New Arcanist and consumable magic items?

[Aaron Mayhew]

Kinda weird question about the new Arcanist and his ability to consume magic items.

New Arcanist here.

If the Arcanist eats a magic item in a scenario, keeping in mind that he can only consume normally consumable magic items anyway, should those items be marked off the chronicle sheet since they're destroyed? Additionally I guess, if a party finds a magic item with charges during a scenario and they use all the charges during said scenario, should that item be marked off the chronicle since it's all used up?

[Starglim]

Aaron Mayhew wrote:

Kinda weird question about the new Arcanist and his ability to consume magic items.

New Arcanist here.

If the Arcanist eats a magic item in a scenario, keeping in mind that he can only consume normally consumable magic items anyway, should those items be marked off the chronicle sheet since they're destroyed? Additionally I guess, if a party finds a magic item with charges during a scenario and they use all the charges during said scenario, should that item be marked off the chronicle since it's all used up?

No to the second - therefore no to the first. Both access and value remain on the chronicle for items found and consumed in a scenario.

[CRobledo]

I would agree as well. I think the same is expected when a weapon or armor the PCs would find gets sundered. They can't use it in the scenario, but it's still on the sheet.

[Jiggy]

Indeed, a "consumed" scroll or potion is not more destroyed than if it were used normally (especially the potion!) so I see no reason to treat them differently.

[nosig]

here's a related corner case I have encountered.

A wizard and a witch in a group of PCs encounter a scroll of a spell they both can use, but don't have in their book/familiar.

The wizard wants to add it to his book (so this would use it) during the adventure and save himself some money in access fees.

The witch wants to add it to his familiar (so this would use it) during the adventure and save himself some money in access fees.

There is only one scroll... yet both PCs are able to add it?

[The Masked Ferret]

nosig wrote:

here's a related corner case I have encountered.

A wizard and a witch in a group of PCs encounter a scroll of a spell they both can use, but don't have in their book/familiar.

The wizard wants to add it to his book (so this would use it) during the adventure and save himself some money in access fees.

The witch wants to add it to his familiar (so this would use it) during the adventure and save himself some money in access fees.

There is only one scroll... yet both PCs are able to add it?

It would work if the Wizard scribed the spell first and then the witch learned it from him. The wizard cannot learn the spell if the witch learns the spell first.

[Tony Lindman]

Actually, witches are a strange case. What you describe works for a wizard and, say, an alchemist, since the alchemist can learn by reading the wizard's spellbook. Witches, OTOH, don't have that option. They can only learn from another witch, or by consuming a scroll. During the adventure, only one person can consume the scroll, so the other would be forced to by it afterwards.

[CRobledo]

The Masked Ferret wrote:

It would work if the Wizard scribed the spell first and then the witch learned it from him. The wizard cannot learn the spell if the witch learns the spell first.

Nope. Witch is witch-witch only. Maybe you are thinking of alchemist, which is one way (wizard->alch but not alch->wizard).

familiars can learn spells from scrolls but not spellbooks.

[The Masked Ferret]

Carlos Robledo wrote:

The Masked Ferret wrote:

It would work if the Wizard scribed the spell first and then the witch learned it from him. The wizard cannot learn the spell if the witch learns the spell first.

Nope. Witch is witch-witch only. Maybe you are thinking of alchemist, which is one way (wizard->alch but not alch->wizard).

familiars can learn spells from scrolls but not spellbooks.

Alchemist / Magus were the two I was thinking of. I guess the witch missed the train. Thanks Tony and Carlos for the corrections.

[nosig]

The Masked Ferret wrote:

Carlos Robledo wrote:

The Masked Ferret wrote:

It would work if the Wizard scribed the spell first and then the witch learned it from him. The wizard cannot learn the spell if the witch learns the spell first.

Nope. Witch is witch-witch only. Maybe you are thinking of alchemist, which is one way (wizard->alch but not alch->wizard).

familiars can learn spells from scrolls but not spellbooks.

Alchemist / Magus were the two I was thinking of. I guess the witch missed the train. Thanks Tony and Carlos for the corrections.

I don't see many Magus in my are. Alchemists and Witches are kind of common though...

Can an Alchemist copy from a Magus's book? (Like he can for a Wizards?)

[FLite]

I would say that corner case is more or less the same as finding a cure disease potion. Two people get infected, only one of them can use the potion, the other has to pay to be cured. (assuming the party doesn't have the ability to cure him.)

How you allocate that fairly is up to the table. (Though if two people get infected, and then the arcanist burns to potion for spell points, that would be a bit of a jerk maneuver.)

[CRobledo]

nosig wrote:

I don't see many Magus in my are. Alchemists and Witches are kind of common though...

Can an Alchemist copy from a Magus's book? (Like he can for a Wizards?)

AFAIK yes, specially since wizards and magi can copy back and forth.

Probably the same for Arcanist