framed? I would think after the third time, the authorities would just let you go.
Seriously.
I'm currently running 4 different campaigns and playing in between 2 and 8 (Some of them we haven't played in months or even years and may just be dead at this point, hence the "between". Still some go through year gaps until the DM says "Hey, I miss (blank) and it starts up again...)
They range from Mutants and Masterminds, Dark Heresy, Abberant, old 3.5, Microlite, to D20 modern.
And I'm not even in half of the games my friends run with each other that we chat about over beers on poker night.
So three times something happened, not that often actually.
|
|
Did it suddenly become a creature, since you admit it is attended? IF the answer is no, it takes no damage.
So unless you are holding it (or I guess wearing it) it is unattended. And if it is attended, it gets your wonderful wizard reflex save to take half damage...Paper is 0 hardness with 2 hit points per inch.
What part of "Unless you are holding it" is unclear to you? Do you generally wield your spellbook on the battlefield?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/damaging-objects#TOC-Saving-Throw s
I would give you the page, but considering your contempt for Paizo I suspect you don't own the books.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Cartigan, if a creature in the area of effect of a fireball or the breath attack of a dragon suffers damage and fails her save, then the items she carries also need to make saves. In earlier editions of the game, various types of materials had different saving throws against different kinds of punishment. Glass was pretty good against lightning, but not so good against falling damage. Parchment was just the opposite. In Pathfinder, the object needs to save at the owner's saving throw, and unattended objects always fail the save. Most spells do half damage against most objects, but a GM can decide that some objects take full damage from particular attacks, which also bypass their hardness.
|
|
So three times something happened, not that often actually.He's just being sad in a corner pushing emotional buttons instead of participating in a discussion.
Otherwise he'd have replied to my statement himself.
I bet there are a lot of other wonderful things we could discuss that he's not presently trying to dominate...
I don't know, this discussion has it's own charm.
And it gives me lots of things to reference back to in other threads when the tangent goes elsewhere and the other side is suddenly the vogue of the day to argue.
"Didn't you say this about that in the other thread" (LINK!)
Did it suddenly become a creature, since you admit it is attended? IF the answer is no, it takes no damage.
So unless you are holding it (or I guess wearing it) it is unattended. And if it is attended, it gets your wonderful wizard reflex save to take half damage...Paper is 0 hardness with 2 hit points per inch.
What part of "Unless you are holding it" is unclear to you? Do you generally wield your spellbook on the battlefield?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/damaging-objects#TOC-Saving-Throw s
I would give you the page, but considering your contempt for Paizo I suspect you don't own the books.
Is a spellbook not worn because it is not directly tied to your back though it is in the backpack being worn?
Cartigan, if a creature in the area of effect of a fireball or the breath attack of a dragon suffers damage and fails her save, then the items she carries also need to make saves. In earlier editions of the game, various types of materials had different saving throws against different kinds of punishment. Glass was pretty good against lightning, but not so good against falling damage. Parchment was just the opposite. In Pathfinder, the object needs to save at the owner's saving throw, and unattended objects always fail the save. Most spells do half damage against most objects, but a GM can decide that some objects take full damage from particular attacks, which also bypass their hardness.
ciretose and mcbobbo take note - this is what is called relevant information in support of your argument. As opposed to ignoring what the rules state and just otherwise saying silly things (like a spellbook in a worn backpack isn't attended)
|
Cartigan, if a creature in the area of effect of a fireball or the breath attack of a dragon suffers damage and fails her save, then the items she carries also need to make saves. In earlier editions of the game, various types of materials had different saving throws against different kinds of punishment. Glass was pretty good against lightning, but not so good against falling damage. Parchment was just the opposite. In Pathfinder, the object needs to save at the owner's saving throw, and unattended objects always fail the save. Most spells do half damage against most objects, but a GM can decide that some objects take full damage from particular attacks, which also bypass their hardness.ciretose and mcbobbo take note - this is what is called relevant information in support of your argument. As opposed to ignoring what the rules state and just otherwise saying silly things (like a spellbook in a worn backpack isn't attended)
So check it out. Even when he's wrong, he's right! Pure win!
|
|
Cartigan, if a creature in the area of effect of a fireball or the breath attack of a dragon suffers damage and fails her save, then the items she carries also need to make saves. In earlier editions of the game, various types of materials had different saving throws against different kinds of punishment. Glass was pretty good against lightning, but not so good against falling damage. Parchment was just the opposite. In Pathfinder, the object needs to save at the owner's saving throw, and unattended objects always fail the save. Most spells do half damage against most objects, but a GM can decide that some objects take full damage from particular attacks, which also bypass their hardness.ciretose and mcbobbo take note - this is what is called relevant information in support of your argument. As opposed to ignoring what the rules state and just otherwise saying silly things (like a spellbook in a worn backpack isn't attended)
I never said a backpack was unattended. I said that if you get hit by a fireball while meditating, your spellbook is probably toast. One of the many reasons why halfway decent wizards have backup spellbooks.
