I can't believe people are using their spellbooks to deliver spells. Unless they've taken the mandatory-for-witches magical items that let them restore their familiar to life.
Improved Familiar gives you some very tough familiars. I have one with DR/Adamantine and at will invisibility on himself.
Also, even if your familiar dies, you can replace it. I the mean-time, you can still contribute very effectively to the party with just your hexes.
I can't believe people are using their spellbooks to deliver spells. Unless they've taken the mandatory-for-witches magical items that let them restore their familiar to life.Improved Familiar gives you some very tough familiars. I have one with DR/Adamantine and at will invisibility on himself.
Also, even if your familiar dies, you can replace it. I the mean-time, you can still contribute very effectively to the party with just your hexes.
But the spells you had collected is gone. Risking the Fam. is a bad move. There are items and tricks to prevent it but mostly it is.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
It's all about calculating the risk.
Delivering a touch spell on a friendly target far from melee? Low risk, probably ok.
Improved familiar using a wand/spell/SLA on a foe from afar? Medium-low risk. Could be an issue if foe has ranged attacks. Improved Evasion helps with most AoEs.
Delivering a touch spell on an enemy target? High risk. Provokes AoO for entering foe's space, leaves familiar in melee for counterattack. Use only as last resort.
But the spells you had collected is gone. Risking the Fam. is a bad move. There are items and tricks to prevent it but mostly it is.
"A new familiar begins knowing all of the 0-level spells plus two spells of every level the witch is able to cast. These are in addition to any bonus spells known by the familiar based on the witch’s level and her patron (see patron spells)."
You only lose spells that you added via scrolls or communion with another witch's familiar. If your DM is super stingy, you are basically not losing anything, and in fact this allows you to reset your spells known if you made any mistakes or have any dead weight spells that you no longer use.
It's still a bad thing to lose your familiar, don't get me wrong, but it's not some sort of world-ending catastrophe.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
But the spells you had collected is gone. Risking the Fam. is a bad move. There are items and tricks to prevent it but mostly it is."A new familiar begins knowing all of the 0-level spells plus two spells of every level the witch is able to cast. These are in addition to any bonus spells known by the familiar based on the witch’s level and her patron (see patron spells)."
You only lose spells that you added via scrolls or communion with another witch's familiar. If your DM is super stingy, you are basically not losing anything, and in fact this allows you to reset your spells known if you made any mistakes or have any dead weight spells that you no longer use.
It's still a bad thing to lose your familiar, don't get me wrong, but it's not some sort of world-ending catastrophe.
Actually it's a bit worse than you think. A witch normally gets 4 spells per spell level for free - 2 at each class level. A new familiar only comes with half that, plus the bonus patron spells.
As an example, let's look at a level 5 witch with an 18 starting Int:
Started with 7 1st level spells. Gained 2 1st, 4 2nd, 2 3rd since then, and has 2nd and 4th level patron bonus spells. Total spells: 0th:all, 1st:10, 2nd:5, 3rd:2. Before any extras from scrolls etc.
Fluffy suffers an unfortunate accident. Fluffy 2 gets: 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd, plus patron bonus spells. Total spells: 0th:all, 1st: 3, 2nd: 3, 3rd: 2. Ouch. And it gets worse the higher level you go.
Actually it's a bit worse than you think. A witch normally gets 4 spells per spell level for free - 2 at each class level. A new familiar only comes with half that, plus the bonus patron spells.
As an example, let's look at a level 5 witch with an 18 starting Int:
Started with 7 1st level spells. Gained 2 1st, 4 2nd, 2 3rd since then, and has 2nd and 4th level patron bonus spells. Total spells: 0th:all, 1st:10, 2nd:5, 3rd:2. Before any extras from scrolls etc.Fluffy suffers an unfortunate accident. Fluffy 2 gets: 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd, plus patron bonus spells. Total spells: 0th:all, 1st: 3, 2nd: 3, 3rd: 2. Ouch. And it gets worse the higher level you go.
Actually, witches get all their class-granted spells when they gain a new familiar. The quote I cited above clearly says "These are in addition to any bonus spells known by the familiar based on the witch’s level." This means that the familiar knows all the spells that you would normally get just by taking witch levels, you only lose the ones you add via scrolls and other means.
|
There is a spell that raises your familiar, so you don't lose any spells.
Raise Animal Companion (works on familiars too) is a pretty good spell, but doesn't really help if you have an Improved Familiar of the Outsider or Construct variety, which most of the good improved familiars are. Also it's not on the witch spell list, so you'll have to suck up to the druid/ranger/paladin, or have a decent UMD and a scroll.
