| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would scroll cost factor into it, Pronate11? Spellbook pages are not scrolls.
Why would scroll cost factor into it, Pronate11? Spellbook pages are not scrolls.
It might be neat if they were, though. I'd be more interested in scribing spells into the book having a cost to track if you could expend the spell permanently from your book in an emergency.
Ways to "get access" to a spell:
1. Buy or find or be gifted a scroll
2. Buy or find or be gifted a spell description/formula*
3. Pay someone who knows the spell to help you learn it.
4. Level up.
5. Original research - invent a whole new spell and get your GM to accept it.
* This may be in a spell book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I was going to say that letting you sell spellbooks for 1/2 cost of each learned spell was going to be too much, because it breaks the economy and make spellbooks too lucrative an item, but doing the math I'm not sure.
Let's say you find a 5th level wizards book. Thats 10 cantrips, 7 1st rank, 4 2nd rank, and 2 3rd rank spells. All together that's 90 gp, halved to 45, which overall isn't that much gp.
You know, I was going to say that letting you sell spellbooks for 1/2 cost of each learned spell was going to be too much, because it breaks the economy and make spellbooks too lucrative an item, but doing the math I'm not sure.
Let's say you find a 5th level wizards book. Thats 10 cantrips, 7 1st rank, 4 2nd rank, and 2 3rd rank spells. All together that's 90 gp, halved to 45, which overall isn't that much gp.
It is probably a better idea just to make the spell book worth even more (it is gold inlaid or something like that) and consider a block of treasure. Nobody complains when martials just keep and use a tuned weapon (thus doubling its value as salable loot).
You know, I was going to say that letting you sell spellbooks for 1/2 cost of each learned spell was going to be too much, because it breaks the economy and make spellbooks too lucrative an item, but doing the math I'm not sure.
Let's say you find a 5th level wizards book. Thats 10 cantrips, 7 1st rank, 4 2nd rank, and 2 3rd rank spells. All together that's 90 gp, halved to 45, which overall isn't that much gp.
It's not so much that the amount of money is a problem. It is just tracking it is a pain in the ass which adds very little enjoyment for players and GMs alike. I don't want to have to do that calculation you just did just because I wanted my players to kill an iconic class.
It's not so much that the amount of money is a problem. It is just tracking it is a pain in the ass which adds very little enjoyment for players and GMs alike. I don't want to have to do that calculation you just did just because I wanted my players to kill an iconic class.You know, I was going to say that letting you sell spellbooks for 1/2 cost of each learned spell was going to be too much, because it breaks the economy and make spellbooks too lucrative an item, but doing the math I'm not sure.
Let's say you find a 5th level wizards book. Thats 10 cantrips, 7 1st rank, 4 2nd rank, and 2 3rd rank spells. All together that's 90 gp, halved to 45, which overall isn't that much gp.
Right, so just make a big chunk of the found gold for that encounter space “spellbook.” You don’t really have to look anything up beyond what you would already do for treasure. If you are running an AP, just take it out of the closest treasure in the book and you are probably fine.
Right, so just make a big chunk of the found gold for that encounter space “spellbook.” You don’t really have to look anything up beyond what you would already do for treasure. If you are running an AP, just take it out of the closest treasure in the book and you are probably fine.It's not so much that the amount of money is a problem. It is just tracking it is a pain in the ass which adds very little enjoyment for players and GMs alike. I don't want to have to do that calculation you just did just because I wanted my players to kill an iconic class.You know, I was going to say that letting you sell spellbooks for 1/2 cost of each learned spell was going to be too much, because it breaks the economy and make spellbooks too lucrative an item, but doing the math I'm not sure.
Let's say you find a 5th level wizards book. Thats 10 cantrips, 7 1st rank, 4 2nd rank, and 2 3rd rank spells. All together that's 90 gp, halved to 45, which overall isn't that much gp.
I think the issue people have with it is not so much subtracting the cost of the spell book from the treasure pile (just a single calculation) as it is determining the cost of the spell book by counting the number of spells at each level, multiplying each spell by half its cost, and summing it all together. That's a whole lot of accounting pain (unless the GM actually enjoys spreadsheets like I do) so I could see why some would prefer not to do it.
