What is the point of Spellbooks?


Advice

1 to 50 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

So, is there any upside to the Spellbooks as done now? Other then a runner can have them go missing for short bursts of time for a plot reason, they seem pointless as is.

If you leave it alone it just feels odd, like there is this one undestroyable item.

If you mess with them the Wizards becomes a non PC until he gets it back, or at least a temporary one. Any other gear you can destroy/damage/whatever and a PC can muddle through with a different one. Weapons can be replaced with less cool ones, holy symbols can be made on the fly if the party puts there mind to it, most games isn't too hard to find some type of armor to fit a PC, the list goes on. Burn a spell book and it comes to a grinding halt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To get players of wizards to shell out gold for spells and spare spellbooks, that they otherwise would spend on other stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's basically no point except to give bad GMs an excuse to be dicks to their players. Same as the Paladin code or any other completely boolean way to remove a class's abilities.

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Genre convention.


Flavor.

I guess it's also a gold-sink as ericthetolle pointed out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A basic wizard needs it to cast spells... He has to spend an hour each day studying his spell book to prepare his daily allotment.


DajellyMan wrote:
A basic wizard needs it to cast spells... He has to spend an hour each day studying his spell book to prepare his daily allotment.

I believe he was asking "is there a good reason for including this mechanic?" as opposed to how the mechanic worked. I'm not a fan of spell books myself. I'd like to think my guy with 22 intelligence could remember the important points of something he's been doing daily for the past few decades.


ericthetolle wrote:
To get players of wizards to shell out gold for spells and spare spellbooks, that they otherwise would spend on other stuff.

You could have the cost there to learn without the spellbooks, so it isn't really the same thing.

DajellyMan wrote:
A basic wizard needs it to cast spells... He has to spend an hour each day studying his spell book to prepare his daily allotment.

The hour is there for pretty much every caster, not tied to the spellbook.

@Choaseffect - Yes, what you said.


i like my spell book. its there for rp reasons that being said i see your point and would like it to have a use like maybe

cast spell out of then like a scroll this would mean you lose that spell from the book but what if it was a npc spell book that you pickup with spell you already had that would be cool


Cant you do that anymore? In early D&D you could use spell books as essentially scrolls.


I'd rather see a move to turn spellbooks into 4E-style ritual books, with rituals being something anyone could pick up with the right feat(s).


i don't think you can any more not past 2nd but i would love to have it back


Book of scrolls? That would be incredibly awesome actually... come to think of it we never consider the dead wizard's spell book as loot(possibly because none of us are prepared Arcane casters) and the DM never mentions it. I think that's going to change this Thursday; those spells have to be worth something to someone!


lock wood wrote:

i don't think you can any more not past 2nd but i would love to have it back

Ah, I see. Whoops - another thing we do wrong. :p


that make me sad i play the party wiz and would kill to see a spell book drop but all we ever fight are sorc and and fighter types


chaoseffect wrote:
Book of scrolls? That would be incredibly awesome actually... come to think of it we never consider the dead wizard's spell book as loot(possibly because none of us are prepared Arcane casters) and the DM never mentions it. I think that's going to change this Thursday; those spells have to be worth something to someone!

You can also copy new spells out of an enemy's book to learn them yourself. I like the idea of using a spellbook to cast spells similar to a way they do it in ADOM ;P.

You would have to do something like make a concentration check, let's say DC 15 or 20 + spell level, similar to a UMD check. You would be able to cast the spell without using up a spell slot or something. You could roll d% every time you cast out of the book to see if it disappears.


lock wood wrote:
i like my spell book. its there for rp reasons that being said i see your point and would like it to have a use like maybe

Be simpler to just not have it. And simple seems good.

Steve Geddes wrote:
Cant you do that anymore? In early D&D you could use spell books as essentially scrolls.

Not since 2nd. I'm not even sure you could then.

chaoseffect wrote:
Book of scrolls? That would be incredibly awesome actually... come to think of it we never consider the dead wizard's spell book as loot(possibly because none of us are prepared Arcane casters) and the DM never mentions it. I think that's going to change this Thursday; those spells have to be worth something to someone!

Isn't the value in the SRD or something?

DajellyMan wrote:

You can also copy new spells out of an enemy's book to learn them yourself. I like the idea of using a spellbook to cast spells similar to a way they do it in ADOM ;P.