Is this your way of saying you were wrong?
Cartigan, if a creature in the area of effect of a fireball or the breath attack of a dragon suffers damage and fails her save, then the items she carries also need to make saves....
Only if they roll a natural "1" on their save, and even then, only one item rolled randomly from the top 4 on a list takes damage.
I never said a backpack was unattended. I said that if you get hit by a fireball while meditating, your spellbook is probably toast. One of the many reasons why halfway decent wizards have backup spellbooks.Cartigan, if a creature in the area of effect of a fireball or the breath attack of a dragon suffers damage and fails her save, then the items she carries also need to make saves. In earlier editions of the game, various types of materials had different saving throws against different kinds of punishment. Glass was pretty good against lightning, but not so good against falling damage. Parchment was just the opposite. In Pathfinder, the object needs to save at the owner's saving throw, and unattended objects always fail the save. Most spells do half damage against most objects, but a GM can decide that some objects take full damage from particular attacks, which also bypass their hardness.ciretose and mcbobbo take note - this is what is called relevant information in support of your argument. As opposed to ignoring what the rules state and just otherwise saying silly things (like a spellbook in a worn backpack isn't attended)
What? Why? How? What if you close your spellbook as part of your reflex save? Is having it in the backpack attended but not holding it?
Everything you own is toast if you play by the rules and take an AoE.
No, it is reductio ad absurdum. Which in this case is not a logical fallacy. You made the statement that a caster cannot cast if the spell component pouch in sundered. The only way that could be true is if the contents of the pouch were also destroyed, as no spell I know of needs a "spell component pouch," which therefore makes your argument destroying the container destroys the contents (reductio ad absurdum).
I never argued that everything in a container that is destroyed is also destroyed. Those are your words and your strawman, not mine.
There should be a variant of Godwin's Law that deals with using Latin phrases to appear to be smarter than one really is.
I never claimed all contents of a container are destroyed when the container itself is. I did, however say that sundering a spell component pouch or divine focus is an effective anti-caster tactic. To keep you from picking nits to the exclusion of the meat of the arguement, I will amend my statement to say "sundering a divine focus or spell component pouch will effectively shut down most casters (that don't have the Eschew Materials feat or the Birthmark Trait)".
It makes sense that an incinerated scroll tube would also destroy the scrolls therein, or a shattered potion bottle would effectively ruin any potions or oils inside, but that is not the point of sundering a spell component pouch.Then what, exactly, is?
How are your reading skills? For like the 4th or 5th time, to hinder the ability of an arcane caster (without the Eschew Materials feat) from effectively casting spells. Bending over to pick up a material component from the ground is a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity. Moving away from the 5' square where the contents of said pouch were spilled is even more of a hinderence.
Again, "Broken"=/"Destroyed". Broken is just "below 1/2 hit points" and thus gaining the "broken" condition. Destroyed is "zero HP or less". You can't fight with a destroyed sword nor pick a lock with destroyed thieves's tools. You shouldn't be able to cast spells or channel energy with a destroyed divine focus either.Good thing I was referring specifically and explicitly to a broken holy symbol then, huh? For example of a strawman, see your argument about destroyed items in reply to my statement which began with accepting the argument about destroyed items.
So this is Cartigan-speak for "I admit I was wrong"? Awesome!
|
|
I never said a backpack was unattended. I said that if you get hit by a fireball while meditating, your spellbook is probably toast. One of the many reasons why halfway decent wizards have backup spellbooks.Cartigan, if a creature in the area of effect of a fireball or the breath attack of a dragon suffers damage and fails her save, then the items she carries also need to make saves. In earlier editions of the game, various types of materials had different saving throws against different kinds of punishment. Glass was pretty good against lightning, but not so good against falling damage. Parchment was just the opposite. In Pathfinder, the object needs to save at the owner's saving throw, and unattended objects always fail the save. Most spells do half damage against most objects, but a GM can decide that some objects take full damage from particular attacks, which also bypass their hardness.ciretose and mcbobbo take note - this is what is called relevant information in support of your argument. As opposed to ignoring what the rules state and just otherwise saying silly things (like a spellbook in a worn backpack isn't attended)
What? Why? How? What if you close your spellbook as part of your reflex save? Is having it in the backpack attended but not holding it?