You don’t actually have to do that though. The wizard still has to pay to copy the spells, they just don’t have to pay for getting access. So the book can really be worth whatever you want to make it as the GM and it isn’t going to throw anything off.
You don’t actually have to do that though. The wizard still has to pay to copy the spells, they just don’t have to pay for getting access. So the book can really be worth whatever you want to make it as the GM and it isn’t going to throw anything off.Why would the wizard copy the spells, when they can just use it as a second spell book? There is nothing in the rules even hinting that you are limited to one spell book.
Other than the use of the singular word 'spellbook' in all cases.
And you are effectively houseruling away the Learn a Spell activity. No skill check needed, no cost paid - just take someone else's spellbook, add it to your spellbook collection, and start preparing spells from it.
If you wanted to flavor and describe your game mechanics "spellbook" as a collection of books that you have looted from rival Wizards, that is fine - the spellbook rules explicitly mention that you can describe your spellbook however you want. But for each spell that you gain, you are going to have to use the Learn a Spell activity - and pay its costs in time, money, and skill checks - in order to add the spells to your spellbook if you want to claim that you are still playing the game by RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In secrets of magic, they made it clear that you can't just cast spells from someone else's spell book. I think there isa borrow a spell activity you can do, but wizards write their spells in their spell book in unique ways that are not easy to decode.
You can't just use an enemy spellbook like it's your own. You need to first use the Borrow Arcane Spell exploration activity for that (for each spell you want to use, for every day you want to use them).
EDIT: Damn. Family pulled me away for a few minutes before I could hit Submit Post, and Unicore beat me to it. Just pretend you read this 45 minutes ago. ;P
If a spellcaster wants to transfer their spells from one of their spellbooks to a grimoire....Please note the words "one of your spell books" implying you can have multiple, and the fact that your non Grimoire book is still considered "their" spell book, and nothing implies that it stops being their spell book at any time.
OK. Maybe you should spell out your argument a bit more clearly here.
Because what I am seeing is that you are trying to argue that the Grimoire rules should supersede the Wizard Spellbook rules regarding how a Wizard Spellbook is defined.
Which doesn't make any logical sense at all.
Maybe you could argue some sort of Specific Overrides General type of idea, but then the conclusion would apply specifically to a Grimoire.
And you haven't addressed the idea of Learn a Spell existing and being called for when a Wizard gains a new spell that they can prepare. Or Borrow a Spell. That would work too if you wanted to do that each day.
So the party goes up against this wizard. We defeat him. Amongst the "loot" we find is his spell book. The party says "give it to *our* wizard". You're telling me this is not now *my* spellbook? Oh, if you're saying that any spell in this book that I don't already know I'm going to have to learn, I agree. Other than that, though, any spells in it that I already know I'm not going to have to learn or to "borrow" from myself.
So the party goes up against this wizard. We defeat him. Amongst the "loot" we find is his spell book. The party says "give it to *our* wizard". You're telling me this is not now *my* spellbook? Oh, if you're saying that any spell in this book that I don't already know I'm going to have to learn, I agree. Other than that, though, any spells in it that I already know I'm not going to have to learn or to "borrow" from myself.
Can you write that again making sure to distinguish between the game object of a spellbook and the game concept of a Wizard Spellbook. Because those are different concepts.
Maybe use parentheses. spellbook (object), and spellbook (wizard). Or something like that.
Your character is now the proud owner of the captured spellbook, but they do not automatically KNOW any of the spells within. To use them (that is, to KNOW them) they would need to use either Borrow an Arcane Spell exploration activity (which is temporary) or use Learn a Spell using the captured spellbook as a source (which is permanent).
You KNOW all the spells in your (original) spellbook, plus any of the spells you gain from the new spellbook via Learn a Spell.
It is possible to KNOW spells that are not in your spellbook (such as when your existing spellbooks are destroyed and you have to make new ones), but since you can't cast without a spellbook to reference anyways, there is almost never a reason to make such a distinction.
