On a book, spell, and riual, how much is cost a book? Why i'm have player copy spell, and resell book? How much they sell?
On a book, spell, and riual, how much is cost a book? Why i'm have player copy spell, and resell book? How much they sell?
Could you rephrase that?
I think they're asking how you determine the sell value of a spellbook.
I think the underlying question is, “what is the cheapest way to learn spells?”
Or to earn money selling its own spells.
A spellbook would sell for 5 sp. Having spells written in it wouldn't increase the price. Because selling spells isn't how adventurers should be earning money.
Spells are all learned at the same cost. Using the Learn a Spell action and the costs that it specifies.
Doing Earn Income flavored as selling spell knowledge would be an Earn Income downtime activity using a magical tradition skill like Arcana.
This is a thing that I always feels strange since D&D that's the fact that your spell knowledge has no value.
At last you may convince your GM that you are using your spell attack/arcana to teach other and Earn Income has the breithauptclan said. But still undervalue IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A spellbook would sell for 5 sp. Having spells written in it wouldn't increase the price. Because selling spells isn't how adventurers should be earning money.
I call bullpucky on that. A spellbook is obviously worth 5sp + the cost of Learn a Spell of every spell within (or half that on resale).
What is there in the rules that would indicate it has no value? That's ridiculous I say. Spellbooks are rightfully some of the most valuable treasure around.
A spellbook would sell for 5 sp. Having spells written in it wouldn't increase the price. Because selling spells isn't how adventurers should be earning money.I call bullpucky on that. A spellbook is obviously worth 5sp + the cost of Learn a Spell of every spell within (or half that on resale).
What is there in the rules that would indicate it has no value? That's ridiculous I say. Spellbooks are rightfully some of the most valuable treasure around.
Where in the rules does it indicate that it has any higher value than that?
The players at the table can decide to have a spellbook sell for any amount that they decide is appropriate. But I am seeing nothing in the rules that says that spell knowledge - or any other knowledge - in a book makes the book sell for a higher value than the cost of the book itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly if my party slew a wizard and looted their spellbook, we'd expect to get a helluva lot more than five silver for it!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The party's wizard would certainly find it very valuable. But not for the sale price.
The local blacksmith wouldn't pay more than 5 sp for it.
The prestigious wizard guild probably wouldn't pay more than 5 sp for it either - since it would just go in the pile with all of the others.
So who is paying more than 5 sp for a spellbook? As far as I can tell - only other adventurers.
So who is paying more than 5 sp for a spellbook?
Any wizard who doesn't already have every spell in it. You can't Learn a Spell just by wanting to, but you can Learn from someone else's spellbook.
So who is paying more than 5 sp for a spellbook?Any wizard who doesn't already have every spell in it. You can't Learn a Spell just by wanting to, but you can Learn from someone else's spellbook.
Like I said... Other adventurers.
Like I said... Other adventurers.So who is paying more than 5 sp for a spellbook?Any wizard who doesn't already have every spell in it. You can't Learn a Spell just by wanting to, but you can Learn from someone else's spellbook.
There are no NPC wizards in your campaigns? Or their spellbooks are all chock-full?
EDIT: And no I don't mean NPC adventurers, I mean non-adventuring wizards, of the sort you should be able to find in, for instance, any metropolis, and many smaller settlements.
If the GM is accounting for a full spellbook to sell for X amount in the cost of the loot that is being provided, then it will sell for X amount.
But if the players are defeating a wizard and then stating that the wizard must have a spellbook nearby that has to sell for X amount - that is a different matter.
Can a GM come up with plenty of reasons to say that a spellbook sells for hundreds of gold? Absolutely.
Can the players come up with plenty of reasons to say that a spellbook has to sell for hundreds of gold? No. Don't do that to your GMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, congratulations on reprising Rule Zero.
And if a party defeats a king and thinks their crown should be worth a lot, the GM can decide it is, and the GM can decide it isn't. So what? The only interesting question is what the GM should do, not what they could do.
