I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but spellbooks have always been something of an off-limits target within my group. PCs don’t sunder enemy casters’ spell component pouches; NPCs don’t steal spellbooks. That’s the unspoken gentleman’s agreement, and it’s held thus far. Nevertheless, any time I roll up a prepared caster, there’s always that specter of paranoia hanging over me. Do I need to throw down a sepia snake sigil? How many copies of my spellbook do I need to make? Should I learn secret chest so I’ve always got access to a backup? And won’t all of the above be wasted effort if we’ve got a gentleman’s agreement anyway?
So what do you say, brother magi? Have you ever lost your spellbook? Do you regularly seek out and capture enemy wizards’ libraries? Or do you too subscribe to the gentleman’s agreement against magical thievery?
My PCs steal spellbooks all the time, but they generally kill their wizard owners first. ;)
I like to start as a Gatecrasher Half-Orc with a single level of Toxophilite Ranger, followed by 3 levels of Archer Fighter... that alone gives you full damage to objects with your Orc HornBow, a +1 to attack for targets two or more sizes smaller than yourself, and the ability to Sunder with your bow...
Do you see where this is going?
I have no such gentleman's agreement... your spellbooks, holy symbols, ioun stones, arcane bonded objects, and familiars are all equally open for targeting as your armor, weapons, or animal compaions/mounts. All is fair in love and war...
There are a plethora of available items and abilities to adequately protect/hide the things important to your character... if you ignore these things and leave your nice stuff out in the open all willy nilly, I will be happy to remind you what life was like when you did not have those aforementioned nice stuffs.
Maybe buying a new familiar will help offset all the money you have saved by crafting. And the world finds balance.
In fact, I would way rather pin the Wizard's familiar to the wall than I would Sunder the Fighter's sword... I might have some sort of unfounded bias against spellcasters, though. Lol.
So yeah, make backup copies of your books. Absolutely learn secret chest. And be sure to keep some pocket change squirreled away for when you have to replace your familiar...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The weakness of being tied to a spellbook is something I consider an important balancing factor in the overall scheme of things. If you don't expect the wizard to expend resources to protect his spellbook, then you pretty much erase that weakness. We can argue over how much of a weakness it really is, but that's not something I am interested in as it is too subjective of a matter. Arguing over objective things is more fruitful.
I'm confused, are you guys targeting the spell books of other party members? If so, then you're a jerk and need to be tarred and feathered. Or are you a GM specifically going after players spell books? If so, again you need to be tarred and feathered.
A spell book in most in game cases would be kept safely stored in a bag or pack during any encounter where it could be harmed. It's only if a party gets captured that a spell book runs the risk of being damaged, and most groups who would want to capture a party would either just toss a a book a side, to be reclaimed later, or would recognize it's value and set it aside for either personal use or to sell.
The Gatecrasher Half-Orc Toxophilite Ranger 1/Archer Fighter 3 is specifically designed as an NPC to target PC gear... arcane bonded objects, familiars, holy symbols, rods, spellbooks, and wands all have way higher priority over animal companions, armor, shields, and weapons...
Arcane bonded objects, familiars, holy symbols, rods, spellbooks, and wands are generally easier to destroy/has fewer HP, and have a higher overall impact...
PCs don’t sunder enemy casters’ spell component pouches
There're multiple issues with that, anyway. The sunder description says "You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent", and nothing says that SCPs are worn (rather than carried). So rule wise, the act of sundering SCPs is on shaky ground.
Another problem is that there is no rule that says you can't wear multiple SCPs. They cost a measly 5gp, and usually NPCs aren't so min-maxed that they don't have the strength to wear multiples. I don't know about you, but I don't want to do a tug-of-war between sundering martials and casters with multiple SCPs that ends up with each caster looking like a Rob Liefeld character.