No, you're cutting that sentence off. The whole sentence is, "These are in addition to any bonus spells known by the familiar based on the witch’s level and her patron (see patron spells)." It refers to patron spells only.
Reading it your way, a witch would have a net gain of two spells per spell level when she lost a familiar.
Ah, it appears I was misreading that sentence, as what you're saying does make sense.
What doesn't make sense is the witch getting less spells than she gets from her class levels. That is actually insane. If you have a DM that is very stingy with scrolls and the like, you actually lose class features if you lose your familiar. Does this happen with wizards too? I just went to look for what happens to a wizard if their spellbook is destroyed and I couldn't find anything on the SRD. I had always assumed that they couldn't prepare their spells but that they wouldn't lose the ones granted by wizard levels.
But where is that stated? I couldn't actually find anything on the SRD regarding what happens to a wizard's learned spells if their spellbook is destroyed. Given the lack of evidence, there's no conclusive proof to assume a wizard that loses their spellbook can't just copy down their class-given spells onto a new blank spellbook (paying the appropriate costs for scribing spells on a spellbook, of course).
Whenever you lose class features for doing X, the game very clearly states it, and explains how to get those class features back, the witch herself has this in the familiar section.
Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, he gains two spells of his choice to add to his spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels he can cast.
You lose the spellbook, you lose the spells.
Powerful drawback for a powerful class.
Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, he gains two spells of his choice to add to his spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels he can cast.You lose the spellbook, you lose the spells.
Powerful drawback for a powerful class.
Of course they have to be added to his spellbook, where else would they be added? That doesn't mean that you lose those spells permanently if you lose the spellbook, considering that those spells are class features.
Not to mention that no other full-casting class is at the risk of permanently losing class features like that (except for the witch, apparently, which strikes me as absolutely insane). Even if a cleric steps out of line, he can still atone or join another deity, and druids and sorcerers are never in any danger of losing their class features at all.
You don't permanently lose them. Spellbooks are items, they can be replaced.
The class feature I am referring to are the spells you gain each level, not the spellbook itself.
Any spell currently prepared by a wizard can be scribed into a spellbook as though copying from another. This wipes the spell from memory, but it can be used any number of times from the spellbook.
If a wizard borrows a spellbook to prepare spells, he can copy them into a new spellbook this way.
Wizard replace familiar: 200 gp / level
For witches, there is the Stone Familiar at 6,000 gp for 500 spell levels.
Best option is to have a fellow witch to swap spells with. Then each familiar can store all the spells of both. Loose one, replace and share spells. Net gain of 2 spells per spell level. Cohort witch is great.
Witch replace familiar: 500 gp / level
/cevah
You don't permanently lose them. Spellbooks are items, they can be replaced.Yes, by killing another wizard, for instance
Does not quite work that way.
This is not "your" spellbook, so you must use it as though preparing from a borrowed book. When you have scribed all the spells in this book into another, that other book is your book. This book is still "borrowed".
How much of an inconvenience this is, I don't know, as I have not played a PF wizard yet. In 3.5, there was a spellcraft check to make the acquired book "yours" so you would not need to take the slow route to regaining daily spells.
Wizard Spells and Borrowed Spellbooks
Replacing and Copying Spellbooks
/cevah
But the Wizard? He's on his own. That's what the class feature says.
That's the thing, the class never actually states that. The class simply states that you add new spells to your spellbook, not that losing your spellbook loses your class-given spells forever.
Every other class that has a danger of losing class features specifically tells you what causes class features to be lost and how you can regain them. Given that the class does not mention anything regarding destroyed spellbooks or class-given spells, there's no way to prove or disprove whether you retain your spells known or not.
Whether or not the Wizard 'retains knowledge' of his 'class obtained spells' is irrelevant.
They need a book to memorize them in the morning (or whenever).
So losing their book means they lose their spells.
They can write down spells they currently have memorized, and it expends them.
Adding any free stuff on top of this is just that: adding free stuff. No GM worth his dice would allow it. Wizards don't intrinsically store spell knowledge, in fact there are feats that DO let them prepare spells without a book (cannot for the life of me recall what it is called, but Mythic for sure allows for it... in fact with Mythic rules you can remove the need for a spellbook altogether!).
That is all.
Well, given the absence of clear wording one way or another, until there's a FAQ that resolves this issue, I'm going to assume that you don't irrevocably lose your class features if your spellbook is destroyed.