Everything you own is toast if you play by the rules and take an AoE.
If you are sitting on a rock, studying your spellbook and a fireball hits you, then yes I think there is a decent chance it will be damaged.
If it is in your backpack, not as likely. Particularly in a handy haversack, which is an extra-dimensional space.
Much like if your familiar is on your lap, the fireball may have an effect on it.
YMMV. Is your GM on the Paizo boards?
So this is Cartigan-speak for "I admit I was wrong"? Awesome!
Clap yourself on the back for also being wrong while you are applauding yourself.
So this is Cartigan-speak for "I admit I was wrong"? Awesome!Clap yourself on the back for also being wrong while you are applauding yourself.
I have often been wrong in life, and gladly admit to it when proven to be so.
Now if you'll just point me to the part of this discussion where that's applicable, I'll, um, pat myself on the back for you.?
I never said a backpack was unattended. I said that if you get hit by a fireball while meditating, your spellbook is probably toast. One of the many reasons why halfway decent wizards have backup spellbooks.Cartigan, if a creature in the area of effect of a fireball or the breath attack of a dragon suffers damage and fails her save, then the items she carries also need to make saves. In earlier editions of the game, various types of materials had different saving throws against different kinds of punishment. Glass was pretty good against lightning, but not so good against falling damage. Parchment was just the opposite. In Pathfinder, the object needs to save at the owner's saving throw, and unattended objects always fail the save. Most spells do half damage against most objects, but a GM can decide that some objects take full damage from particular attacks, which also bypass their hardness.ciretose and mcbobbo take note - this is what is called relevant information in support of your argument. As opposed to ignoring what the rules state and just otherwise saying silly things (like a spellbook in a worn backpack isn't attended)
What? Why? How? What if you close your spellbook as part of your reflex save? Is having it in the backpack attended but not holding it?
Everything you own is toast if you play by the rules and take an AoE.
If you are sitting on a rock, studying your spellbook and a fireball hits you, then yes I think there is a decent chance it will be damaged.
If it is in your backpack, not as likely. Particularly in a handy haversack, which is an extra-dimensional space.
Much like if your familiar is on your lap, the fireball may have an effect on it.
YMMV. Is your GM on the Paizo boards?
If we are playing by the rules that state a spellbook you are holding or carrying is destroyed by a fireball, you are going to come away from that attack with several fewer hit points and completely naked, unless you are armored. Then it will be rather uncomfortable.
So this is Cartigan-speak for "I admit I was wrong"? Awesome!Clap yourself on the back for also being wrong while you are applauding yourself.I have often been wrong in life, and gladly admit to it when proven to be so.
Now if you'll just point me to the part of this discussion where that's applicable, I'll, um, pat myself on the back for you.?
You among others can't admit to being wrong if it means I am right. Just like you completely blew through my acceptance that you can't channel through a destroyed holy symbol and completely ignoring anything about the broken condition.
|
|
Cartigan, if a creature in the area of effect of a fireball or the breath attack of a dragon suffers damage and fails her save, then the items she carries also need to make saves....Only if they roll a natural "1" on their save, and even then, only one item rolled randomly from the top 4 on a list takes damage.
I think that is a house rule, but I could be wrong
"Energy Attacks
Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects."
"Saving Throws
Non-magical, unattended items never make saving throws. They are considered to have failed their saving throws, so they are always fully affected by spells and other attacks that allow saving throws to resist or negate. An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character's saving throw bonus).
Magic items always get saving throws. A magic item's Fortitude, Reflex, and Will save bonuses are equal to 2 + half its caster level. An attended magic item either makes saving throws as its owner or uses its own saving throw bonus, whichever is better."
Now we don't usually use this rule unless someone is doing something dumb...you know like exposing a spellbook.
I think that is a house rule, but I could be wrongCartigan, if a creature in the area of effect of a fireball or the breath attack of a dragon suffers damage and fails her save, then the items she carries also need to make saves....Only if they roll a natural "1" on their save, and even then, only one item rolled randomly from the top 4 on a list takes damage.