You would have to do something like make a concentration check, let's say DC 15 or 20 + spell level, similar to a UMD check. You would be able to cast the spell without using up a spell slot or something. You could roll d% every time you cast out of the book to see if it disappears.

They already have rules for it, an ability of some Oracles.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/oracle/mysteries/paizo---oracl e-mysteries/lore

I'd really like to see the spellbook be a function of the class instead of a requirement. A wizard can fill one in an hour at no cost kind of thing.


The revelation you're referring to is pretty bad actually. Once per day at level 11 you can use a spellbook to cast a Wiz/Sorc spell using one of your slots that is one level higher than the spell from the book... and then the spell is deleted.

There is indeed a value for selling spell books. It never occurred to me before this thread though.


dunelord3001 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Cant you do that anymore? In early D&D you could use spell books as essentially scrolls.
Not since 2nd. I'm not even sure you could then.

Yeah, I never played 2nd edition. I meant AD&D.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Genre convention. Same reason that there are still dwarves, gnomes, and halflings.

2. World immersion. A wizard's game utility comes from his vast repertoire of spells. A library he doesn't have instant daily access to. If it were all "in his head", he'd be a sorcerer archetype, not a class. Therefore, he needs somewhere to put his spells that's not "in his head", to make him a wizard instead of a sorcerer. (See below for direct response on this topic)

3. To create non-death risk for a sub-set of PCs. Actually, the whole group, since losing your wizard's spellbook is a major blow to the whole party. Assuming he only carries one (or they all get stolen).

If the above isn't reason enough, strip spellbooks out, but keep the costs associated with non-automatic "new spells". The costs are intentionally there as a WBL sink to offset the power of expanded options.


BillyGoat wrote:

1. Genre convention. Same reason that there are still dwarves, gnomes, and halflings.

2. World immersion. A wizard's game utility comes from his vast repertoire of spells. A library he doesn't have instant daily access to. If it were all "in his head", he'd be a sorcerer archetype, not a class. Therefore, he needs somewhere to put his spells that's not "in his head", to make him a wizard instead of a sorcerer. (See below for direct response on this topic)

3. To create non-death risk for a sub-set of PCs. Actually, the whole group, since losing your wizard's spellbook is a major blow to the whole party. Assuming he only carries one (or they all get stolen).

If the above isn't reason enough, strip spellbooks out, but keep the costs associated with non-automatic "new spells". The costs are intentionally there as a WBL sink to offset the power of expanded options.

#3 is a bug not a feature. It's a drawback that you can't use without completely trashing the character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Completely trashing?

He could have it stolen and then the party has to chase the thief down to get it back. Or he could get a new one - it's not much different from having to craft a new weapon if your fighter's +5 falchion is stolen.

A Wizard is ridiculously powerful in the hands of a skilled player, so having a him temporarily depowered isn't automatically a bad thing. A bookless wizard could still contribute with wands and scrolls until he gets a new book, right?

And it's not like it's something that would normally happen anyway. Enemies in battle aren't going to say, "Let's focus all our attacks on the wizard's spellbook. It won't stop him killing us with fire, but it will really inconvenience him tomorrow!"


this is why you don,t target a spell book or fighters +5 sword

and as for the scrolls and wands most wiz i see do not use them(that being said most people i see playing a wiz are just bad at it)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Spellbooks add a fun dimension to a Wizard, both from an RP standpoint and a vulnerability standpoint.

Bad things should happen to characters. It's one of the ways you make interesting stories. If a Wizard looses his spellbook, that is an opportunity for fun RP and an epic adventure to retrieve it and/or rebuild his repertoire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Atarlost,

why don't you just tell us the sad tale behind this flood of vitriol?

****

This thread, and several others discuss ways to protect your spellbook.

IMHO, spellbook protection should be a major part of RPing a wizard.


I'm not entirely clear what you're asking about.
Are you asking about the point of the physical spellbook?
Or of the basic mechanic of the prepared caster who has a list of spells he can choose to prepare? The witch uses the same mechanic, but with a familiar instead of a spellbook. Is that the same problem?
A book seems like a reasonable thing to keep track of what spells you have access to. I suppose you could get rid of the physical object and allow wizards to keep the spells in their heads, but still keep the preparation mechanics: They'd know many spells and could prepare them from memory, but still only be able to prepare so many to cast at a time.
They could still learn from scrolls or be taught by other wizards for a cost, but would never find the treasure trove of another wizard's spell book.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I agree that the costs are there for balance, and one interesting aspect my friends and I have used once is a generational character system. It definitely requires planning ahead of time to maintain balance, but access to your great grandfather's spellbook can make for some interesting RP aspects, especially as it still costs materials to copy.

