PDA

View Full Version : [3.5/PF] The wizard is... the cat?



Rixx
2009-11-05, 06:32 PM
I always thought a neat concept would be to play as a standard Wizard with a familiar, who's a small black cat - the twist being that the cat is actually the Wizard, forcibly transformed into an animal form (or maybe he's just an awakened cat all along). The "Wizard" (who may just be a talentless apprentice) just pretends to cast the spells as they are shared with him by the cat.

The cat should have the ability to silently command his human companion, and perhaps even speak through him or otherwise control him. And most importantly, this has to be a secret from the other players - something they find out for themselves.

How viable/interesting a concept do you all think this is?

arguskos
2009-11-05, 06:33 PM
Play a Tibbit, a LA +0 race from the Dragon Compendium. You ARE a housecat. /thread

Note that to get the "familiar", you just take Leadership or buy someone and make them your bitch. You know, there's like a thousand ways to make that bit happen. :smallwink:

With some creative RP, the Tibbit does everything you want it to.

Eldariel
2009-11-05, 06:36 PM
Polymorph Any Object is also amazing for this. Permanent change can be accomplished quite easily to reverse the normal looks in the relation.

EDIT: Ah yeah, PAO isn't all that in PF. Damn.

pres_man
2009-11-05, 06:39 PM
I've had a thought of playing a "set of cursed siblings", "one" of them is a druid with an owl/hawk animal companion and the "other one" is a sorcerer with a hawk/owl familiar. They switch places every so often.

In fact it is one sibling, the other died during childhood, and the person's familiar. The person is insane, as is the familiar, and really believes that they are switching places with their sibling. Using spells like disguise self, alter self, and eventually polymorph (all shared with the familiar who takes the role of the other sibling).

The character would eventually take that PrC for druid/arcane where the familiar and the animal companion become one.

Darrin
2009-11-05, 07:00 PM
I always thought a neat concept would be to play as a standard Wizard with a familiar, who's a small black cat - the twist being that the cat is actually the Wizard, forcibly transformed into an animal form (or maybe he's just an awakened cat all along). The "Wizard" (who may just be a talentless apprentice) just pretends to cast the spells as they are shared with him by the cat.


I've had almost the exact same urge, although mechanically I think a Tibbit warlock might work better. I've wanted to play this character ever since Vampire 2nd edition, when I realized a Gangrel with enough points in Protean could stay transformed all night as a housecat, while a blood-bound ghoul pretended to be the vampire.

For D&D, I had a little more trouble coming up with a plausible background... but in an old thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6811646&postcount=11) I did come up with something:

"Start with a Tibbit (Dragon Compendium) Wizard/Sorcerer/Beguiler/Warlock, buy a human hireling Expert or Bard with Skill Focus: Perform (Acting). Pretend to be the familiar of the "human wizard". Convince the human hireling to promote himself as an "Arcane Duelist Extraordinaire!" (use Charm Person if need be), and challenge other wizards to a duel. Play up the rivalry, or cut your rival in on the deal. Cast some flashy spells, but the hireling takes a dive. Make sure you bet against yourself, and slink off to collect your profits. If need be, hire another hireling, rinse and repeat."



The cat should have the ability to silently command his human companion, and perhaps even speak through him or otherwise control him. And most importantly, this has to be a secret from the other players - something they find out for themselves.


The communication thing may be a problem at least until 6th level where you can pick up a level of Mindbender for Telepathy. Tibbits have the Feline language, which they can use to speak to any other cat, although what creatures that would cover isn't very well defined. Catfolk also speak Feline, but you could probably teach your "face" humanoid the language. The odds of any other PC speaking Feline would be extremely low, and to most PCs would just sound like a wizard/familiar meowing at each other.

Oh, and you have to pick up a Collar of Perpetual Attendance (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fools/20030401c) ASAP.

I've always wondered if anyone would take some of those cat feats and optimize a build around Flop/Improved Flop. Standard action to daze all opponents within 10'?

Gametime
2009-11-05, 09:30 PM
Polymorph Any Object is also amazing for this. Permanent change can be accomplished quite easily to reverse the normal looks in the relation.

EDIT: Ah yeah, PAO isn't all that in PF. Damn.

Baleful Polymorph could do the same thing.

Fhaolan
2009-11-05, 10:37 PM
I recommend looking into this: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?cPath=4657&products_id=54699

It's got stuff about having an animal wizard with a humanoid familiar, as well as all sorts of interesting stuff around what to do if your character has no thumbs.