You misunderstand flame-baiting.
Now we don't usually use this rule unless someone is doing something dumb...you know like exposing a spellbook.
Enforcing rules or not enforcing rules on a whim just to screw over players is an epic dick move.
You're creating a strawman by assuming I mean AoE responses. I'm just saying that a wizard moving through a crowded town may not be at combat readiness to deal with a determined...In-game reasoning? Perhaps the thieves don't want to kill. Not everyone is as homocidal as PCs. Besides that, if they get way with loot they win. Fighting isn't necessary for profit, and this scenario is best when the wizard is busy with distractions and has limitations on his response (like being in a crowded city).That is, however, an option. Sunder the backpack and then either take it (assuming the straps were cut) or grab up something that falls to the ground (if the bag itself is cut). Works best in-game with two cutpurses working together, and isn't really stealthy - more of a bum rush and run away with the goods.This strategy make no sense from an in-game perspective.
Destroying/stealing/whatever the spellbook doesn't do anything to the wizard at the moment; it has an effect only the next morning.
Therefore, destroying/stealing/whatever the spellbook during fight makes no sense: you are using action to do nothing while the wizard is using action to kill you.
and that's assuming the spellbook is in the backpack, and there's no backup, and... So what? The first cutpurse is sacrificing his life to allow the second to maybe weaken the wizard the next morning - if he doesn't have backup?
The point he is making is that it is basically a suicide mission. Adventurers are not to be played with. There is no good reason to accept that mission.
Why is the wizard's response limited? Hold person and charm person work well. It is not like he needs an AoE. Most groups dont split up so you still have to deal with the other party members. There may also be city guards. I figure the GM would say there are city guards if the PC's unleash a fireball, so there should be guards when people rob the NPC's.
The AoE was an example since you were not specific. I never attributed to you as a specific answer.
The adventurers and normally jacking up someone's plans to do bad things. It would only make sense for the bad guy to target them in return so why should they split up?Overkill/lethal, who is using strawmen now. I listed hold and charm person as appropriate responses.
PS:Who is going to arrest the PC's if they do kill someone. Is it the same guards that are allowing them to be robbed?
I have a serious, non-rhetorical question, and I would be over the moon if anyone actually answers it seriously:
Who has actually had their character's spellbook stolen/sundered/otherwise destroyed in a game of Pathfinder or any edition of D&D?
Would you please describe the circumstances in which this happened?
Never. I can't think of reasonable way to do it as a GM either without GM Fiat. I also have yet to have a reasonable way explained to me or a good reason to do so.
The Gold Objection-The fighter's sword sells for more money, and he has less class skills, and likely a lower wis score. That means his perception is likely to be less than a wizard. He might also be in full plate, meaning he is slower, not that I advocate jumping a fighter either, just saying.
PS:That was not directed at you DQ, just an observation.
edit:My reply only applies to "stolen".
So three times something happened, not that often actually.He's just being sad in a corner pushing emotional buttons instead of participating in a discussion.
Otherwise he'd have replied to my statement himself.
I bet there are a lot of other wonderful things we could discuss that he's not presently trying to dominate...
Are you really suggesting a save for every item a PC has in a backpack for every fireball? I think items in a backpack are attended. In any event the backback is providing cover so you have to bypass the backpack anyway.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Only if they roll a natural "1" on their save, and even then, only one item rolled randomly from the top 4 on a list takes damage.
TwoWolves, I'm happy to be corrected. Could you tell me where to find that rule, because I can't find it in the obvious place (damaging equipment, in the Combat chapter).
Cartigan, if a creature in the area of effect of a fireball or the breath attack of a dragon suffers damage and fails her save, then the items she carries also need to make saves....Only if they roll a natural "1" on their save, and even then, only one item rolled randomly from the top 4 on a list takes damage.I think that is a house rule, but I could be wrong
Automatic Failures and Successes: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure, and the spell may cause damage to exposed items (see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw, below). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.
You then go to the "Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks" which is in the magic chapter.
1st Shield
2nd Armor
3rd Magic helmet, hat, or headband
4th Item in hand (including weapon, wand, or the like)
5th Magic cloak
6th Stowed or sheathed weapon
7th Magic bracers
8th Magic clothing
9th Magic jewelry (including rings)
10th Anything else
I removed some posts that made things too personal. Can we please stop trying to get the last word on each other?