There's also the issue that targetting SCPs very easy slips into metagaming territory. If you as a GM have NPCs sunder a Wizard's SCP, would you do the same to a Sorcerer who only fakes using a SCP? Would you still use the tactic against a Witch, knowing that it doesn't stop the use of hexes? Can Wizards avoid attacks by taking Eschew Materials and carrying three SCPs?
Of course, everything that doesn't actually help in that fight, e.g. targetting a Familiar (even if it's clearly a Witch's), is an objectively bad tactic, and thus shouldn't normally be used by NPCs. On the flip side, stuff like targetting potion vials with AoOs ("An enemy may direct an attack of opportunity against the potion or oil container rather than against the character.") is fair game, as it's a very sound tactic.
NPCs don’t steal spellbooks
That's not really worse than an NPC stealing other important equipment, especially weapons. But how often do NPCs get a chance to steal from PCs?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about the rest of you, but I generally assume (and act on said assumptions) that NPCs are real, intelligent people, and will make choices that best suit the situation from their perspective.
Someone with the ability to make easy Knowledge (Arcana) checks are going to know the differences between certain skill sets of arcane casters, and how they typically use spell components to cast spells. Someone with Knowledge (nature) or (religion) is going to know about divine casters needing divine focuses in order to channel their spells. Someone with ranks in Spellcraft is going to know (or be able to guess at) what sort of nastiness you are about to hit them with when you cast a spell.
If you do NOT believe that an NPC will take whatever means they have available to put the spellcaster in 'safe mode' and prevent them from 'loading' their main weapon ... well, I don't know what to tell you. Intelligent undead are going to try to separate you from your holy symbol. Intelligent archers are going to focus their fire on spellcasters to keep them from leveling the front line fighters. The moment that you reveal you possess a certain skill set in the games I run, intelligent NPCs are going to react to it in a dynamic manner, just as the PCs do when their enemies begin revealing their skillset.
We aren't playing on casual mode.
Leaving the spellbook etc. alone has a benefit: It makes the GM more convincing when they tell the wizard player "Spare us with the toxic crap of battlefield control / mind control / scry and fry etc.". If you pull punches, it's easier to expect it from others. Even nerfs are more easily accepted if you appearantly keep to a code.
The wizard player might get it or not, but in the latter case there are more players at the table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you pull punches, it's easier to expect it from others.
I don't even know what those words mean. Lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nearly every campaign is probably going to throw enemy archers at the party...
And, the example archer I showed earlier is literally only 4 levels, which can be introduced almost immediately.
Put the fear of god in them early...
The moment they realize that Sunder can come from a bow is an eye-opening experience, indeed. Like in WW2 when anti aircraft cannons were used against tanks. Warfare has changed, and adaptation is necessary.
I also have a much higher level version of the Gatecrasher Half-Orc ranged Sunder build using Holomog Demolitionist Investigator 14/ Archer Fighter 3 specifically for Ranged Study/Iconclastic Strike. Battlefield Preparation and Effortless Aid are nice bonuses to that particular version of the build.
the reason that many tables use a gentlemans agreement about not destroying spellbooks, component pouches, and familiars is because of just how severely exploiting those specific weaknesses impact the main classes that utilize them.
A Wizard or Arcanist who loses their spellbook is little more than a commoner with a few minor spell-like abilities, and a Magus who loses theirs is really not much better off. Sure they can still cast the spells they prepared for that day, but once they have expended all of their prepared spells, they can't prepare any more until they get a new spellbook or somehow get theirs restored. If restoring their spellbook is not possible then not only are they unable to prepare new spells until they get a new spellbook, but they also must now spend a fortune on purchasing all new spells to fill their new spellbook with and then risking the possibility of failing spellcraft checks to add them...
A Witch or Shaman without their familiar is in the same boat as a wizard who loses their spellbook. However, unlike the wizard they can't simply buy a new one for a few gold coins and then start adding new spells right away. They have to wait a day first and then proceed to spend 500gp/level on a ritual to summon a new familiar... atleast the Witch's new familiar comes with 2 spells of each spell level that their old one had, and the shaman is divine...
