The majority of the classes don't have key class items that they need in order to function. A Rogue can sneak attack with whatever appropriate weapons that they find - even improvised weapons. They probably want to use their weapons that have runes on them, but the class features work fine without them.
There are a good sized handful of classes that do have key items. Wizard and Magus with their spellbook, Alchemist with their formula book, Inventor with their Innovation weapon or armor, Thaumaturge with their various Implements, and Exemplar with their weapon or worn Ikons.
Wizard and Magus spellbook and Alchemist formula book all have no rules for how to make a copy. Such rules could be inferred from rules for learning spells or formulas.
Thaumaturge and Exemplar both have rules that if they find a new item that is appropriate, they can spend a day of downtime to attune and infuse their class mojo into it and turn the new item into an Implement or Ikon as appropriate. Inventor has rules that if the Innovation is destroyed, it can be rebuilt with a Crafting check and a day of downtime.
So... with all of that in mind... my ideas for balanced rulings:
Stripping characters of their equipment is inherently imbalanced and is a plot device that should be handled with care. It affects some characters more than others.
If the GM does decide to strip a character of their key class items that don't already have rules for how to replace the item, it should not cost money to replace. At most it should cost a skill check and a day of downtime. That matches the rules that we have for the classes that do have rules for replacing their key class items.
So for a Wizard spellbook, rewriting the lost spellbook with the spells previously known would at most take a day of downtime, an Arcana check with a high DC for level, and effectively zero gold.
I would allow you to preemptively create a copy of your spellbook if you wanted to. I also would not strip a Wizard of their spellbook except under extreme plot circumstances and only if the player was on board with the plot decision.
How much time does it take, and how much does it cost to copy a spellbook? I can't find any rules on it. I can find rules for learning new spells, but not copying spells. I want to know how to make a backup spellbook in case I lose my primary spellbook. Pathfinder 1e had rules on it.
Nothing.
Spellbooks are just an abstraction. Basically, your character knows spells. If you lose your spellbook, just grab a new one. Done.Grimoires use a 1-minute ritual to copy your entire spellbook within them. It gives a good idea of how easy and cheap it is to copy an entire spellbook. If you really want some rules to support your spellbook copy, just grab a low level Grimoire (the cheapest one costs 90 gold coins) and you're set. 90 gp
Sounds like we're in the same realm of losing a high-value weapon (at least at levels where the difference matters). The Wizard (et al) would be stuck using whatever Cantrips they'd last prepared, much like a warrior would be stuck with an inferior weapons. Except of course that many warriors carry a backup weapon and classes with smaller weapons tend to pack a lot of punch from their class bonuses so the penalty varies.
My point though is that it's so un-fun to lose one's primary weapon (et al) that PF2 removed Sunder, AoE damage to your gear when you're dead, and many of those acid-eats-your-weapon creatures, plus a GM is expected (at least by posters in Paizo forums) to replace such weapons (or other essential gear like armor; perhaps via pure gold) after only a short time of hardship. So yeah, losing a spellbook's so unfun that even when you were expected to have a backup in previous editions, it was still considered poor gamesmanship to target a PC's spellbook (or spell component pouch for that matter) even though it should have been a go-to tactic by long-term villains.
So unless playing a particularly brutal and grim game, there should be no need to copy a spellbook (at least for oneself), and if something did befall one's spellbook, the responsibility to replace it kinda falls on the GM (after whatever short time of hardship).
If copying it for another Wizard (et al) to use, I think that'd fall under normal prices for learning new spells so there's no workaround for those costs (unless said workaround is part of a reward of course).
Sounds like we're in the same realm of losing a high-value weapon (at least at levels where the difference matters). The Wizard (et al) would be stuck using whatever Cantrips they'd last prepared, much like a warrior would be stuck with an inferior weapons.
I realize that I am nit-picking here. And I don't disagree with your post overall.
But this comparison is not very valid. It looks approximately accurate at first glance, but there are a lot of things in practical scenarios that aren't being taken into account.
Yes, if you strip a fighter of their runed-up weapons and strip a wizard of their spellbook, both are going to be rather ineffective until they replace those items.
But any scenario that is going to strip a fighter of their weapons and a wizard of their spellbook is also going to strip the wizard of their own runed-up weapons (yes, wizards may have and use weapons), staves, wands and other such things that will all have to be replaced.