You're arguing on the Internet. Try to keep things in perspective.
That means we win right?
Interesting that it specific magical clothes. Could you not be wearing non-magical clothes (as most people would probably be)? Is that 10? Then normal clothes are less likely to be fried than magical clothes?
Weird table.
That means we win right?
Interesting that it specific magical clothes. Could you not be wearing non-magical clothes (as most people would probably be)? Is that 10? Then normal clothes are less likely to be fried than magical clothes?
Weird table.
All else being equal, games generally prefer allowing players to keep their pants, unless Hideo Kojima is somehow involved.
All else being equal, games generally prefer allowing players to keep their pants, unless Hideo Kojima is somehow involved.That means we win right?
Interesting that it specific magical clothes. Could you not be wearing non-magical clothes (as most people would probably be)? Is that 10? Then normal clothes are less likely to be fried than magical clothes?
Weird table.
Hideo Kojima D&D - "You must wear your opponent's pants to fight this battle."
|
|
Moving aside from the discussion of why fireball should be extinct from every wizard that uses it losing their spellbook to the ensuing wildfire and back to the theft angle for a moment, who would buy a used spellbook?
Wizards who lost their spellbooks, obviously.
You do realize they are listed for sale with prices, right?
Stealing from wizards and not killing them is bad news, the market for secondhand spellbooks is going to be poor.
Stealing from anyone and not killing them...
The argument that is being made (not to be confused with the strawmen being put forth...) is that a wizard should take reasonable precautions to protect their spellbook, as they are A) very valuable to the wizards, B) Fairly fragile.
And if they don't, fair game.
Much in the same way if the party leaves a big pile of gold sitting back at the inn unguarded while they are off adventuring because "It's too heavy to carry" they shouldn't be surprised if it goes missing before they come back.
|
|
Stealing from anyone and not killing them...The argument that is being made (not to be confused with the strawmen being put forth...) is that a wizard should take reasonable precautions to protect their spellbook, as they are A) very valuable to the wizards, B) Fairly fragile.
And if they don't, fair game.
Much in the same way if the party leaves a big pile of gold sitting back at the inn unguarded while they are off adventuring because "It's too heavy to carry" they shouldn't be surprised if it goes missing before they come back.
Casters have resources non-casters lack. Locate Object is only the beginning.
So tell me. How does the thief or buyer know the wizard doesn't have permanencied symbol spells or sepia snake sigils hidden in his spellbook? How does the thief know the owner can't cast instant summons or even just locate object?
How does your NPC thief know a given spellbook is safe to steal or not? If the answer is because the GM is using out of character knowledge then the GM is, to use the OP's term, a dick. If the answer is that the thief is an arcane trickster capable of neutralizing such precautions then the next question is why bother? If the answer is that the wizard needs to be taken down a notch then the GM is a dick.
Just because sale prices are given for pre-filled spellbooks does not mean they will sell for those prices if the prices don't make sense. Most wizards are NPCs. They don't lose their spellbooks adventuring because they don't adventure. They either already have most of the spells in a random book or aren't high enough level to cast them anyways. PCs see fixed prices for convenience and game balance, but if NPCs don't operate as if they lived in a sane economy that's a failure of world building. This goes hand in hand with PCs selling things for half price while NPC shopkeepers can sell them to the PCs for full price.
I am not fighting your strawmen. The prices are given because they are the prices. That would be like saying "No one will buy that +1 sword, it clearly belonged to a powerful warrior!"
Thieves steal things. If the player puts some or all of the protections you listed on the spell, problem solved.
If not, well it is hard to cast locate object without a spellbook, isn't it?
You talk about realistic world building and then argue your God Wizard wouldn't make the effort to have a 2nd spellbook.
Come on...
Casters have resources non-casters lack. Locate Object is only the beginning.
That's a poor beginning, being able to sense the direction of your spell book for a minute per caster level isn't all that scary.
So tell me. How does the thief or buyer know the wizard doesn't have permanencied symbol spells or sepia snake sigils hidden in his spellbook?
If only rogues could find magical traps....
How does the thief know the owner can't cast instant summons or even just locate object?
If the thief is holding the item, instant summons doesn't actually summon, it gives a idea "roughly where that creature is located when the summons occurs", which is pretty useless.
How does your NPC thief know a given spellbook is safe to steal or not?
