|
Yes, you said that. Already got it. My counter argument was if the biggest threat to a Wizard's spellbook is arbitrary GM design, what good will a backup spellbook do? The GM can arbitrarily go after that as well. Backup spellbooks don't protect you from the GM. If you are presented with a scenario in which a spellbook could be lost regardless of GM action, then sure, keep a backup. Otherwise, why bother? If your GM is an arbitrary dick, just be a Sorcerer.
Except your position is what "There are absurd circumstances in which a spellbook could conceivable be worth ridiculously large amounts of money above normal so average thieves might randomly steal your spellbook or Barbarians attack your backpack?"
Wow, it makes sense now why you have been so wildly wrong throughout this thread.
It was a simple misunderstanding!
If you think that is what I have been saying, you are wrong. And I can totally see why if you thought that was what I was saying, you would think I was wrong. I have no idea why you thought that was what I was saying, but hey...
What I am saying, and have been saying throughout, is that there are circumstances where a wizard could have a spellbook destroyed, lost, or damaged. And that spellbooks are critical to a Wizard being able to contribute effectively.
Therefore is is prudent every Wizard take reasonable precautions to protect their spellbooks, which include keeping a back up spell book.
Now that I've corrected your clear misunderstanding of my position, I'm certain your next response will be a polite apology with a notation of agreement.
Glad we could work it out!
Huh. I really thought that was going to work.
It's like you have some sort of block that forces you to argue and argue.
Maybe you are wired like the bus in "Speed", only if you are actually agreeable and polite you will explode. But I don't think that is actually the case, no matter what you have been told.
But then again, if I were in your position, I wouldn't want to test that theory either...it is truly a conundrum you are in sir. My sympathies.
|
|
If you don't mind, I'd like to suggest you just state your point and move on. You're not going to change his mind. I happen to agree with your side more than his, but that doesn't mean that arguments over it are worthwhile for anything more than ragefests of posts that disappear once a mod gets to them. I'd rather see some new points from either side rather than the same ones bashing back and forth.
Respectfully there are no new points. It is a very simple equation.
One side says spellbooks are at play if they are left unprotected in the game and one says they are off limits.
The goalposts are getting tossed around to different places, but that is what it comes down to.
My issue with the other side is that many of them are also the people who are saying that Wizard's are nigh invincible. So on one thread you say. "X is far superior to all other classes!" and in the other thread you say "You can't target X's weakness!"
It's like saying superman is invincible, then when someone says "Kryptonite" you freak out an say there is no Kryptonite in the game.
Some people want to "win" and want the rules to always let them "win".
Stringburka,
What Cartigan is saying here follows the gamist/narrativist/simulationist split pretty heavily. Let me explain:
If a narrativist or gamist GM has decided to target your spellbook(s) for a narrativist or gamist reason, then having additional or redundant spellbooks is unlikely to help your character that much. In this Cartigan is quite correct.
If the GM is acting from simulationist motives, your precautions and redundancy matter an awful lot.
But the same argument can still be made in all other cases too. "there's no difference between having 5 and 15 hit points because if the DM wants you dead he'll just deal more damage to you". From a narrativist view, it's perfectly fine for the DM to narrate a theft of your travel spellbok but not of the three others hidden in various extradimensional spaces.
Loke this:
"My counter argument was if the biggest threat to a Wizard's spellbook is arbitrary GM design, what good will a backup spellbook do? The GM can arbitrarily go after that as well. Backup spellbooks don't protect you from the GM."
If someone had said that having 15 hp is better than 5, I could answer with:
"My counter argument was if the biggest threat to a character life is arbitrary GM design, what good will extra hit points do? The GM can arbitrarily go after those as well. Extra hit points don't protect you from the GM."
From a simulationist standpoint, stealing a spellbook doesn't make any sense; spellbooks worth nothing, and even without protection, risk are high.
Treat a spellbook as a collection of scrolls -- they're worth a fortune! Or am I missing something?
You realize that that makes no sense? The same arguments don't apply to the different philosophies.
Oh, I forgot that G, N and S were different random philosophy. My mistake.
From a simulationist point of view: random theft for money may be unlikely, but it's possible for a BBEG to commission such a theft. Even if it just slows the party down while they return home for a new copy, that could be valuable.