Nearly every spellcaster is almost useless in any encounter without a spell component pouch... however there are still a fair number of spells that don't use material components anyways, so this one is actually not as detrimental, in fact it is more comparable to sundering a fighters weapon or armor. Destroying a wizard's spellbook or a witch's familiar on the otherhand is basically destroying their whole class... you might as well be applying negative levels equal to character level-1 to them at that point...
Sundering a spellbook in the midst of combat is pretty lame and unrealistic in most scenarios. The spellbook is not an immediate threat so sundering it is a suboptimal and metagamey action. Divine foci and component pouches are fair game though as they stop the spellcaster casting spells.
The one time it would be legitimate to target the spellbook is when an ongoing enemy organises a raid to take or destroy the spellbook to neutralise the ongoing threat posed by the wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jeepers... if it is that vital to the characters' success, you would think they would go through great expense to protect it.
And if they don't... it is a crime to let that go unpunished.
Does the Fighter leave her Greatsword unprotected? No... it's made of Adamantine and enchanted with Impervious... probably Called, as well... just in case. She wears Gloves of Dueling to further protect against Disarm and Sunder... quite possibly taking the Weapon Master archetype that offers Weapon Guard as a scaling class feature that also protects against Disarm and Sunder. She knows she relies on her Greatsword. She knows her Greatsword is going to be out in the open every encounter.
So she f***ing protects it.
As far as someone actually targeting such a thing... why wouldn't they? A spellbook is literally as important/valuable as the Fighter's Greatsword. Remove it from the battlefield and you effectively cripple that character. The item often has far fewer hit points than the character, and the archer is probably going to shoot at something anyways.
And stealing them is obvious... there is even a Rogue archetype that would directly benefit from using the spellbooks they steal. Most Wizards' spellbooks will have 6th level and lower spells, all of which the Rogue could use. And the market of Alchemists and Magi that would buy them is plentiful.
Wizards with higher level spells probably don't worry about their $#!+ being stolen too much anymore...
I think the term spellbook is now loosely being used in summary of the list including; arcane bonded objects, familiars, holy symbols, rods, spellbooks, staves, and wands...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let us suppose I am playing a wizard whose ref has declared open season on such items. Wizards are intelligent, and know how to look after themselves.
First thing in the morning I memorise my spells. I then stuff my spellbook(s) in the depths of my handy haversack (or masterwork backpack if we're still poor).
I take the components for the spells that I plan to cast today and put them in the various pockets of my clothing, each in its individual wrap of graseproof paper with a distinguishing knot so I can select the correct one by touch. Naturally I have a methodology for this, so I know the offensive spells are in the top left coat pocket, the defensive ones are in the right hip pocket, and the cured leather focus for mage armour is probably sewn into every shirt I possess.
I stick my two combat wands in spring loaded wrist sheaths, and the out of combat ones in the aforementioned handy haversack.
I slide my metamagic rod into the specially created pocket in the seam of my coat.
I instruct my nondescript looking, local to the area, familiar to get the hell out of the way if a fight kicks off - birds to fly right up, rodents to dive for the nearest bit of undergrowth etc. If we are in a dungeon the familiar is probably lurking a room behind the party anyway.
At this point, even if facing an enemy archer with some crazily focussed "destroy the wizard's items" build comes along my magical doodads are fairly safe unless they want to shoot the wand I am using that round, and frankly given the choice between loosing a few hunder GP of wand or an arrow to the heart I know which I prefer.
I think the term spellbook is now loosely being used in summary of the list including; arcane bonded objects, familiars, holy symbols, rods, spellbooks, staves, and wands...