So the party goes up against this wizard. We defeat him. Amongst the "loot" we find is his spell book. The party says "give it to *our* wizard". You're telling me this is not now *my* spellbook? Oh, if you're saying that any spell in this book that I don't already know I'm going to have to learn, I agree. Other than that, though, any spells in it that I already know I'm not going to have to learn or to "borrow" from myself.Can you write that again making sure to distinguish between the game object of a spellbook and the game concept of a Wizard Spellbook. Because those are different concepts.
Maybe use parentheses. spellbook (object), and spellbook (wizard). Or something like that.
Sure. As soon as you explain to me how they are different concepts.
Sure. As soon as you explain to me how they are different concepts.
A spellbook item is a physical object in the game world. It often, but not always, has spell writings in it that a character likely does not know how to read.
A Wizard's Spellbook is a game mechanics and rules construct that represents the collection of spells that a particular Wizard character knows and can prepare spells from.
The way that I am seeing the argument going is: "The fighter gave me this spellbook (item), so it now 'my spellbook' because I now own the item. It is therefore also part of 'my Wizard's Spellbook (game construct)' automatically without any additional costs needed."
It doesn't make a lot of sense. It only sounds good if you combine the concepts of the spellbook item and the Wizard's Spellbook class feature and only list it as "This spellbook was given to me, so it is my spellbook and I can prepare spells from it now."
Edit: I also don't think that you are the one primarily making that type of argument. But still it is a good idea to separate those concepts when discussing this in order to avoid confusion due only to the similar terminology.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're making it harder than it needs to be. Look at it this way: there is the "spell description" -- the set of game rules that describes what the spell does -- and there is, in game, the caster's notes on how the spell works and what is needed to cast it. For any particular spell caster (particularly wizards and magi) the collection of all such notes for spells known by the caster (for other than wizards and magi you're usually talking about uncommon and rare spells) is his "spell book". It might actually be a book. It might be a loose collection of pages (paper or vellum or even metal, wood, or bone). I knew a blind wizard once who carved little jade figurines -- each figurine told him how to cast a different spell, and only he could "read" them.
When I've been talking upthread about "the wizard's spell book" I've been talking about the in game item, not the rules element (aka the spell description).
On learning a spell: There are a couple of ways. For the spells a wizard learns during his "apprenticeship" aka the pre-game, the spells he has in his spell book when he starts his career (level 0 usually) the learning process is completely abstracted. Same for spells he adds when he levels up. For all other spells, there is a learning process. That process involves either studying with a mentor or studying a written work such as a spell book or scroll. Once you've learned the spell you can add it to your spell book.
Your beginning spell book, as a wizard, has 10 cantrips and 5 first rank spells of your choice from the common spells on the arcane spell list (another "game rule" item, not something that exists in the game world). Part of the abstraction is that you wrote these spells in your spell book during your apprenticeship, your "school days" if you will. During your post graduate career you might run across a written work describing (in game) a spell you don't yet know, or another arcane spell caster who knows such a spell. You spend time studying (the "Learn a Spell" process) after which you know the spell and can write it in your spell book.
If, while adventuring, you acquire another wizard's spell book -- that wizard presumably being dead -- there will be spells in there that you have already learned, and spells you haven't learned. This new spell book is yours in the sense that you (the in game spell caster) own it, but any spells in it that you haven't yet learned you still have to learn.
ISTR people asking what a spell book is worth, once it has spells in it. There are a couple of ways to look at it. One is that if the spell book happens to have only spells in it you already know, it's not worth anything -- to you. If it has spells you don't know yet, it should have some value to you. How do you calculate that? I'd use the "learn a spell" price table. So your "beginner's" spell book with 10 cantrips and 5 first rank spells in is worth (10+5)x2gp, or 30 gp. (I actually think this is too high - I might change gp to sp in the table, but I haven't thought that through yet). Add a second rank spell and the value goes up to 36 gp using the current table values.
You could actually copy spells (in game) into your spell book without learning them first, but then you'd have to keep track of which spells are learned and which aren't. Wouldn't bother me any, but I get a sense most PF2E players would consider that "too much work".