Also, there's a lot of room between "more than five silver" and "hundreds of gold." Don't introduce false dichotomies.
|
Since this is a general discussion topic I'll edge away from raw interpretations and simply say that in no game or world that I would or have ever played/run was anything other than a COMPLETELY blank Spellbook worth only 5sp. If it even has the free starter spells you get for existing as a Class it should have a SIGNIFICANLY higher value according to at least the cost to add every Spell in it to the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A spellbook would sell for 5 sp. Having spells written in it wouldn't increase the price. Because selling spells isn't how adventurers should be earning money.I call bullpucky on that. A spellbook is obviously worth 5sp + the cost of Learn a Spell of every spell within (or half that on resale).
What is there in the rules that would indicate it has no value? That's ridiculous I say. Spellbooks are rightfully some of the most valuable treasure around.
Where in the rules does it indicate that it has any higher value than that?
The players at the table can decide to have a spellbook sell for any amount that they decide is appropriate. But I am seeing nothing in the rules that says that spell knowledge - or any other knowledge - in a book makes the book sell for a higher value than the cost of the book itself.
Well, for one, the page you linked explicitly states that it's the price for a blank spellbook, which means that saying a spellbook with spells in it sells for 5 sp breaks at minimum one rule. Apart from that...
• Spellbooks with giant silverfish skin in them are worth a pretty penny.
• An enemy's spellbook is viable treasure for a wizard, which tells us that it's worth more than 5 sp.
• Scrolls are priced based on the spell contained within, which tells us that spell knowledge is valuable. Funny how no one mentioned that, since it's actually hyper-relevant here (as described below).
• It's not outright stated, but Morlibint implies that recovered spellbooks are valuable. (On the grounds that he collects rare & valuable tomes, and runs a bookstore. He's the exact sort of person who'd want to buy a spellbook with spells in it, and some of the rare & valuable tomes he seeks are very likely to be spellbooks from notable casters.)
• On the subjects of rare & valuable spellbooks, look up Thresholds of Truth. It's explicitly a spellbook, and is considered a treasure trove; it's clear that it's meant to be priceless, it's that valuable.
• Also, grimoires as a whole. Sure, they have a special effect, but it's pretty telling that every single non-blank spellbook to actually have a price attached is explicitly worth 90 gp at absolute minimum, isn't it?
Now, normal spellbooks are just ink on parchment, but their value comes from spells. Remember, spellbooks are considered to be viable treasure because of the spells contained within, and blank spellbooks are worth 1 gp, so it's clear from the rules that any spellbook with one or more spells in it is worth 1 gp. (And again, most importantly, remember that the spellbook's description explicitly states that 1 gp is the price of a blank spellbook.) No sane GM would ever claim that a non-blank spellbook can only be sold for 5 sp, and any GM that does so is abusing Rule Zero to rip the PCs off.
-----
As to why scrolls are hyper-relevant to the discussion: Does anyone remember Learn a Spell? It specifies that spells can be learned from someone who knows the spell, or more relevantly, "magical writing like a spellbook or scroll". This gives us a direct point of reference for the monetary value of spell knowledge: A spell is worth at least as much as a scroll containing that spell. If someone wants to learn a spell, and doesn't have a teacher, then they're going to be willing to pay for it in written form. (And it probably doesn't matter to them whether that written form is a scroll, or pages ripped from a spellbook.) Add in the ability to borrow spells from another caster's spellbook, and it's pretty clear (from the rules!) that a spellbook is very valuable to any wizard that doesn't know the spells it contains.
A weak wizard who really values your spells and would pay a lot for them doesn’t have the money. A peer wizard who wants them will trade you some of his rather than spend money. A more skilled wizard with lots of money may just take it from you.
It’s not like there’s going to be a liquid market for these spells. If there is, someone else already met the demand for the common spells via trade swaps or bid them down to low commodity levels for cash. So it really depends on where you are, who the specific buyers are, whether they care about the spells, and how long it takes to find them, negotiate with them about the one or two spells they might actually want (and be able to separately afford to scribe after buying access from you), and play hard to get (they don’t need the spells this week or month - do you need to leave town). Congrats on your eight day equal level Arcana earn income.