I don’t see where your pulling that assumption from... while, sure having most of those items stolen or sundered would cause problems for a witch or wizard, only the loss of spellbook or familiar (depending on the class) is actually devastating. A wizard who loses their bonded object just has to make concentration checks to cast spells, nothing too difficult. A cleric who loses their holy symbol just can’t cast spells that require a divine focus and can’t replace inexpensive material components with the focus anymore, easy work around is to have a component pouch in reserve... Rods, Staves, and Wands are equivalent to any other weapon in their impact when sundered/stolen... all of these can be easily replaced and don’t render the characters class useless when lost.
If you sunder a fighters greatsword, they can still punch and kick or pitch up another weapon off the battlefield and keep fighting. It impacts them immediately, but recovery is as simple as one round of actions. The same goes for any sort of martial combatant. If you sunder a spellcasters wand, staff, or rod they just loose a a little power in the immediate, they can still cast spells, they might even have another wand up their sleeve. Take out their spell component pouch or holy symbol and you limit the spells they can cast, but they aren’t out of commission, simply crippled just as if you sundered a weapon. Just like sundering a weapon even, if there is a defeated Spellcaster around, they might be able to snatch up a new component pouch off their corpse to keep going.
If you sunder spell books or kill familiars however... there is no impact in the immediate fight, or remaining encounters for the day (unless the witch/wizard left slots unprepared for later) but starting the following day the character has effectively lost access to their entire class until they get the spellbook or familiar replaced... look at it like if you were playing a Paladin and a foe had the ability to force you to become an ex Paladin simply by destroying one item you possessed. You now have to seek out an Attonement ritual to keep going as your chosen class... that is exactly how losing a familiar or spellbook plays out for witches and wizards. It isn’t equivalent to losing a weapon, not even close to comparable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If attacking spellbooks and other arcane objects is a real tactic, wizards will carry dummy spellbooks around. Someone steals it? Explosive Runes, of course. And nothing else. Someone hits it with a sword? Much better that he hits that than he hits the wizard.
And dummy wands, potions, orbs and other apparently juicy and vulnerable objects are easy to make. So these things will only become a target if the attacker can be reasonably sure that they're genuine and attacking/stealing them will help.
Remember: the wizard is smarter than you, and he knows that preparation is everything.
Since destroying a spellbook has not immediate impact on a combat, and is not usually exposed in combat how are people sundering them? The next question is why someone would want to sunder them? They are valuable items that can fetch a fair price when sold. Sundering spellbooks makes no sense, stealing them on the other hand does.
When it comes to spell component pouches, bonded object and the like that is a different story. Other than the bonded object most of them are fairly cheap and there is nothing preventing a caster from having backups. Any caster who does not have at least one spare of these items is foolish and deserves any problems they have.
One thing that people are ignoring is that mending is a 0 level spell that is on both the cleric and wizard spell list. Mending can repair an item that is destroyed but it does not restore the magic. This shows that you can repair destroyed objects with the spell. For the most part these items are not considered magic items so can be repaired to full functionality with mending. Even a bonded item that has been enchanted can be made functional again, but without the magic properties it had. Likewise mending could be used on a damaged spell book. Since you don’t lose spells until they are replaced a caster who memorized mending will have access to it until they change the spell.
Familiars are the only thing that cannot be repaired with mending. But they are intelligent creatures that are capable of fleeing danger.
Spellbooks aren't an issue, secluded grimoire is perfect protection for them.
Spell component pouches can be an issue, so if your group does that everyone should just carry as many as they phyiscally can so noone can ever sunder enough to matter and prepare mending every day to repair them after combat.
To be perfectly honest, I don't really try to steal much of anything from the party unless getting the item back is a plot device.
I can see the value in stealing a spellbook... both gold value and the value in being an inconvenience to the party. But it seems like a very specific thing to go looking for. It is easy to protect/hide. And probably well-guarded.
I think the ease at which a spellbook can be protected from theft exponentially outgrows your average theif's abilities to steal it.
Now, arming mischievous minions with nets to fetch a familiar for the arena... it's like rooster fights, but way more depraved...