Does this make sense to folks?
Honestly they should just get rid of the inherent cost to Learn a Spell. It is one thing to pay to get access to it, but spending money to inscribe them when druids and clerics just get them all for free feels really bad at the point that all spell lists are treated as having equal value. It is just extra book keeping, literally and figuratively.
If my PCs find a wizards spell book and aren't being charged to learn its spells, they are less likely to try and sell it afterwards.
I almost wholeheartedly agree with this, but there's one reason I think it's there: it's to prevent a party with multiple wizards from just passing around their spellbooks for free magic.
I say this because I do remember a few game campaigns where if more than one wizard were around there'd be a quick 'let's all share our spells with each other' scene. I don't know if this was on the minds of the designers, but given that a party can end up with everyone a wizard via multiclassing, I can see why they'd want to put some sort of brake on it.
I also wonder if this was intended to simulate martials having to buy their gear. Barbie the Barbarian has to buy upgrades to her sword, so to avoid Wizzo the Wizard spending his cash on other things, he now has something to buy. You know, aside from more consumables since not many scrolls are on the barbarian spell list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also wonder if this was intended to simulate martials having to buy their gear. Barbie the Barbarian has to buy upgrades to her sword, so to avoid Wizzo the Wizard spending his cash on other things, he now has something to buy. You know, aside from more consumables since not many scrolls are on the barbarian spell list.
That would make sense if it was consistent for all spellcasters.
But with spontaneous spellcasters not having much incentive to learn spells other than Uncommon or Rare ones, and Cleric/Druid learning all their Common ones for free... I'm not sure why Wizard, Magus, and Witch are the only ones getting that special 'I have something I need to buy, so can't afford to buy other things' cost treatment.
I agree with Finoan and Captain Morgan. Besides, if a party decides to make a bunch of wizards maguses, and/or Sorcerers with spellbooks, what exactly is wrong with them roleplaying out the very natural idea that their knowledge-seeking characters would want to learn from one another?
If anything I'd think it would be expected, and should be supported.
I also wonder if this was intended to simulate martials having to buy their gear. Barbie the Barbarian has to buy upgrades to her sword, so to avoid Wizzo the Wizard spending his cash on other things, he now has something to buy. You know, aside from more consumables since not many scrolls are on the barbarian spell list.That would make sense if it was consistent for all spellcasters.
But with spontaneous spellcasters not having much incentive to learn spells other than Uncommon or Rare ones, and Cleric/Druid learning all their Common ones for free... I'm not sure why Wizard, Magus, and Witch are the only ones getting that special 'I have something I need to buy, so can't afford to buy other things' cost treatment.
Yep. It feels like a hold over from the wizard spell list being significantly more powerful than cleric or druid. But even if we accept the arcane list being the strongest still (a contentious idea) then the divine and primal witches paying the same cost as an arcane one is bizarre.
A spellbook would be an incredibly difficult thing to sell without 90% of merchants being able to assess if the spells the seller says are in it are actually there. It really does make the most sense, as a GM, to set arbitrary values for spell books based upon the fancy construction of the book, rather than trying to calculate the value of access to the spells inside in. Spell access is far too flexible of a market commodity to set into a rigid equation. It is much more of a speculative stock than a tangible asset, and there just wouldn’t be in world consistency on what you could get for one.
When you set the value of found art objects or other such full value treasures, you do so because that is the value you want the reward of the encounter to be. This is different than runes and items you want the party to use, and are only giving half value for selling. Spellbooks require additional investment from casters to gain value from, you don’t really want to create an art market or a specialized stock exchange for your world everytime you add an NOC wizard to it.
The Safe items by creature level table seems the best guideline for what a merchant would buy an NPC's spellbook if the PCs catch you off guard in wanting to sell a spellbook. If the GM plans what it should be worth as part of the treasure, it's worth whatever the GM says it is. The Art Object table can be used to determine the value of the materials, or perhaps the added value of the spells causes the value to jump a tier, so you use the previous tier to detwrmine materials.