Uncommon spells should have a market, but the regional Teleport cartel may come set you and your book on fire if you try to popularize it.
There’s also presumably no enforceable property rights in the spells (if there’s a copyright, you don’t hold it!) in most Golarion jurisdictions so some one having to spend a lot of gold to scribe a particular spell isn’t going to spend a lot to get access knowing it’s just being sold/traded around in a race to the bottom.
“I found this wizard’s spellbook/mixtape, am I rich, GM?”
How much do you like the songs?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The same applies to buyers for almost any magical item, Xenocrat, yet the rules say that you can sell for half Price anyway. Why should spellbooks take so much extra effort/luck?
None of that applies to a magical item. It’s the difference between selling a computer and selling the right to copy an application on the computer in a world without internet. The computer buyer knows he can ship it to a big city with a market. The software buyer knows copies of it are all over the big city and either worthless or already available locally.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A spellbook would sell for 5 sp. Having spells written in it wouldn't increase the price. Because selling spells isn't how adventurers should be earning money.I call bullpucky on that. A spellbook is obviously worth 5sp + the cost of Learn a Spell of every spell within (or half that on resale).
What is there in the rules that would indicate it has no value? That's ridiculous I say. Spellbooks are rightfully some of the most valuable treasure around.
Where in the rules does it indicate that it has any higher value than that?
The players at the table can decide to have a spellbook sell for any amount that they decide is appropriate. But I am seeing nothing in the rules that says that spell knowledge - or any other knowledge - in a book makes the book sell for a higher value than the cost of the book itself.
Well, for one, the page you linked explicitly states that it's the price for a blank spellbook, which means that saying a spellbook with spells in it sells for 5 sp breaks at minimum one rule. Apart from that...
• Spellbooks with giant silverfish skin in them are worth a pretty penny.
• An enemy's spellbook is viable treasure for a wizard, which tells us that it's worth more than 5 sp.
• Scrolls are priced based on the spell contained within, which tells us that spell knowledge is valuable. Funny how no one mentioned that, since it's actually hyper-relevant here (as described below).
• It's not outright stated, but Morlibint implies that recovered spellbooks are valuable. (On the grounds that he collects rare & valuable tomes, and runs a bookstore. He's the exact sort of person who'd want to buy a spellbook with spells in it, and some of...
You, uh, forgot that scrolls are useful magic items that can alternatively be used as a source. And you'd still have a scroll when you're done. That's an absolute maximim that a spell's value must be below. Not a minimum.
And then consider that most of the spells will be useless to any given buyer even if they are a wizard--redundant at best.
The value of a spellbook is certainly not the cost to Learn the Spells. That's the cost someone who owns the book still has to pay to use it! It's almost the exact opposite of the value of the book.
The same applies to buyers for almost any magical item, Xenocrat, yet the rules say that you can sell for half Price anyway. Why should spellbooks take so much extra effort/luck?
That is nearly the exact same point I am trying to make.
Why should spellbooks take so much extra effort and work?
Put yourself in the shoes of the GM - or worse, a published AP writer. The party has a Wizard as an enemy. That Wizard must have a spellbook around somewhere at least at the start of their day. If the party is able to get their hands on that spellbook......
What should it's loot value be?
Why are we making the GM decide what spells this spellbook contains, homebrewing a spell knowledge sale table, and insisting that there must be a market for such knowledge? All the GM wanted was a Wizard enemy for the party to fight.
It's easy to say that there is no spellbook to be found if you think it's going to be a pain. Just substitute some other treasure and allow the party witch or wizard to sell it and buy their spells with the profit.
Perhaps it was in an extradimensional space that only the now dead wizard could access, for example.
It's easy to say that there is no spellbook to be found if you think it's going to be a pain. Just substitute some other treasure and allow the party witch or wizard to sell it and buy their spells with the profit.
Perhaps it was in an extradimensional space that only the now dead wizard could access, for example.
Yes. Which is what I said here. So I think I am talking in circles.
The players can insist on no more than 5 sp for a spellbook if the GM didn't account for them insisting on finding and looting it. That is what the game rules list a spellbook's price as, so that is the expectation.