You should read the beginning of the thread: it's actually easier to kill the wizard than to steal the spellbook. The counter-argument was: "yeah, but random thief don't want to kill you". Then the counter-argument is: "but there's no incentive for a random thief to steal a random spellbook". Now your counter-argument is: "the BBEG may steal his spellbook instead of kill the character, even if the latter is easier?"... Err... Schtroumpf.
for the two other standpoint, just ask the DM to jump to the next cut-scene (the one in which you recover the spellbook).
You realize that that makes no sense? The same arguments don't apply to the different philosophies.Oh, I forgot that G, N and S were different random philosophy. My mistake.
I have no idea what you mean by that, other than that you're trying to be funny and dismissive. If you don't know they mean different things, why use the terms?
From a simulationist point of view: random theft for money may be unlikely, but it's possible for a BBEG to commission such a theft. Even if it just slows the party down while they return home for a new copy, that could be valuable.You should read the beginning of the thread: it's actually easier to kill the wizard than to steal the spellbook. The counter-argument was: "yeah, but random thief don't want to kill you". Then the counter-argument is: "but there's no incentive for a random thief to steal a random spellbook". Now your counter-argument is: "the BBEG may steal his spellbook instead of kill the character, even if the latter is easier?"... Err... Schtroumpf.
All of those discussions seemed to involve pickpocketing. Even wizards sleep at times. It might be easier for a thief to steal the book than to kill the wizard without waking him or his companions.
for the two other standpoint, just ask the DM to jump to the next cut-scene (the one in which you recover the spellbook).
Again, huh? Who mentioned cut-scenes?
From a simulationist standpoint, stealing a spellbook doesn't make any sense; spellbooks worth nothing, and even without protection, risk are high.
Stealing spellbooks makes a lot of sense since they're worth a lot if you don't have the spells. As in, if you don't have a spell you really want access to it. While the GP price is low, access isn't guaranteed - and especially, access isn't unlimited. Just because the standard price to copy Horrid Wilting is low, doesn't mean you have an easy time getting your hands on one. If the only wizard around who has it is an evil necromancer that has a personal vendetta against you, and still leaves his book badly protected, stealing might very well be the easiest way.
From a narrativist standpoint, stealing a spellbook doesn't make any sense; spellbooks worth nothing, and even without protection, risk are high.
Narrativist standpoints vary depending on what you want to narrate. It isn't an argument.
From a gamist standpoint, stealing a spellbook doesn't make any sense; spellbooks worth nothing, and even without protection, risk are high.
Or, from a gamist standpoint, a badly guarded spellbook might be the easiest way to get to the wizard. If you're going to attack the lair of the evil necromancer and he leaves his only spellbook on the table when he orders more beer, it's worth pretty gorramn much.
You should read the beginning of the thread: it's actually easier to kill the wizard than to steal the spellbook.
Easier to kill than to steal in combat, if he properly protects it, yes. Out of combat is another matter. And you could say that easily about anything. And there's many ways to steal a spellbook that may be possible by people who would not be as able at killing the wizard, especially out of combat. It's also the issue that killing a powerful person is more likely to bring unwanted attention than merely stealing stuff.
EDIT: It should be noted that we've actually had a character target a spellbook from a BBEG to stall a ritual. Granted they were only 4th level and the wizard only CR~9, but the same principles stand. Sometimes it's easier to target an object than a person, especially out of combat.
If you don't mind, I'd like to suggest you just state your point and move on. You're not going to change his mind. I happen to agree with your side more than his, but that doesn't mean that arguments over it are worthwhile for anything more than ragefests of posts that disappear once a mod gets to them. I'd rather see some new points from either side rather than the same ones bashing back and forth.Respectfully there are no new points. It is a very simple equation.
One side says spellbooks are at play if they are left unprotected in the game and one says they are off limits.
The goalposts are getting tossed around to different places, but that is what it comes down to.
My issue with the other side is that many of them are also the people who are saying that Wizard's are nigh invincible. So on one thread you say. "X is far superior to all other classes!" and in the other thread you say "You can't target X's weakness!"
It's like saying superman is invincible, then when someone says "Kryptonite" you freak out an say there is no Kryptonite in the game.
Some people want to "win" and want the rules to always let them "win".