I find the idea that some random person can just come and delete parts of your character sheet to be abhorrent to the very point of RPGs. If you take class levels, you get to keep whatever the class gives you, come hell or high water. If you do something that causes you to lose class features, every class where this is possible tells you exactly how to get it back.
Relatedly, I'm also going to assume that the bit with the witch gaining only 2 spells per spell level when they gain a new familiar to be a typo, because that does not equal the spells granted to them by their class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, given the absence of clear wording one way or another, until there's a FAQ that resolves this issue, I'm going to assume that you don't irrevocably lose your class features if your spellbook is destroyed.
I find the idea that some random person can just come and delete parts of your character sheet to be abhorrent to the very point of RPGs. If you take class levels, you get to keep whatever the class gives you, come hell or high water. If you do something that causes you to lose class features, every class where this is possible tells you exactly how to get it back.
Relatedly, I'm also going to assume that the bit with the witch gaining only 2 spells per spell level when they gain a new familiar to be a typo, because that does not equal the spells granted to them by their class.
When you play a wizard, magus or arcanist then. Will the spells just apper in every book they open if they loose there Spellbook?
When you play a wizard, magus or arcanist then. Will the spells just apper in every book they open if they loose there Spellbook?
I've never been in that situation in any game I played, but what I would expect would be for the wizard to purchase a blank spellbook and then inscribe their class-given spells on them, spending the time and money outlined in the Magic section. The part that allows a wizard to copy a spell from memory onto a book obviates the time required (1 hour per spell level), which is the main advantage of losing a prepared spell, it gets your spellbook back online a lot faster.
If you're a 6th level wizard with 18 Int, copying down your class-given spells would take you 14 hours for cantrips alone (since there are 28 cantrips as of this writing), 9 hours for first level spells, 8 hours for second level spells and 12 hours for 3rd level spells, for a total of 43 hours. That's almost two full days of working without rest. Copying down a prepared spell from memory onto your page still costs you the same amount of gold, but it doesn't have the time cost that copying a spell from scratch does.
Also, this process would cost the wizard 15 GP for a blank spellbook, 140 GP for cantrips, 90 GP for first level spells, 160 GP for second level spells and 360 GP for third level spells, for a total of 765 GP, or about 5% of a 6th level character's WBL.
|
|
Well, given the absence of clear wording one way or another, until there's a FAQ that resolves this issue, I'm going to assume that you don't irrevocably lose your class features if your spellbook is destroyed.
You can assume that - but you're not using standard logic. It's a pretty clear example of 'the exception that proves the rule'. Since the Witch class specifically calls out that they get to keep a few spells without their 'spellbook', and the Wizard class doesn't - the pretty obvious implication is that the Wizard doesn't get to keep a few spells.
Wizards losing all their spells and having to buy/recopy them when a spellbook is lost is how the magic-user/mage/wizard class in D&D has worked since the beginning of time, barring 4th edition and maybe a couple minor variants I'm forgetting.
It's the same in Pathfinder. Wizards don't have a "spells known" class feature.
*shrug*
I consider it antithetical to the very reason for playing RPGs. If a fellow party-member can just burn your spellbook in your sleep, if you fail a check and an accident causes your spellbook to be waterlogged, or if the DM sets your inn on fire, and such a trivial action permanently deletes part of your character sheet, then there's no point in playing a character at all. Your out of game decisions are rendered invalid by in-universe events, in an irreversible manner. It's like the DM creating a trap that when triggered, randomly deletes feats or racial features forever.
I do not abide by such things, and thankfully, I don't even have to create houserules about it because the actual rules don't specifically say what happens either way.
EDIT:
So if you lose your spellbook you are stuck with only being able to recreate it from spells you have prepared plus anything you have access to from the Spell Mastery feat which allows you to prepare spells without a book. Anything else you have to beg, borrow or steal from other Wizards.
I've already addressed that. The rule states that copying a spell from memory onto a blank spellbook costs you the same amount of gold and inscribing it any other way, but it makes no mention of time spent. You can choose to interpret it your way, or you can see that as a way to avoid having to spend 1 hour per spell level inscribing the learnt spell onto the book.
|
|
*shrug*
I consider it antithetical to the very reason for playing RPGs. If a fellow party-member can just burn your spellbook in your sleep, if you fail a check and an accident causes your spellbook to be waterlogged, or if the DM sets your inn on fire, and such a trivial action permanently deletes part of your character sheet, then there's no point in playing a character at all. Your out of game decisions are rendered invalid by in-universe events, in an irreversible manner. It's like the DM creating a trap that when triggered, randomly deletes feats or racial features forever.