On a side note, I do not remember the last time I have seen a book or game that uses spell books the way Pathfinder/D&D does that isn't based on Pathfinder or D&D, which makes the genre convention argument get weird.

Seriously though, a wizard with knowledge of a target and time to prepare will have a higher chance of taking them out than any other class if they have been keeping up with their spells. The vulnerability and limitations of the book also encourage cunning wizards to grab spell mastery or some of those wizard only replacement feats in Ultimate Magic. Finally it allows the capture of enemy spells to supplement your own. My players actually caught on to a major plot point when they realized that the fact the enemy they took out did not have some of the spells they were running into in his books indicated there was another strong caster arrayed against them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dunelord3001 wrote:

So, is there any upside to the Spellbooks as done now? Other then a runner can have them go missing for short bursts of time for a plot reason, they seem pointless as is.

It's the price you pay for having access to potentially every arcane spell in the game:

Sorcerers have a limited number of spells known, and they have to jump through tons of hoops and expend resources to learn more. But they don't have to protect them, they'll always know them.

Wizards have an unlimited number of spells "known" and it's trivially easy to pick up new spells. In exchange, they store those known spells in a book that can be lost or destroyed or stolen.

I really don't know if it balances out in the end (though I feel like wizards actually have the advantage.) But it is an understandable tradeoff.

The real question is: Why DON'T divine casters have spellbooks?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Akerlof wrote:
dunelord3001 wrote:

So, is there any upside to the Spellbooks as done now? Other then a runner can have them go missing for short bursts of time for a plot reason, they seem pointless as is.

It's the price you pay for having access to potentially every arcane spell in the game:

Sorcerers have a limited number of spells known, and they have to jump through tons of hoops and expend resources to learn more. But they don't have to protect them, they'll always know them.

Wizards have an unlimited number of spells "known" and it's trivially easy to pick up new spells. In exchange, they store those known spells in a book that can be lost or destroyed or stolen.

I really don't know if it balances out in the end (though I feel like wizards actually have the advantage.) But it is an understandable tradeoff.

The real question is: Why DON'T divine casters have spellbooks?

Flavor.

Clerics gain spells by devotion, not by scholarship.

In mechanical terms, it's part of the tradeoff for a generally less potent spell list. Or at least one more suited to support.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think the reason divine casters avoid spellbooks is twofold, beyond flavor. First, comparing the spells an arcane caster gets with those a divine caster gets, it should be noted that the arcane caster is far more flexible and has spells that require major expenditures by divine casters to even compare to. Permanency and Fabricate are two of the most useful spells I have run across when trying to get through something that can't be evaporated through damage. And thejeff's post just popped up on my screen, so not much point in continuing my end of it.


Pretty much every wizard I've had in quite a few years in my games has done two things regarding spellbooks. First, they always kept a duplicate hidden somewhere else. Second, they generally cultivated an ally or two and made a reciprocal SHTF agreement (i.e., I'll help you if you lose your spellbook and vice versa). Things like this are the kernels around which guilds and the like grow.


It's pretty much just there because of tradition. They're pretty much all downside.


Zhayne wrote:
It's pretty much just there because of tradition. They're pretty much all downside.

So what's the alternative? Only spontaneous casting?

Or some way to keep prepared casting without a physical object?
Allow arcane prepared casters access to all spells like divine prepared casters have?


thejeff wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
It's pretty much just there because of tradition. They're pretty much all downside.

So what's the alternative? Only spontaneous casting?

Or some way to keep prepared casting without a physical object?
Allow arcane prepared casters access to all spells like divine prepared casters have?

My personal preferred alternative would be that you need the spellbook to change spells, but not to refresh them.

Only spontaneous casting would work for me, too. 'I know these spells. I can cast these spells a lot' fits my view of how magic would work better than 'fire and forget'. I did that in 3e and it worked just fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
therealthom wrote:

Atarlost,

why don't you just tell us the sad tale behind this flood of vitriol?

****

This thread, and several others discuss ways to protect your spellbook.

IMHO, spellbook protection should be a major part of RPing a wizard.