Except no one is claiming Wizards are invincible. That's outside the scope of this thread and has only been brought up by people going "But he's all powerful if his spellbook can't be targeted!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stringburka,
What Cartigan is saying here follows the gamist/narrativist/simulationist split pretty heavily. Let me explain:
If a narrativist or gamist GM has decided to target your spellbook(s) for a narrativist or gamist reason, then having additional or redundant spellbooks is unlikely to help your character that much. In this Cartigan is quite correct.
If the GM is acting from simulationist motives, your precautions and redundancy matter an awful lot.But the same argument can still be made in all other cases too. "there's no difference between having 5 and 15 hit points because if the DM wants you dead he'll just deal more damage to you". From a narrativist view, it's perfectly fine for the DM to narrate a theft of your travel spellbok but not of the three others hidden in various extradimensional spaces.
Loke this:
"My counter argument was if the biggest threat to a Wizard's spellbook is arbitrary GM design, what good will a backup spellbook do? The GM can arbitrarily go after that as well. Backup spellbooks don't protect you from the GM."If someone had said that having 15 hp is better than 5, I could answer with:
"My counter argument was if the biggest threat to a character life is arbitrary GM design, what good will extra hit points do? The GM can arbitrarily go after those as well. Extra hit points don't protect you from the GM."
Yes, if your GM has decided to declare you dead, 5 or 15 HP don't matter. If the DM decides to declare you captured, no number of spells, Escape Artist ranks, or Strength ranks will help you. If the GM is dictating actions in the game narratively, there is no point being particularly good at anything. It's only once the game returns to what the game is ("simulation") that it makes sense that HP and Escape Artist and backup spellbooks make sense. The problem you then encounter is rarely, if ever, inside a game that is a "simulation" would your spellbook be lost or destroyed. There are certain games where that can happen. In those, yes, have a backup spellbook. But in games run by all the have a backup spellbook or else! arguers, there is no point. Most of them have already admitted if they want to remove your spellbook as part of the story (or just to spite you as in the case of ciretose), they will, so there is no point having a backup spellbook because some assassin's guild strike team can jump in and destroy/steal all of them.
Easier to kill than to steal in combat, if he properly protects it, yes. Out of combat is another matter.
You should read the beginning of the thread: it's actually easier to kill the wizard than to steal the spellbook.
Out of combat it is even EASIER to kill the Wizard because he won't be buffed and expecting someone to sneak up and shiv him while the spellbook will still be closed up in a bag on the Wizard's person.
Then it is agreed that in a simulationist game, targeting a spellbook is not a dick move -since it requires a sound reason on the GM's part, and the player can have plans, contingencies and protections that could thwart the attempt?
Out of combat it is even EASIER to kill the Wizard because he won't be buffed and expecting someone to sneak up and shiv him while the spellbook will still be closed up in a bag on the Wizard's person.Easier to kill than to steal in combat, if he properly protects it, yes. Out of combat is another matter.
You should read the beginning of the thread: it's actually easier to kill the wizard than to steal the spellbook.
In the case I mentioned where our rogue targeted the spellbook, it wasn't stolen but destroyed, by dropping an alchemist fire through a roof window when the wizard was preparing his spells. Granted, a few mooks had to give their lives, but the wizard itself was out of scope to kill in that situation. An alchemist fire effectively took care of the book and hurt the wizard though.
In the case I mentioned where our rogue targeted the spellbook, it wasn't stolen but destroyed, by dropping an alchemist fire through a roof window when the wizard was preparing his spells. Granted, a few mooks had to give their lives, but the wizard itself was out of scope to kill in that situation. An alchemist fire effectively took care of the book and hurt the wizard though.Out of combat it is even EASIER to kill the Wizard because he won't be buffed and expecting someone to sneak up and shiv him while the spellbook will still be closed up in a bag on the Wizard's person.Easier to kill than to steal in combat, if he properly protects it, yes. Out of combat is another matter.
You should read the beginning of the thread: it's actually easier to kill the wizard than to steal the spellbook.
Was the group allowed a perception check, even if it was behind the screen so they would not metagame.
off-topic:Some people have said books were made of material X back in the day. How many hp should the average spellbook have assuming no special materials are involved in the creation process? I know this is just opinion.
|
|
Then it is agreed that in a simulationist game, targeting a spellbook is not a dick move -since it requires a sound reason on the GM's part, and the player can have plans, contingencies and protections that could thwart the attempt?
Based on the fact that the link he used showed me saying more or less that, I guess we can.