Edit: The Table for the value of permanent items would be necessary to actually use the first table. Presumably the spellbooks of 1st to 3rd level spellcasters are the equivalent of old college textbooks in terms of sale value.
|
In my scenario it is more that the GM is being ambushed by the players.
How can the players ambush the GM by expecting an item whose presence is strongly implied by the presence of a Wizard? When a GM either places a Wizard into an adventure or finds one in a published scenario, unless that Wizard has no prepared spells, the GM knows that they necessarily had recent access to a spellbook.
This is entirely within the hands of the GM, who can just replace the Wizard with a spontaneous caster or a Witch if they don’t want to mess with a spellbook. But I don’t see how there’s any potential for an ambush here.
So not something that the GM was originally intending to give out
If you don’t intend to “give out” a spellbook, don’t include a Wizard. If you don’t intend to “give out a sword,” don’t include a dude with a sword. In the former case, include a Sorcerer. In the latter, include a Monk.
If you don’t intend to “give out” a spellbook, don’t include a Wizard. If you don’t intend to “give out a sword,” don’t include a dude with a sword. In the former case, include a Sorcerer. In the latter, include a Monk.
That just seems like a bad way to deal with toxic players.
I think this goes back to the beginning of the discussion. A used spell book has no predetermined value. The pages in it cannot be ripped out and used as scrolls. All of the spells now available to the wizard in the party to learn will cost that wizard based on the normal rules for learning the spell. The access to any new spells is an undefined value gained through victory or theft or whatever means landed it in the party’s possession.
It can have a value if the GM allows it to but there is nothing written that says hey GM this spellbook has this list of spells in it so it has to sell for this much.
A party might need to find either a specialty merchant the can appraise the books worth, or maybe sell it for a lot less then the players think should get at a fence of some kind willing to find a buyer. A random merchant might recognize the spell could be a spell book but might not have the customer base to get a good price, that merchant might offer close to the 5sp.
We can look at spell ranks in the book to decide on a value or just assign it a portion of the loot value players should have.
Heres the thing though. If players are getting a spellbook as loot, then the GM pit it there, and now has to determine what spells and of what rank are written in it. If you e gone to that much trouble already you might as well give it a treasure value while you’re at it.
Other than something like my example above that shows that PF2 accurately represents how paying to learn and record knowledge only has practical value to you personally and not intrinsic value that can be sold - I'm not sure how Formulas are relevant here. You can't learn a spell from a formula. Not with the Learn a Spell activity, and definitely not automatically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what?
I decided the spell book that the party looted from that enemy was actually stolen in the first place. A careful look at the writing tells the players that there are two sets of handwriting, the more recent pages possibly from the wizard they defeated and the older pages from someone else entirely. The first page has the name Zumbo the great along with a barely legible side note scrawled in some kind of charcoal saying secret goblin spells.
There problem solved. Players wont try to sell the book, instead they're off looking for some wizard named Zumbo now. They might try to look for a goblin wizard named Zumbo and if they test the special charcoal writing maybe they can narrow their search to places that kind of material is easily obtained.
Other than something like my example above that shows that PF2 accurately represents how paying to learn and record knowledge only has practical value to you personally and not intrinsic value that can be sold - I'm not sure how Formulas are relevant here. You can't learn a spell from a formula. Not with the Learn a Spell activity, and definitely not automatically.
Value is always relative. No two people are ever going to value everything (or perhaps anything) exactly the same.
I have a 16 year old car with over 100K miles on it. CARFAX says it may be worth as much as $1900 (pending inspection). It's worth a lot more than that to me because I can't afford a newer car. It would be worth a lot less to say Jay Leno or any of the millions of folks in the US who *can* afford a newer (or new) car.
We are searching for a way to estimate or establish the value of a spellbook that has spells in it. To any given wizard, that value may range from zero ("I already know all those spells") to ... some number we haven't figured out yet ("There are 17 spells in this book, three of which are Uncommon and one is Rare"). I don't think we're going to come up with a value that everyone agrees on. What I hope is that we can come up with a value, or a way of valuing, that most are will to accept, even if they don't agree with it completely.