If the GM is planning the spellbook to be loot, then they can assign whatever value to the spellbook that they want.
If the GM is planning the spellbook to be loot, then they can assign whatever value to the spellbook that they want.
I totally agree with this (even when you said it the first time), though I hope the GM has a list of spells ready to go should he do that and there happen to be a witch or wizard in the party.
"Oh no don't make the GM do any work"---you seem to be postulating a bad/stupid GM, Finoan. I prefer clueful GMs & AP writers. In particular, if the adventure writer (GM or not) is planning to have the party find a spellbook, and knows that the party will or may contain a wizard, they already need to determine what spells are in it. And if the party is going to confront a wizard in their lair, there should be either a spellbook around or a darn good reason there isn't one. The latter isn't hard to come up with, so the GM has no excuse for providing a partially-filled spellbook and then insisting it sells for 5 sp, which is the player-frustrating part.
The "spellbook might be missing" option is why my original statement was
Certainly if my party slew a wizard and looted their spellbook, we'd expect to get a helluva lot more than five silver for it!
[5 sp] is what the game rules list a spellbook's price as, so that is the expectation.
The rules do not list a price for a partially-filled spellbook, they explicitly list only the price for a blank spellbook. The latter sets no expectations for the former.
Oh, and a blank spellbook's 5 sp value isn't "because it's a spellbook," it's because it's a blank spellbook. A filled-up spellbook has value only because of the spells it contains. So if the spells aren't valuable themselves, a filled-up spellbook shouldn't be worth 5 sp but 1 cp (my estimate of the value of 100 pages of toilet paper).
None of that applies to a magical item. It’s the difference between selling a computer and selling the right to copy an application on the computer in a world without internet. The computer buyer knows he can ship it to a big city with a market. The software buyer knows copies of it are all over the big city and either worthless or already available locally.
So... copies of spells are all over the big city to the point where they have no sale value? Then why can't my Absalom-dwelling wizard buy every spell they want for coppers at most?
The party's wizard would certainly find it very valuable. But not for the sale price.
The local blacksmith wouldn't pay more than 5 sp for it.
The prestigious wizard guild probably wouldn't pay more than 5 sp for it either - since it would just go in the pile with all of the others.
So who is paying more than 5 sp for a spellbook? As far as I can tell - only other adventurers.
The local blacksmith wouldn't buy it at all.
The price listed (Adventuring Gear list, Player Core, page 291) is for a blank spell book. This implies that a spell book that isn't blank is worth more. When you add spells to the book, you add value to the book -- provided you can find a buyer. In Otari, Morlibint or maybe Wryn would buy a spell book.
If I were an adventuring spell caster, and I found a spell book, I'd either keep it, or copy any spells in it that I don't already have into my own spell book, and then sell the one I found.
Note that uncommon and rare spell formulas cost more than the price listed in the rule book.
According to AoN there are 669 Arcane spells (all ranks, all rarities) plus 18 Wizard Focus spells. So a Wizard has, theoretically at least, access to 687 spells. How many spell books does he need to write them all down? How much will it cost him to do so?
According to AoN there are 669 Arcane spells (all ranks, all rarities) plus 18 Wizard Focus spells. So a Wizard has, theoretically at least, access to 687 spells. How many spell books does he need to write them all down? How much will it cost him to do so?
7. Each book holds 100 spells.
"Oh no don't make the GM do any work"---you seem to be postulating a bad/stupid GM, Finoan.
In my scenario it is more that the GM is being ambushed by the players.
Put yourself in the shoes of the GM - or worse, a published AP writer. The party has a Wizard as an enemy. That Wizard must have a spellbook around somewhere at least at the start of their day. If the party is able to get their hands on that spellbook......
So not something that the GM was originally intending to give out, but the players insist that 'the spellbook must be around here.'
Sure, 'put your foot down and tell the players that, no, the spellbook does not exist' is an option. But also isn't one that is going to be any more satisfying to those players than 'sure the spellbook exists, but it sells for 5 sp'.