Again, Rogue's can detect magical traps, and disable them, trapping your spell book isn't a particularly scary deterrent. And scrying spells aren't that strong.
|
|
I am not fighting your strawmen. The prices are given because they are the prices.The problem is: you didn't even look at the price, because you're still playing in AD&D 2 and think spellbook are valuable. They aren't. Let's consider the spellbook of a level 5 wizard, and let's say it contains:
That's less than a +1 weapon. The +1 weapon implies less risk and is easier to steal.
- 20 level 1 spells: 300 gp.
- 10 level 2 spells: 600 gp.
- 4 level 3 spells: 540 gp.
- Total: 1440 gp.
Why would anyone bother to steal this spellbook In pathfinder? (I don't bother about the spellbook Harry Potter stole from Gandalf, since I'm talking about Pathfinder)
Look at the rules, and you'll see that a spellbook can't cost more than 13 380 gp (my previous calculation was off because I didn't include the cost of purchasing the spells).
The base price of a blessed book is 12,500.
A normal spellbook has 100 pages. Spells take a page per level. So if you are above 7th level or so you need a blessed book just to hold all the spells you know.
If you know a spell another wizard wants to know...well your spellbook value goes up to whatever that wizard is willing to pay.
In one of the APs there is an exclusive spell you can learn, and it says in the plot that this spell is more or less priceless to other wizards (and it is, as it is functionally immortality.)
You don't think someone might want to acquire that spellbook?
|
|
In one of the APs there is an exclusive spell you can learn, and it says in the plot that this spell is more or less priceless to other wizards (and it is, as it is functionally immortality.)
You don't think someone might want to acquire that spellbook?
In one AP there's a spellbook worth stealing. If you know the spell is in it. In every other AP there's really no reason for someone to want to steal a spellbook.
The thing you're missing is the network effect. Every wizard that has precautions increases the risks for the spellbook thief. They can't know whether a given wizard has those precautions or not.
Symbol of Scrying cannot be detected or disarmed by trapfinding. It doesn't care that it's being carried by someone under the effects of nondetection. Maybe there are precautions, but non-wizards aren't likely to learn them by trial and error when the first error brings the city watch down on them.
Even just an arcane mark is a beacon to detect magic unless the thief happens to have a lead lined or inch thick metal box to stick the book in. Stealing anything magical from people who might have flying familiars they can share spells with is pretty much suicidal unless you're in an absurdly corrupt city where the guards are more likely to defend thieves than their victims.
These sorts of things create a general reputation. Bad things happen to people who rob wizards and clerics. Maybe not all the time, but frequently enough. Robbing a wizard that hangs out with 2-3 other PC classed people with elite array or better is Darwin award material.
So your argument is that your wizard doesn't need to take precautions because other wizards take precautions and so people would be afraid to rob you.
Just like there is no crime in Texas, because some people may be carrying guns.
Yeah...
Just like there is no crime in Texas, because some people may be carrying guns.
The way the NRA and pro-gun advocates talk, you would think so.
But that's neither here nor there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The base price of a blessed book is 12,500.
A normal spellbook has 100 pages. Spells take a page per level. So if you are above 7th level or so you need a blessed book just to hold all the spells you know.
As I pointed out to Cartigan earlier, so too shall I point out to you. A wizard may simply learn secret page and write multiple spells overtop one another. Each time you use the spell you can create a new page worth of text, and it specifically notes that you can put spells upon spells in the spell description. In short, a wizard can happily fit his entire repertoire in a single standard nonmagical spellbook, hiding his good spells behind his cantrips if he desires, and using magic aura to disguise the existence of the magic. In many cases, this can actually lead to a wizard who has a spellbook worth many times what it appears to be worth at first glance.
"Ahh, damnit, it's just a basic spellbook full of cantrips and a handful of first level spells.", while in reality it is actually filled to the proverbial brim with countless spells that the wizard has transcribed within, and is also a blessed book, 'cause magic aura is cool like that.
Likewise, keeping it in a box, bag, coat, or merely locking the cover closed, ensures that there is no LoS/LoE to the pages vs dispel magic or similarly naughty tricks. Of course, I prefer to keep my main spellbook somewhere nice and safe at higher levels, while using traveling spellbooks elsewhere. Sometimes keeping a couple of spellbooks around is a good option, especially since there are now boons you can get from spellbooks; making them worth carrying (the book of harms is absolutely nasty, as a 9th level wizard can pop a 25 damage magic missile using a 1st level slot 1/day if he willingly takes an average of 2.5 damage).