I think the ease at which a spellbook can be protected from theft exponentially outgrows your average theif's abilities to steal it.
At which point we're talking about a "playing a wizard tax" rather than a smart move. If those kinds of protections are more or less mandatory, it seems kind of... dull?
Spellbooks are valuable items, and as such are going to be the target of thieves. But so are a lot of items adventures carry and those should also be the target of thieves. If the thieves are targeting spellbook over other items that are easier to steal than there is a problem. If they are stolen along with other loot or because they were an easier target that is all part of the game.
The whole gentleman’s agreement is ignoring the fact that the vast majority of thieves are not actually adventures. Your typical thief is a NPC who is a criminal just like in the real world. They are not going after loot in dangerous dungeons; they steal things for a living. Why would a cat burglar give a dam about the code of idiots who risk their lives battling dangerous monsters for a living?
The "code" would be between GM and players, not in-world.
A wizard would value another wizard's spellbook as a possible source of new spells. A common thief would value a spellbook only if he can sell it. In either case, the easiest way to steal a spellbook is usually to kill the wizard who is carrying it first.
Honestly most NPC thieves should either know better than to steal from the one group of people who are willing and able to hunt them to the ends of the earth and kill them for what they took.
Nothing quite invites wrath like stealing from an adventurer and no common thief can evade them.
Honestly most NPC thieves should either know better than to steal from the one group of people who are willing and able to hunt them to the ends of the earth and kill them for what they took.
Nothing quite invites wrath like stealing from an adventurer and no common thief can evade them.
This.
In an AP I ran, they called for these adorable little Fey to play tricks on the party, including stealing from said party... out of pity for the little creatures, I introduced them to the party in a less lethal manner. Your average party is only going to deal with a theif one way.
So, in the interest of keeping these harmless creatures from suffering the wrath of the party, I avoiding having them even attempt to steal anything. The party was already paranoid, as parties tend to be, and Perception was always maxed... casually trying to sneak into their camp is suicide. Approaching their horses outside a dungeon was also suicide. Trying to steal their entire kingdom was suicide. Being the king of a neighboring kingdom was suicide. Being the oldest thing on the continent was suicide... well, stealing the population of a town is what led to Vordakai's "suicide" by the hands of the party...
Don't steal from the party... it never turns out well.
It's easier just to break their stuff.
That is why I mentioned the Sunder archer, and the use of Sunder (in general). I especially like using Improved Sunder with animals... describing that the bear didn't do any damage to you, but left your shield smashed, or your breastplate caved in...
I generally don't describe missing the AC number as missing the taget entirely... there is a lot of arrows bouncing off armor without doing damage, or swords being deflected by armor in a show of sparks, but no damage dealt. So it is easy for me to incorporate damaging their armor or weapons without them asking why freaking everything has Improved Sunder? I never say that the enemy is using the Sunder maneuver by name.
Nothing quite invites wrath like stealing from an adventurer and no common thief can evade them.
So much this.
Many years ago I ran two separate parties in the same shared world and they had cause to bump into each other. One of the lower-level party took a fancy to an item (I can't remember what now) that belonged to one of the higher level party and stole it on the basis that he could make much better use of it than the owner so he should have it because they were both fighting evil, right?
Oh boy. The next session or two were one party frantically trying to escape the explosive wrath descending on them. Half the weaker party was killed before they gave the thing back.
For the AP, I just added a Sunder archer any time they called for an archer... I didn't replace the one they called for, just added another one that can break stuff. Same with owlbears and axebeaks, just add more... and they happen to be built slightly different to include some Sunder feats. But AP's generally need their average difficulty increased anyways.
The damage will happen, but they know that they will likely survive it. Tell them that their precious +2 Greatsword has the broken condition, though. Lol. They know they, themselves, can survive many arrows... but how many more can the sword take? It's a new kind of fear that the Fighter's Bravery doesn't help with...
Sure, Mending is a cantrip, and Make Whole exists... but those do you very little good right meow.