So if your are counting the cost of replacing the spellbook as equivalent to the fighter replacing their weapons, what is the equivalent cost to the fighter for replacing the wizard's staff, wands, and weapons? If you don't have a good answer for that, then the GM is effectively double dipping the wizard on the cost penalties of this plot arc of losing equipment.
Sounds like we're in the same realm of losing a high-value weapon (at least at levels where the difference matters). The Wizard (et al) would be stuck using whatever Cantrips they'd last prepared, much like a warrior would be stuck with an inferior weapons.I realize that I am nit-picking here. And I don't disagree with your post overall.
But this comparison is not very valid. It looks approximately accurate at first glance, but there are a lot of things in practical scenarios that aren't being taken into account.
Yes, if you strip a fighter of their runed-up weapons and strip a wizard of their spellbook, both are going to be rather ineffective until they replace those items.
But any scenario that is going to strip a fighter of their weapons and a wizard of their spellbook is also going to strip the wizard of their own runed-up weapons (yes, wizards may have and use weapons), staves, wands and other such things that will all have to be replaced.
So if your are counting the cost of replacing the spellbook as equivalent to the fighter replacing their weapons, what is the equivalent cost to the fighter for replacing the wizard's staff, wands, and weapons? If you don't have a good answer for that, then the GM is effectively double dipping the wizard on the cost penalties of this plot arc of losing equipment.
You've veered into prepared-scenario territory. I wasn't addressing the topic as a planned plot arc, i.e. prisoners escaping, or something similar, where everybody loses everything; rather as losing one's primary investment item in an unfortunate or negligent incident and its effects on the PC's viability. So those staves, wands, etc. would be as available as a warrior's backup weapons (and armor, shield, consumables, etc.). A well-stocked Wizard could probably weather the deprivation quite well, much like a warrior whose secondary weapon were only a notch inferior to their primary. But remember that the main point wasn't the situation being equal mechanically, rather feeling equally un-fun...thus something to be avoided and patched up if it does occur.
If the whole party were stripped and kept from preparations for a scenario, I'm failing to see the double-dipping since I'd think PCs had relatively the same amount of gold invested in their gear. Don't they? Plus at most levels I'd rather have a caster with Cantrips than a Fighter with a rock (though a Rogue w/ a spoon might be best).
And IMO it'd be insane to destroy that much equipment rather than say have it held somewhere for the PCs to reclaim later after a sobering time without which develops a greater appreciation for one's treasures. Most every player I've had has made their PC grow attached to some piece of gear or other aside from its practical/economic value, so that'd be mean to include that too.
Stripping PCs of their gear will have a different effect depending on their classes, with the end result being a significant imbalance. I'd not do that personally from a mechanical point of view.
You've veered into prepared-scenario territory. I wasn't addressing the topic as a planned plot arc, i.e. prisoners escaping, or something similar, where everybody loses everything; rather as losing one's primary investment item in an unfortunate or negligent incident and its effects on the PC's viability.
So... an unprepared-scenario?
I'm not understanding the critique here. Yes, the only practical in-game scenarios that I can come up with for stripping a Wizard of their spellbook involves stripping all of the characters in the party of all of their equipment.
What other practical scenarios are you proposing?
Deliberately targeting one character and stripping that character of their most important item? Punishing a player for inattentiveness at the table by having their character 'experience an unfortunate negligent incident' and lose their spellbook?
I'm hoping and expecting that you aren't that malicious of a GM, but as I said - I can't currently think of any other practical scenarios that would cause a wizard to lose their spellbook.
If the whole party were stripped and kept from preparations for a scenario, I'm failing to see the double-dipping since I'd think PCs had relatively the same amount of gold invested in their gear. Don't they?
The same amount of gold invested in their gear, yes. But Wizards don't pay for their spellbook initially. Making them pay full 'learn a spell' cost for every spell that they have to replace from their lost spellbook would absolutely be an excessive additional cost for the Wizard above and beyond their gear replacement.
For a level 5 Wizard, just the standard 10 cantrips, 7 Rank 1 spells, 4 Rank 2 spells and 2 Rank 3 spells that they learn automatically would be 90 GP to replace through Learn a Spell.
Which is approximately equal to the 100 GP for one of the the +1 Striking weapons that a martial character has (and probably the only +1 Striking weapon that they can afford at level 5).
But the Wizard didn't originally pay for their spellbook. They instead sunk that 90 GP into other things such as a Mentalist's Staff. If the Wizard now has to replace their spellbook and their staff while the Fighter only has to replace one weapon (in addition to the armor, other weapons, or other permanent magic items that both characters are expected to have spent their same amount of wealth on), that is double dipping. That is an extra 90 GP that the Wizard is having to pay in order to replace all of their equipment.