Awesome!
|
|
Out of combat it is even EASIER to kill the Wizard because he won't be buffed and expecting someone to sneak up and shiv him while the spellbook will still be closed up in a bag on the Wizard's person.Easier to kill than to steal in combat, if he properly protects it, yes. Out of combat is another matter.
You should read the beginning of the thread: it's actually easier to kill the wizard than to steal the spellbook.
Because there is never combat with an unprepared Wizard...
|
|
Was the group allowed a perception check, even if it was behind the screen so they would not metagame.off-topic:Some people have said books were made of material X back in the day. How many hp should the average spellbook have assuming no special materials are involved in the creation process? I know this is just opinion.
In the very similar event I described earlier where the wizard decided to meditate when he was on guard duty, he was given a perception check, with a penalty of course since he wasn't guarding as he was supposed to and the attack started outside of the range of the alarm spell
In the very similar event I described earlier where the wizard decided to meditate when he was on guard duty, he was given a perception check, with a penalty of course since he wasn't guarding as he was supposed to and the attack started outside of the range of the alarm spell
Was the group allowed a perception check, even if it was behind the screen so they would not metagame.off-topic:Some people have said books were made of material X back in the day. How many hp should the average spellbook have assuming no special materials are involved in the creation process? I know this is just opinion.
That actually made sense to me, and I was surprised that he even took that risk. I think hearing him explain why he was not pulling guard duty would have been a good RP thing to watch, assuming he admitted it.
Was the group allowed a perception check, even if it was behind the screen so they would not metagame.
off-topic:Some people have said books were made of material X back in the day. How many hp should the average spellbook have assuming no special materials are involved in the creation process? I know this is just opinion.
The rogue was a PC, the wizard an NPC. But yes, the NPC got a perception check as did his guards.
Well, if it was made from paper, I'd say it'd be about an inch thick, so hardness 0 and 2 hit points. A leather cover would be hardness 2, 1 hit point or so. Fire and acid would deal full damage, while water would deal 1d4 hit points per round.
A book made of parchment would propably be far thicker, maybe 3 inches or so, with hardness 2, 15 hit points. Fire and acid would deal full damage, unsure about water. Would probably destroy the book if left in the tub over the night, but not from simply dropping it into water.
The normal spellbook is made of parchment.
|
|
That actually made sense to me, and I was surprised that he even took that risk. I think hearing him explain why he was not pulling guard duty would have been a good RP thing to watch, assuming he admitted it.In the very similar event I described earlier where the wizard decided to meditate when he was on guard duty, he was given a perception check, with a penalty of course since he wasn't guarding as he was supposed to and the attack started outside of the range of the alarm spell
Was the group allowed a perception check, even if it was behind the screen so they would not metagame.off-topic:Some people have said books were made of material X back in the day. How many hp should the average spellbook have assuming no special materials are involved in the creation process? I know this is just opinion.
He thought the Alarm spell would suffice and he wanted to use the time for both meditating and crafting, as there wasn't any other real down time. The DM also rolled to see what he was doing at that specific time.
Coup de grâce. It's far safer than just stealing the spellbook; unless the thief mysteriously knows what protection the spellbook has.All of those discussions seemed to involve pickpocketing. Even wizards sleep at times. It might be easier for a thief to steal the book than to kill the wizard without waking him or his companions.
That requires you to be able to take a full-round action adjacent to the wizard.
It's also the issue that killing a powerful person is more likely to bring unwanted attention than merely stealing stuff.
Yes, stealing Elminster's spellbook implies far less risk than killing him.
...
Wait. What?
Yeah, because all wizards are Elminster. Oh, wait; Golarion itself is pretty low on the really high-level characters.
And still, I'd say that yes, stealing the spellbook probably implies far less risk. In one case you'd have an epic-level mage going after you, and in the other you'd have Mystra going after you. The difference is slight, but still.
But anyway, in a campaign world where 9th level means a person is well-known, like Golarion, stealing his spellbook probably is less likely to cause everyone to go after you than killing is. Much like in the real world, what'chya call that? Simulationist?
But anyway, in a campaign world where 9th level means a person is well-known, like Golarion, stealing his spellbook probably is less likely to cause everyone to go after you than killing is. Much like in the real world, what'chya call that? Simulationist?
