The last assumption is not completely valid.
And I am talking about campaing specific assumptions, Every city and every NPc are part of a specific campaing.
The listed price tell you that buying such item is possible, but hte actual avaliability of the item totally depends of the campaing.
Now, it is reasonable that you can buy a given scroll In a city, or you can go to your mentor that freely give you some other spell or whatever, but it is not a neccesity.
By that logic is that the availability of anything is campaign specific, in which case, both methods of learning spells (from a scroll or from copying spell books) are exactly as common as each other, that is: "As common as your GM says it is".
In which case, the point is moot, because it applies to literally everything in the whole game. What's the point of requiring Aerinlyth to provide a citation that Wizards are assumed to learn spells by copying spellboks instead of spending scrolls if there is no citation saying they are assumed to use scrolls either?
Both assumptions are exactly as valid as each other... Except that the far more effective method would logically be much more common precisely because it's so much more effective.
If anything, Aerinlyth's way of obtaining spells is far more likely. Why would guys with genius-level intellect not use the more effective way of doing something? Why would anyone?
Availability , the Optimised path isn't always available, but as you say that is is variable, but the reason it needs to be brought up is when someone brings it up as Justification for a statement, that things should or shouldn't be a certain way because we have the optimized method. That's why you'll always have folks who peek in and mention that having an optimized method is not justification for any argument because it's a variable.
This whole discussion basically stemmed from how much you lose taking PrC, based on amount of spells gained, basically the value of 2 free spells and how much it means to lose them.
The argument was raised that it means very little because this Optimized method is available. Then pointed out that you can't argue the value of the spells based on the assumption that the optimized method is always available.
So in short, yes, argueing for all one method or the other is just as valid as the other, but it's effect on a third party situation does become an issue if someone is operating on the assumption of it always being one or the other.
|
So things that annoy me about the Paizo and 3.5 PrCs
1- Multiclass PrCs that require practically 4 levels in two different classes. Cause usually the two classes are so different that they don't really stack well together without the PrC levels. Example would be Arcane trickster and going Sorcerer and Rogue. You'd have to be a level 4 sorc, level 3 rogue.
Now I know there are optimal ways and sub optimal, but honestly, level 7 to get there? Its just that by that time, you're levels Bab and all sorts of things have suffered so much you can't fit in anymore really.
2 - Grab bag PrCs - Basically these are PrCs that just are stuffed to the brim with random things. They often have garbage requirements like "You have to be good." but over all the class has no real reason to be. And the abilities and powers are everywhere too.
1) Copying spells is a business transaction. You can hire a scribe to do it for whoever requests it, collect your fee, and be happy. You don't have to let him at 'your' spellbook, just 'a' spell page. The result is the same.
indeed, with your fees from copying, you can probably afford an extra spellbook or three just for your clients.
2) As was pointed out, the fact wizards are assumed to learn extra spells from scrolls...
Citation needed.
3) As above, the fact wizards are paranoid about others copying their spells and won't do it, despite the fact there's baseline costs already worked out in the assumption the practice is widespread and common...
Citation needed.
4) Since those citations don't exist, but the costs of copying spells directly do, and they are MUCH cheaper then buying scrolls and converting them, it is entirely in the favor of copying spells to adjudicate that the most efficient method of acquiring/disseminating spells is the one that is used.
------
For any DM that thinks they are going to lose control of their game, let me kindly point out that first and last, anything beside the core games is considered DM prerogative. The game and all publications assume Core is the overarching primary principle rule.
It is entirely in the DM's prerogative to absolutely deny the commonality of any spells outside core to both players and NPC's. Losing control of the game to broken spells is a definite threat, and no, no player should have absolute ability to draw any spell from anywhere.
But the game assumes all wizard/sorcs have access to the core spells to draw upon, it assumes wizards will amass a large number of spells to take advantage of the fact they are prepared casters, and it assumes wizards are going to use common sense and use the core rules to acquire spells in the cheapest manner possible.
If the above assumptions are not true, then the rules are changed and we're all not talking about the same game.
==Aelryinth
Wizard will learn spell by whatever method they have at hand. Copying from spellbook or spending scroll. It depends on case by case.
That's beside the point.
A lto of wizards tend to be Isolated. Other tend to be paranoic with other wizard stealing their precious spellbooks. Other wizard might just kill you and steal your spellbook, because they are stronger and they can. Or whatever.
If you play a wizard will you handle your spellbook to whatever stranger asking it to you?
Wizards who belong to the same guild and share spells and knowledge is a trope just as common as isolationist Wizards. And you don't need to give them your main spellbook, mae a copy. Every Wizard with half a brain cell will keep at least a couple copies of his spellbook, so might as well make one just for his clients.
You are right that both assumptons are equally valid in the sense that they are both equally arbitraly, What I am trying to say is that you can not generalize the way you play and the setting you play to other people games and settings.
All that can be said is taht under "X" and "Y" you could do this or that, wich can become true or not depending on the specific game.
I'm not generalizing anything. Neither is Aelryinth.
Aelryinth pointed a better way of obtaining spells. One covered by the rules. People asked for a citation saying it was possible, even though there is no citation about the alternative either.
He didn't suggest cheating or a shady abuse of RAW. He suggested a very legitimate way of doing things, and people are acting as if it were any less valid than the way they do it. And as I pointed out before, the fact that the method he suggested is far more effective means it's much more likely to occur.
I never say it was not posible. But somethig that depend enterely on the specifically campaing shouldnot be taken out of context as a rule. And if for some reason it is an actual rule then It would be a terrible one (like making WBL a hardcore rule).
Everything depends on campaign/setting/GM. Literally everything. From which weapons you can buy to what races you can play. Hell, even rules vary with campaign/setting/GM! That point is moot.
EDIT: and to explain myself better, I am not against a wizard borrowing spellbooks, I am against taking as geeral soething that depend on case by case
It varies on a case by case scenario just as much as everything else. There are listed prices for Wizards paying to copy spellbooks just like there are listed prices for buying any other tool in the game. Saying Wizards can in fact copy spell books is not any closer to generalization than saying Fighters can buy magic swords.
I think its really silly that people are saying that copying a spellbook might not be an option. That same argument can be applied to everything. Its as much applicable to magic items in general as even weapons of a certain type. DM Fiat is not an argument. The DM can say no to anything. It makes him look like a jerk though.
I don't find a lot of DMs telling the Fighter that they don't have his Focused weapon in a metropolis.
Normal Circumstances include
A metropolis has 8th level casting available for purchase.
Wizards charge a specific fee for copying spells from their spellbook. Within a metropolis this fee is well within their purchase limit and possible.
If you're really stingy about it, you can roll the 75% to see if the Wizard has the spell as if it were a magic item in particular. THAT is a reasonable ruling and has a basis supported by the rules.
Anything else is fiat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm so glad none of my games have ever had to deal with any of this nonsense.
From both sides.