Plus at most levels I'd rather have a caster with Cantrips than a Fighter with a rock (though a Rogue w/ a spoon might be best).
Barring alternative rules such as Automatic Bonus Progression...
The best would be a spellcaster that doesn't need a spellbook or equivalent, such as a Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Psychic, or Kineticist. Untamed Order Druid would probably be S-tier.
A spellcaster that needs a spellbook for higher level spells, but still has access to their cantrips would be a good second place.
Characters that have big damage boosts to their weapons, but don't require specific weapons, such as Thaumaturge, Rogue, or Swashbuckler would do decently well.
Characters that use standard weapons or unarmed attacks and rely on Runes for increasing their damage would struggle using improvised weapons with no runes.
Characters that use specific weapon types or specific weapons would struggle the worst. So characters like Gunslinger, Exemplar, Inventor, and Giant Instinct Barbarian.
Finoan,
-I literally advised to avoid such a situation (and to patch it up soon after if it did occur), so I'm unsure why you'd question whether I'm so malicious as to enact one.
-But a GM doesn't have to be malicious for a player (more than the PC) to create such an unfortunate situation. PCs encounter a lot of devastating events, often feel safe when they shouldn't (like say to take their backpack off), or have negligent players. One player had his character put a Bag of Holding over his head to be funny by pretending it was a Bag of Devouring...which it was. The GM showed us in the module to verify he wasn't intentionally being an ass. And while maybe I'd have avoided playing an adventure with such an item, many of my players have insisted on taking an undue risk even after I double-checked with them. And I'm not going to override their agency/run their PC for them. Often a veteran will reiterate that the GM double-checking is a red flag, but setbacks happen.
-And I wouldn't store my spells in any fancy spellbook I had to hold in my hands to activate some combat effect. Wizards (et al) at least have the luxury of stowing their prized class-possession. Warriors lack that luxury, and I can think of one mid-high level PFS scenario where lava swells into the final boss fight, though it could be any ol' cave collapse, flood, abyss sucking all matter in, etc. Unlike a home game, PFS wouldn't patch up the wealth gap if a warrior had dropped their gear there (and it was a vicious boss who dropped several PCs when I ran it but they had an above level healing Cleric played by a savvy guy who I thanked afterward).
-I had forgotten about the free spells gained upon leveling. Yes, that could make a severe difference in treasure lost, but again I'm against targeting such items.
-I have known players who'd invested over half their gold into one quite-droppable item. Eek. In fact, one regular (PFS1) who'd invested even more than that in his bow had another PC who'd invested far more in his animal's gear than his own...his Huge animal that couldn't fight in the scenario's inn with 5' corridors. I find such extremes negligent in face of the varied fantasy situations one might find oneself in.
-There was at least one "fight in the baths" PFS1 scenario which did strip warriors of their weapons & armor (and I believe casters lost their spell component pouches too). It was easy enough to be boring, but many a Monk (including mine, not knowing about it) stomped it single-handedly (which makes the combat near worthless to set up IMO). Which is to say that published adventures (unless they require pregen PCs) should avoid such potential gross imbalance. Even one of the ancient modules from meaner times that stripped the party (and was made for pregens in a competition) made certain to give the casters a few token spells and have a spy drop in many scrolls...for after PCs created a light source.
-I think a home game could pull this off, and I'd used a prison escape (during a destructive incident too) to begin one campaign, but of course I tailored it for those PCs so they could get (and savor) the resources they needed and they technically didn't lose any gear because they started with none. :-) (Yes, there was a Wizard, and he fared fine.)
As far as the RaW question goes, it unfortunately really does seem that the devs have spellbooks require manual copying spell-by-spell.
The way that 1 min grimoire ritual works seems to be carefully written to preserve that norm, not to null it. You don't get to make copies, and only make transfers.
.
I will say that there is enough RaW room in the spellbook + Learn a Spell rules to allow GMs to mostly hand-waive the possible need of remaking a destroyed book.
"Learn a Spell" specifically is both the process of first learning a new spell, and the act of scribing that new understanding onto a spellbook.
This leaves the act of re-writing a spell one has already learned as a complete blank for the GM to fill in.
A GM could say that the re-write means you auto-crit the same Learn a Spell check, or could outright hand-waive the entire process as being a few hrs of 0 cost downtime.