So basically what the alternative comes down to is 'don't create an encounter with a Wizard unless you also account for the undetermined amount of wealth of their spellbook'. Which isn't something that is intuitive or signposted in the encounter creation rules at all.
Want to share my two cents. A spellbook that contain spells can and should count as part of treasure and follow the same selling rules as any other valuable. Even if no mage would buy you the whole book nothing (afaik) dictates that you can't sell a few spell pages here and there.
In my table we tend to use the same reasoning with gold/silver coins. Unless is something like a Dragon's hoard made of mostly gold or something similar every time the party wins the day and collects their well earned reward in loot of, say, 1.000 gps, that number is the numerical amalgamation of actual gold coins, valuables, art pieces, rare components and whatever your imagination can fill in.
It eases the game pace, alleviates the bookkeeping, and helps to maintain the suspension of disbelief.
YMMV.
If I were an adventuring spell caster, and I found a spell book, I'd either keep it, or copy any spells in it that I don't already have into my own spell book, and then sell the one I found.I think that's exactly what the OP is asking about. So how much does the PC get for reselling the looted book after copying it? I don't know the RAW.
That's what I am trying to point out - and have been since post #6.
The RAW sale price is half the purchase price: 5 sp.
Anything more than that is GM adjudication and reflavoring the handing out of loot. Which is a perfectly fine thing to do. But there is no need to go scouring the rulebooks expecting to find a different sale price.
"Oh no don't make the GM do any work"---you seem to be postulating a bad/stupid GM, Finoan.In my scenario it is more that the GM is being ambushed by the players.
And you keep insisting on that possible-but-not-inevitable scenario when the OP provide no such context.
Put yourself in the shoes of the GM - or worse, a published AP writer. The party has a Wizard as an enemy. That Wizard must have a spellbook around somewhere at least at the start of their day. If the party is able to get their hands on that spellbook......So not something that the GM was originally intending to give out, but the players insist that 'the spellbook must be around here.'
"Not something the GM was originally intending to give out" was neither stated nor implied in my scenario. You keep thrusting it in everywhere.
So basically what the alternative comes down to is 'don't create an encounter with a Wizard unless you also account for the undetermined amount of wealth of their spellbook'. Which isn't something that is intuitive or signposted in the encounter creation rules at all.
Oh no, the GM could need to think for themselves a little. How awful.
Also, there's still this: The rules do not list a price for a partially-filled spellbook, they explicitly list only the price for a blank spellbook. The latter sets no expectations for the former. So by your reasoning, the partially-filled spellbook is worth... nothing at all, because the rules don't supply a Price for one. So stop this "5 sp" nonsense.
If I were an adventuring spell caster, and I found a spell book, I'd either keep it, or copy any spells in it that I don't already have into my own spell book, and then sell the one I found.I think that's exactly what the OP is asking about. So how much does the PC get for reselling the looted book after copying it? I don't know the RAW.That's what I am trying to point out - and have been since post #6.
The RAW sale price is half the purchase price: 5 sp.
Anything more than that is GM adjudication and reflavoring the handing out of loot. Which is a perfectly fine thing to do. But there is no need to go scouring the rulebooks expecting to find a different sale price.
And others keep telling you that's for a blank spell book, not one that has spells written in it.
Frankly, PF1E had better rules on this than PF2E.
I'm not sure why I am the one getting jumped all over when I say that RAW a spellbook sells for 5 sp.
If you can find some rules that say differently, feel free to cite them.
I fully acknowledge that the players and probably the GM will want to allow a full spellbook to sell for more than that. But that price is undefined and will need the GM to decide what that price is. But doing so is quite literally homebrew. Which is fine to do.
What we're trying to tell you is that RAW a blank spellbook sells for 5 sp.
In first edition there was this rule: Captured spellbooks can be sold for an amount equal to half the cost of purchasing and inscribing the spells within.
Makes sense to me, even if 2E doesn't explicitly say so.
We know the cost of inscribing the spells in a book, what's the cost of purchasing one? That's what's being asked.
We know the cost of inscribing the spells in a book, what's the cost of purchasing one? That's what's being asked.