2 points -
1. If all of your spellbooks are on your person at any given time past level 4ish - you're an idiot.
2. It's the disadvantage of the game's most powerful class. Don't want to risk it? Play a sorceror.
Also - the rules do say it - just not explicitly. If the rules stated everything explicitly - they'd be 10x as long and still missing things - it's not a reasonable standard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shadow Knight, your GM can kill your character, erasing your entire character sheet. Why would your 'fellow party-member' burn your spellbook while you sleep when they're your ally? And if they aren't your ally, why not just kill you?
If you're playing with a hardball GM who wants to steal or destroy spellbooks, then your wizard should take precautions such as scribing backup spellbooks and leaving them in safe locations. Or keeping your spellbook in a secret chest where it can't be harmed. Or making deals with NPC wizards and magical schools to be able to borrow their spellbooks to help reconstitute yours.
If you're playing in a game where your fellow PCs are trying to sabotage you in your sleep, try not playing with jerks.
If your 'class feature' spells were always recoverable from memory, then what is the point of the Spell Mastery feat?
@Shadow Knight 12: You are worried if you crit-fail a save, you might loose a spellbook?
Back in 1st edition, every failed save that might destroy stuff required you to roll saves for every magic item, not just at most 4. You failed saves regularly, so you invested in ways to protect your property. Duplicate spellbooks was #1. Shared spellbooks was #2. Enchanting your spellbook to make it fire resistant or fireproof was an option. Keeping it in an extradimensional space was another. Disguising it was also done to hide it from thieves.
If a wizard looses access to all spellbooks, the wizard cannot prepare spells without some special thing like a feat or magic item. Compared to magic items, backup spellbooks are cheap.
/cevah
|
Back in 1st edition, every failed save that might destroy stuff required you to roll saves for every magic item, not just at most 4. You failed saves regularly, so you invested in ways to protect your property. Duplicate spellbooks was #1. Shared spellbooks was #2. Enchanting your spellbook to make it fire resistant or fireproof was an option. Keeping it in an extradimensional space was another. Disguising it was also done to hide it from thieves.
Placing it in multiple backpacks, of different types (cloth, leather, dragonhide, etc.) was a popular tactic, as each container had to fail a save separately before it's contents were affected. Ooh, cloth bag 1 failed it's save, but backpack 1 is fine, so there's no danger to the spellbook! Time to stick backpack 1 into another sack, to double up on that protection again.
Losing your spellbook without a backup as a Wizard is like having the hard drive on your computer go bad when you have no backup.
A Witch cackling like a freaking psycho, is way more fun that a Bard's performance. And weirdly, much more believable. :P
{. . .}
This is the case of a spell being made without taking into account the beneficial hexes that are otherwise very limited. Its' simply poorly balanced as is, and many GMs would be right to simply ban it.
I wouldn't recommend banning it, just level-bumping it to 2. Alternatively, making it a series that gives vulnerability to Hex effects up to a certain level, with higher level Hex effects requiring higher levels of Hex Vulnerability:
Minor Hex Vulnerability (1st level): Confers vulnerability to Hexes, but not Major or Grand Hexes. Affected creatures become vulnerable to Hex effects of up to 4th level. A higher level Witch can use this to enable the effect of a Hex, but the Hex effects and Save DCs will be limited as if the Witch were of 4th level (although bonuses that are not level-dependent that enhance effects and/or raise Save DCs still apply).
Hex Vulnerability (3th level): Like Minor Hex Vulnerability, but enables Hex effects up to 8th level.
Major Hex Vulnerability (5th level): Like Hex Vulnerability, but enables Major Hexes as well as Hexes (still does not enable Grand Hexes), and enables effects up to 12th level.
Greater Hex Vulnerability (7th level): Like Major Hex Vulnerability, but enables Hex and Major Hex effects (still does not enable Grand Hexes) up to 16th level.
Grand Hex Vulnerability (9th level): Like Major Hex Vulnerability, but enables Hexes, Major Hexes, and Grand Hexes, and enables effects up to 20th level.
And because I like the concept of Epic even if the implementations have left a lot to be desired: Epic Hex Vulnerability (11th level): Like Grand Hex Vulnerability, but enables effects up to 24th level.
* * * * * * * *
And for the perma-cackling Witch, I keep alternating between visions of the Witch suffering a fate like that of Sir Robin's Minstrels, and memories of a certain college professor . . . .