I object not because my ox has been gored, but because class features that exist solely to render characters impotent are wrong.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
Only spontaneous casting would work for me, too. 'I know these spells. I can cast these spells a lot' fits my view of how magic would work better than 'fire and forget'. I did that in 3e and it worked just fine.

So your mages could only learn to cast a few spells without outside help? Kind of a 'I have studied evocation exclusively, so we must seek the Tome of Blasé-blasé if I am to divine the answer for you'?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Democratus wrote:

Spellbooks add a fun dimension to a Wizard, both from an RP standpoint and a vulnerability standpoint.

This is a definition of fun with which I am completely unfamiliar.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So your mages could only learn to cast a few spells without outside help? Kind of a 'I have studied evocation exclusively, so we must seek the Tome of Blasé-blasé if I am to divine the answer for you'?

Something like that, yes. I banned the prep-casters entirely, so the spont casters (Sorcerer, Spirit Shaman, Favored Soul etc) were the only game in town.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

C'mon Zhayne, don't rag on different playstyles.

Anyway, I could go for a game like that. Makes GMing casters much easier. Did you allow paladins and rangers to spontaneously cast?


TriOmegaZero wrote:

C'mon Zhayne, don't rag on different playstyles.

Anyway, I could go for a game like that. Makes GMing casters much easier. Did you allow paladins and rangers to spontaneously cast?

Paladins were also banned (too entwined with alignment, which I also wasn't using) and Rangers used the non-spellcasting variant from .. Complete Champion, maybe?


Zhayne wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

C'mon Zhayne, don't rag on different playstyles.

Anyway, I could go for a game like that. Makes GMing casters much easier. Did you allow paladins and rangers to spontaneously cast?

Paladins were also banned (too entwined with alignment, which I also wasn't using) and Rangers used the non-spellcasting variant from .. Complete Champion, maybe?

i have played in game like this and they always fail now you may have had made it work if so good job

but there are many of us that hate spontaneously casters
the reason for my dislike is you become way to limited

in what you can prepare for. a wiz job is to solve problem by trying to get a hold of as may spell as he can.


lock wood wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

C'mon Zhayne, don't rag on different playstyles.

Anyway, I could go for a game like that. Makes GMing casters much easier. Did you allow paladins and rangers to spontaneously cast?

Paladins were also banned (too entwined with alignment, which I also wasn't using) and Rangers used the non-spellcasting variant from .. Complete Champion, maybe?

i have played in game like this and they always fail now you may have had made it work if so good job

but there are many of us that hate spontaneously casters
the reason for my dislike is you become way to limited

in what you can prepare for. a wiz job is to solve problem by trying to get a hold of as may spell as he can.

Which is one of the things that makes a wizard an overpowered class, which I consider a bad thing. In other words, what you just said was a big part of WHY I did it.


There are preconstructed spellbooks that do interesting things, adding special effects to the wizard employing them and such. It's an option under the Magic section on the D20 PFSRD.

Personally I enjoy my wizard's spellbook for flavor reasons. I've just had a conversation w/my GM over email today; he was reminding me that the versatility of the spontaneous caster could be mine, if only I'd follow these steps:

1. Leave a spell-slot open
2. re-read my spellbook for 15 minutes

Now, to the OP's point clerics don't need to deal w/this minutiae. Why wizards? Well, thematically it makes some sense to some players that instead of praying to a deity to fill their spell slots, they instead have a book that they "worship" for an hour. Now clerics have a holy symbol they can't afford to lose; wizards have their spellbooks. Its not perfect, but this is what we have at the moment. What to replace them with I wonder?


Atarlost wrote:
BillyGoat wrote:

1. Genre convention. Same reason that there are still dwarves, gnomes, and halflings.

2. World immersion. A wizard's game utility comes from his vast repertoire of spells. A library he doesn't have instant daily access to. If it were all "in his head", he'd be a sorcerer archetype, not a class. Therefore, he needs somewhere to put his spells that's not "in his head", to make him a wizard instead of a sorcerer. (See below for direct response on this topic)

3. To create non-death risk for a sub-set of PCs. Actually, the whole group, since losing your wizard's spellbook is a major blow to the whole party. Assuming he only carries one (or they all get stolen).

If the above isn't reason enough, strip spellbooks out, but keep the costs associated with non-automatic "new spells". The costs are intentionally there as a WBL sink to offset the power of expanded options.