Instead of a murder mystery you have pissed off a 9th level Wizard AND everyone who knows him well enough to respond in the case of his death, if they could find his assassin.
Instead of a murder mystery you have pissed off a 9th level Wizard AND everyone who knows him well enough to respond in the case of his death, if they could find his assassin.
But anyway, in a campaign world where 9th level means a person is well-known, like Golarion, stealing his spellbook probably is less likely to cause everyone to go after you than killing is. Much like in the real world, what'chya call that? Simulationist?
Are you seriously suggesting the wizard's friend care more about if his spellbook are stolen than if their friend is killed?
Are you seriously suggesting the wizard's friend care more about if his spellbook are stolen than if their friend is killed?Instead of a murder mystery you have pissed off a 9th level Wizard AND everyone who knows him well enough to respond in the case of his death, if they could find his assassin.
But anyway, in a campaign world where 9th level means a person is well-known, like Golarion, stealing his spellbook probably is less likely to cause everyone to go after you than killing is. Much like in the real world, what'chya call that? Simulationist?
Are you seriously suggesting that a Wizard powerful, well-known, and well-respected enough to have people go after his killer couldn't convince people to aid him in rooting out someone who has stolen his spellbook? Oh, in addition to STILL BEING ALIVE to come after you.
Are you seriously suggesting that a Wizard powerful, well-known, and well-respected enough to have people go after his killer couldn't convince people to aid him in rooting out someone who has stolen his spellbook? Oh, in addition to STILL BEING ALIVE to come after you.Are you seriously suggesting the wizard's friend care more about if his spellbook are stolen than if their friend is killed?Instead of a murder mystery you have pissed off a 9th level Wizard AND everyone who knows him well enough to respond in the case of his death, if they could find his assassin.
But anyway, in a campaign world where 9th level means a person is well-known, like Golarion, stealing his spellbook probably is less likely to cause everyone to go after you than killing is. Much like in the real world, what'chya call that? Simulationist?
Of course he could, but despite pulling more weight than most, a simple theft might not be as highly prioritized on the guard's lists than a full-blown murder.
And in the example given above, where our party's rogue destroyed a spellbook - are you suggesting it would've been easier for him to kill the wizard than destroy the spellbook?
Of course he could, but despite pulling more weight than most, a simple theft might not be as highly prioritized on the guard's lists than a full-blown murder.Are you seriously suggesting that a Wizard powerful, well-known, and well-respected enough to have people go after his killer couldn't convince people to aid him in rooting out someone who has stolen his spellbook? Oh, in addition to STILL BEING ALIVE to come after you.Are you seriously suggesting the wizard's friend care more about if his spellbook are stolen than if their friend is killed?Instead of a murder mystery you have pissed off a 9th level Wizard AND everyone who knows him well enough to respond in the case of his death, if they could find his assassin.
But anyway, in a campaign world where 9th level means a person is well-known, like Golarion, stealing his spellbook probably is less likely to cause everyone to go after you than killing is. Much like in the real world, what'chya call that? Simulationist?
Guards do guard things, a well-respected person could gather people not amongst the guards to assist him. Would the guards investigate a murder of a 5th level character less than a 9th level? If so, who cares if he is a higher level well-known character?
And in the example given above, where our party's rogue destroyed a spellbook - are you suggesting it would've been easier for him to kill the wizard than destroy the spellbook?
A Wizard that didn't know he was coming and would be entirely unprepared for a fight? As easy as not.
Coup de grâce. It's far safer than just stealing the spellbook; unless the thief mysteriously knows what protection the spellbook has.
Rogue's can detect and remove magical traps. So it's not mysterious.
|
|
From a narrativist standpoint the GM is a dick unless the players have the opportunity to have equal contribution to the narrative. If that's the case the spellbook isn't going to be stolen unless the player also wants to do a stolen spellbook narrative.
From a gamist standpoint spellbooks can only be stolen from people who have spares. They're too hard to replace to not ruin the game otherwise. If the spellbook will be replaced, but the players don't know this it's still a dick move because in dickishness perception is reality.
From a simulationist standpoint it's a stupid move because it's bad economics. It's high risk low reward unless there's a buyer already lined up, which would only make sense if the book contains a spell that is for all intents and purposes unique in the setting and better for some purpose than any other spell available.