By RAW...
Undefined. Filled spellbooks aren't available for purchase.
A spellbook with spells written in it would be a multi-component item.
In theory, the fact that pages are taken up could actually reduce the value of the book. (less blank pages to write the buyers spells in) In any case, as long as the spellbook has at least half the pages free, I don't see the worrying too much about discounting the 5sp for it having some pages full.
It would be accurate that any inscribed spells would present the opportunity to 'learn' each spell included similar to if they had a scroll. I also agree however that the book scribed copy would be worth Less than a scroll as the scroll has the potential to be used to cast the spell as a consumable.
In theory, if looking for a reference, you could consider buying the book as providing value similar to buying a scroll, enabling you the opportunity to learn the spell, and then selling the scroll (for the expected half price). So one could potentially consider the value of new non-scroll spell potentially worth about 1/2 the cost of that level scroll.
Another explanation I heard for determining a cost to enable a 'learn a spell' was to pay for 'spellcasting services' for the cost of the spell. Which for 1st rank, is 3gp vs 4gp for scroll, 7gp vs 12gp for 2nd rank scroll, or 18gp vs 30gp for scroll of a 3rd rank spell.
However, it is also completely true that a book with any inscribed spells that they already know, those known spells provide no real significant value to them. So it isn't hard to imagine one only being willing to pay the price for spells they are interested in.
While some Magic Guilds might be willing to 'pay' to keep a spellbook with one of their less known spells out of the hands of others, even though they will obviously already have their own spell already. However, it hasn't been made clear that that is how schools work in Golarion. And if they did, expectations would be made when paying for the book, that you didn't make copies of its content (potentially even for your self) but certainly that would be sold to others. It is reasonable to question how much they would be willing to pay however. That probably is strongly related to how hard it is they are trying to keep the spell from being available.
I'd end up arguing that any attempt to try to sell, teach a spell you know, or selling copies of formulae's and the like would be handled as an Earn Income roll, where your time is spent looking for a buyer for a copy/access of what you are selling.
As an interesting side note:
You could buy a Blank Formula Book for 1 gp, fill it with all 146 level 0 item formulas from the Core Rulebook at a cost of 5 sp each - or 74 gp in total (1 gp for the book and 73 gp in formulas). At that point it would be equivalent to the Basic Crafter's Book and would sell for 5 cp.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Honestly they should just get rid of the inherent cost to Learn a Spell.
I would freak the heck out.
We've already got people claiming you can't sell filled spellbooks. Get rid of Learn a Spell, and GMs are going to start claiming wizards and witches can't expand their known spells beyond what they are given.
Learn a Spell establishes a baseline for both players and GMs to start communicating about Spell acquisition. Take that away and players are wholly at the mercy of whatever crazy idea GMs opt to replace it with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly they should just get rid of the inherent cost to Learn a Spell.I would freak the heck out
We got people who think you can't sell filled spellbooks. Get rid of Learn a Spell, and how many GMs are going to claim wizards and witches can't expand their repertoire beyond what is given?
Learn a Spell enables me to request new spells from the GM with little fuss. Without it, I am powerless against the GM's whims.
Captain Morgan didn't say to get rid of Learn a Spell.
Get rid of the monetary cost of Learn a Spell. Get access to the spell (maybe with a cost for uncommon/rare spells), make the skill check, learn the spell. No cost.
Honestly they should just get rid of the inherent cost to Learn a Spell.I would freak the heck out.
We've already got people claiming you can't sell filled spellbooks. Get rid of Learn a Spell, and GMs are going to start claiming wizards and witches can't expand their known spells beyond what they are given.
Learn a Spell establishes a baseline for both players and GMs to start communicating about Spell acquisition. Take that away and players are wholly at the mercy of whatever crazy idea GMs opt to replace it with.
Captain Morgan didn't say to get rid of Learn a Spell.
Get rid of the monetary cost of Learn a Spell. Get access to the spell (maybe with a cost for uncommon/rare spells), make the skill check, learn the spell. No cost.
Hehe. Oopsie.