#3 is a bug not a feature. It's a drawback that you can't use without completely trashing the character.

I disagree. You still have the spells you have prepared for the day, and there is always the choice of using spell mastery and other options for spending spell slots for effect without a spell in the slot.

They aren't always great options but they are there, and these are just the most obvious choices too. Borrowed spellbooks and the like can also allow for play too as can staves and the like.

This isn't to say it's easy... but again it is far from impossible. Heck just because you steal some of a given wizard's spell books doesn't mean you have stolen all of them. At higher level unless you have a blessed book you might lose some of your collect without lossing all of it.


I think Wizards should get 1 spell they can prepare without their spell book every time they level. Plus all cantrips, the basis of the wizardly arts, should be free to prepare as well. So a 5th level wizard could prepare 5 different spells from memory, plus all his cantrips.

The feat that allows you to prepare your Int modifier worth of spells without the book should be totally supplemental to these spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lock wood wrote:

this is why you don,t target a spell book or fighters +5 sword

and as for the scrolls and wands most wiz i see do not use them(that being said most people i see playing a wiz are just bad at it)

No offense meant, but I can't see the difference between targeting a spellbook, a +5 weapon, or the character's hit points. If I'm successful in targeting any of them, then the character is taken out of the game at least temporarily.

This could be extended to ability score damage, negative levels, etc.

The idea "targeting things that make the character less effective" is antithetical to roleplaying. If it's on your character sheet, and I only go after it within the agreed rules framework, it's fair game.

To be clear, I'm not trying to say that you're telling me I can't do hit point / ability score damage to a character. I'm saying I don't see a difference between your spellbook/equipment, and your hit points, ability scores, or levels.


BillyGoat wrote:
lock wood wrote:

this is why you don,t target a spell book or fighters +5 sword

and as for the scrolls and wands most wiz i see do not use them(that being said most people i see playing a wiz are just bad at it)

No offense meant, but I can't see the difference between targeting a spellbook, a +5 weapon, or the character's hit points. If I'm successful in targeting any of them, then the character is taken out of the game at least temporarily.

This could be extended to ability score damage, negative levels, etc.

The idea "targeting things that make the character less effective" is antithetical to roleplaying. If it's on your character sheet, and I only go after it within the agreed rules framework, it's fair game.

To be clear, I'm not trying to say that you're telling me I can't do hit point / ability score damage to a character. I'm saying I don't see a difference between your spellbook/equipment, and your hit points, ability scores, or levels.

The difference, particularly with the spellbook, is that you can wind up with a character who's alive and active, but at only a fraction of his normal effectiveness. And this can, depending on circumstances, last for multiple sessions.

Hit point damage either kills you or gets cured. Either way, you're not tagging along with the party, practically useless for a few game sessions.
A serious curse or heavy ability damage before the group has a way to remove it can do the same thing - make the character and the game not fun to play for an extended time. Later on, killing a character and not letting the player run a temporary character until they get back to town and can get him raised is a similar, though even worse, issue. Assuming it takes significant real time, not just by the end of the session.


chaoseffect wrote:
Book of scrolls? That would be incredibly awesome actually... come to think of it we never consider the dead wizard's spell book as loot(possibly because none of us are prepared Arcane casters) and the DM never mentions it. I think that's going to change this Thursday; those spells have to be worth something to someone!

I think that might be the whole point of the book, at least in the sense that you can use it to get new spells. It is a way for a wizard, which is a caster that values its ability to learn just about any arcane spell, to get new toys and feel like they are getting something other than gold as loot.

The fact that he has the same mechanics as the wizard he stole the book from is just a part of the game's draw. Everyone plays by the same rules. Plus of course flavor reasons.


Two reasons :
Balance - you can't have all spells or carry all books
Control. If Dm do t want you to posses a spell - you won't .

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depending on your campaign you might also have rarity for spells being harder to get from supplements.

I have also had divine casters need to obtain prayer books for spells outside the core book as well, this adds some extra book keeping for the divine casters, but adds interesting flavour when they chase down that elusive prayer book for the spells they were after.

That and the prayer book might not be for their god. :)

This is a rpg choice, and I count any money spent on the prayer books as part of their tithing to the church.

And old Angband or moria if you know the single player version of the ascii dungeon crawl had books for each of the classes to learn their spells from.

1 to 50 of 187 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / What is the point of Spellbooks? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.