BBEGs stealing spellbooks are stupid BBEGs. I suppose a simulationist can have stupid BBEGs at low level, but an NPC shouldn't get to become a mid-level BBEG without showing some degree of competence in a simulationist game. Breaking every rule on the overlord list is for narratavists. In almost every case killing the wizard is easier. From a simulationist standpoint elements that a carried spellbook can be protected from by a spell on the bearer should have precautions of similar level of a permanent sort for books unless arcane spells were handed down by a/the god(s) and research is impossible. They're just such an obvious thing to research and hard to find a justification to bar other than "I as the GM want to be able to burn spellbooks."
This is utterly ridiculous.
From a "Narrative" point of view, the GM is telling a story the GM is writing. If that story involves stealing equipment of ANY kind, that equipment could, and likely would, include a spellbook if a class with spellbooks is in the party. I personally don't like the "Narrative" GM, as that is GM by fiat, but to say it couldn't happen is just silly.
From a "gamist" point of view, there are a series of rules in the game encouraging alternative ways to deal with not having a spellbook specifically because a spellbook may not be available to a wizard at times. It is a specific design weakness of the wizard class that they are not able to cast spells they don't memorize from a spellbook. To say it can only be stolen from those who have spares is like saying you can only cast shatter if they have another weapon, or you can only attack someone if they aren't flatfoots. To say a player should not have a weakness taken advantage of because they didn't protect that weakness is completely silly.
And finally, form a "simulationist" point of view, the view I most closely subscribe to, of course if a player doesn't protect any weakness they have, the BBEG is going to try and take advantage of that. If you only have one spellbook and I can get a mook to functionally nerf a high level wizard by throwing one alchemists fire potion into the room he using to meditate in the morning, I'm doing that. If all of the party loot is in a single poorly guarded bag of holding, including the wizards sole spellbook, of course that is poor planning that could be exploited.
The GM isn't there to coddle players who don't have the common sense to realize they are adventurers with enemies. If players take reasonable precautions or use basic common sense the GM shouldn't rule by fiat.
But if you leave your car unlocked in a crappy part of town, don't be surprised if it ain't there when you come back.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue's can detect and remove magical traps. So it's not mysterious.
Coup de grâce. It's far safer than just stealing the spellbook; unless the thief mysteriously knows what protection the spellbook has.
In GâtFromKI's world, all of the rogues have given up stealing because it is just to risky.
In fact, monsters just run from adventurers, because it would be madness to confront them.
The BBEG usually just bakes the players cookies and begs for their mercy.
|
|
Are you seriously suggesting that a Wizard powerful, well-known, and well-respected enough to have people go after his killer couldn't convince people to aid him in rooting out someone who has stolen his spellbook? Oh, in addition to STILL BEING ALIVE to come after you.
Why that sounds like a quest hook, doesn't it.
Imagine that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you seriously suggesting that a Wizard powerful, well-known, and well-respected enough to have people go after his killer couldn't convince people to aid him in rooting out someone who has stolen his spellbook? Oh, in addition to STILL BEING ALIVE to come after you.Why that sounds like a quest hook, doesn't it.
Imagine that!
Thereby proving my point that if a GM wants to take your book, they will so why bother with backups in such a world?
|
|
Thereby proving my point that if a GM wants to take your book, they will so why bother with backups in such a world?
Are you seriously suggesting that a Wizard powerful, well-known, and well-respected enough to have people go after his killer couldn't convince people to aid him in rooting out someone who has stolen his spellbook? Oh, in addition to STILL BEING ALIVE to come after you.Why that sounds like a quest hook, doesn't it.
Imagine that!
You keep using that word "prove". I don't think it means what you think it means.
I played in a game where the GM had a sword in a stone with writing on the stone indicating that it was full of great power and pulling the sword would unleash a great evil.
On the way to the swords everyone but the fighter was incapacitated, and he couldn't read the languages on the stone. He could have waited until some of us were able to recover so we could translate for him, but he didn't and pulled the sword.
This lead to a year long quest involving the attempted rebirth of an evil demigod.
Did the GM make him pull the sword? Nope. The quest would have gone a completely different direction if he didn't pull it. In fact it was supposed to go a different direction as what he thought would happen would be that we would find the sword then need to protect it until we could deactivate the evil.
But the fighter pulled it without reading the words and consequences ensued.
If you don't use common sense, it has consequences.
Thereby proving my point that if a GM wants to take your book, they will so why bother with backups in such a world?
Are you seriously suggesting that a Wizard powerful, well-known, and well-respected enough to have people go after his killer couldn't convince people to aid him in rooting out someone who has stolen his spellbook? Oh, in addition to STILL BEING ALIVE to come after you.Why that sounds like a quest hook, doesn't it.
Imagine that!
You keep using that word "prove". I don't think it means what you think it means.
I played in a game where the GM had a sword in a stone with writing on the stone indicating that it was full of great power and pulling the sword would unleash a great evil.
On the way to the swords everyone but the fighter was incapacitated, and he couldn't read the languages on the stone. He could have waited until some of us were able to recover so we could translate for him, but he didn't and pulled the sword.
This lead to a year long quest involving the attempted rebirth of an evil demigod.
Did the GM make him pull the sword? Nope. The quest would have gone a completely different direction if he didn't pull it. In fact it was supposed to go a different direction as what he thought would happen would be that we would find the sword then need to protect it until we could deactivate the evil.
But the fighter pulled it without reading the words and consequences ensued.
If you don't use common sense, it has consequences.
Are you suggesting the Wizard gives his spellbook away to start a quest? I don't think you understand that your example doesn't relate to the argument.
Even better, your aesop doesn't even make any sense given your example. Common sense is don't touch anything you can't read? Is that what you are going for? Is it "Don't touch ANYTHING in D&D unless the Wizard Analyzes Dweomer on it first?" If the point you are trying to convey is not "Be exceedingly paranoid or else," I don't even remotely know what point you are going for.
Anyway, if you want to argue about risks: the sword of a level 9 fighter worth more than three spellbook, is easier to steal, and implies less risk. If the thief want to minimize the risks, why does he bother about the spellbook? Oh, yeah, because the character has an unique spell that anyone can gain by leveling...
We're still not talking about some random pickpocket, I'm talking about someone commissioning the theft because he needs spells in the spellbook or because he hates the wizard (though in that case, he commissions the destruction of the spellbook).
I've given an actual game example where our rogue DID go for the spellbook, and I still haven't seen any response to why it would be more prectical for him to go after the actual mage.
We're still not talking about some random pickpocket
This.
A wizard's spellbook can be targeted for theft for a number of different reason. Granted, "to sell it for cash" is clearly the least profitable.
It can be used for blackmail, for example: steal it to force the wizard to comply with some strange request (craft me a golem, go slay my rival, enchant my weapon, cast some spells for me). And, before you even mention it: yes, this angers the wizard and no, this does not mean that he will sudden mobilize half of his resources and friends to lay certain death on who stole the spellbook. That's revenge, and not all characters are keen to go such lengths: perhaps the wizard is a traveling adventurer with no time to lose, perhaps he is famous for being a NG pacifist-wussy, perhaps he is an enchanter blackmailed by undeads, perhaps the "evil guy" is a reasonable person far more powerful than the wizard. Call it "kindapping", evil guys do it most of the time -only that instead of kidnapping a disciple, a son or an old friend you are kidnapping an object.
Another way a wizard might lose his spellbook is if it's "checked at the door" while entering some dangerous area. Going to jail? Entering the demiplane of a powerful lich asking for "parley"? Travelling through a big, xenophobic metropolis who hates tieflings (and you are one)? Being part of a neutral-aligned adventuring party and asking for permission to enter some LG outer plane? A fighter will be "asked" to part with his weapons, a cleric with his holy symbol and a wizard with his spellbook. Pretty simple. Not all characters will comply, sure, but in those situations such a request is not a "dick move"
Closely related to the "blakmail" scenario is the situation in which one character (or the whole party) falls on his knees and begs for mercy instead of being killed. Sure, maybe goblins are so dumb and cruel to either accept with glee their new 6th level wizard slave or slay him outright, but perhaps a balor or a red great wyrm can be far more cunning than that, and ask for a "token of submission".
Fighter? Hand over that weapon (all the weapons, on second though).
Cleric? Hand me that holy symbol.
Wizard? Give me your spellbook.
If there is a sound, in-game/in-character reason for some NPC to -try- to go after a wizard's spellbook (or a fighter's +10 weapon or a cleric's holy symbol), I don't get why an GM shouldn't let that NPC -try- to get it.
Of course, whether the NPC actually -succeeds- or not depends on the PC and his plans for such an occasion.