Mind you, not all of it is gold of course, but it's something to look through for inspiration.

Dimers
2009-11-05, 11:42 PM
Psionics works very smoothly for this concept. Play a cat with the 'phrenic' template (LA+2) who takes psi class levels. With a DC 15 Concentration check, you can remove most indications that you're the origin of any powers you manifest -- no funny sounds emanating from you, no glow around your head. And unlike with arcane casting, psi doesn't require V/S/M/F components.

jokey665
2009-11-06, 12:06 AM
Psionics works very smoothly for this concept. Play a cat with the 'phrenic' template (LA+2) who takes psi class levels. With a DC 15 Concentration check, you can remove most indications that you're the origin of any powers you manifest -- no funny sounds emanating from you, no glow around your head. And unlike with arcane casting, psi doesn't require V/S/M/F components.

This. I've always loved the idea of an awakened/phrenic/something insert-small-fluffy-animal-here Psion.

Deth Muncher
2009-11-06, 12:50 AM
You could play a Beguiler, you know. Not the class, the race. And actually don't Beguilers (the class, not the race) get mind influencing spells?

You see where I'm going with this.

Nero24200
2009-11-06, 10:30 AM
I'm actually playing as something like that at the moment. An awakened cat Psion (choose psion since it means I can use powers without worrying about verbal/somatic components), in a party posing as the sorcerer's familier.

No one (IC at least) seems to find it weird when the familier starts using touch powers :smallamused:

LibraryOgre
2009-11-06, 11:48 AM
Related concept, but one of my younger brother's adventuring groups was known as Dmitri's Band. It happened several times that people demanded to meet the Dmitri that they were named after and were introduced to my brother's wizard's familiar... a 2nd edition familiar, meaning it has an INT of MAYBE 6, at the absolute outside, and more likely 4.

Optimystik
2009-11-06, 12:04 PM
Psionics works very smoothly for this concept. Play a cat with the 'phrenic' template (LA+2) who takes psi class levels. With a DC 15 Concentration check, you can remove most indications that you're the origin of any powers you manifest -- no funny sounds emanating from you, no glow around your head. And unlike with arcane casting, psi doesn't require V/S/M/F components.

In addition to this idea, you don't even need to suppress your displays for all powers. Most Auditory and Mental displays could come from anyone in the room, so they won't pinpoint the cat.

t_catt11
2009-11-06, 02:30 PM
To the OP - this is a fun idea. I approve!

Keshay
2009-11-06, 03:05 PM
Juat to point out the usual impediments of using a non-humanoid as a caster: Somatic and Material Components. Cats will have a hard time holding material components, so you'll need eschew materials. Similarly, they do not have "Hands" as such, so depending on your DM they may not be able to use spells with Somatic components until you get access to Still Spell. (Not that this is usually should be an issue, since all sorts of whacky creatures with non-standard hands can be casters, but my DM once decided to be a jerk about it so my awakened cat druid idea got nixed.)

Specifically, a problem with being a cat wizard is that you won't be able to write through normal means, so no spellbook.

jiriku
2009-11-06, 03:11 PM
Specifically, a problem with being a cat wizard is that you won't be able to write through normal means, so no spellbook.

Sir, everyone knows that cats can type by walking across keyboards. This same ability also allows them to play the piano.

t_catt11
2009-11-06, 03:30 PM
No spellbook via normal means, but there are lots of alternate ways to do spellbooks.

Hmm. Not that I can come up with any that work for cats.

Rule of cool? :smallbiggrin:

Optimystik
2009-11-06, 03:35 PM
Juat to point out the usual impediments of using a non-humanoid as a caster: Somatic and Material Components. Cats will have a hard time holding material components, so you'll need eschew materials. Similarly, they do not have "Hands" as such, so depending on your DM they may not be able to use spells with Somatic components until you get access to Still Spell. (Not that this is usually should be an issue, since all sorts of whacky creatures with non-standard hands can be casters, but my DM once decided to be a jerk about it so my awakened cat druid idea got nixed.)

Specifically, a problem with being a cat wizard is that you won't be able to write through normal means, so no spellbook.

This is why the cat Psion is so superior.

Frog Dragon
2009-11-06, 04:07 PM
Magic Kitteh prepares to unleash doom upon you.
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1259/magickitteh.jpg

Optimystik
2009-11-06, 04:28 PM
Magic Kitteh prepares to unleash doom upon you.

THE SPICE MUST FLOW

Darrin
2009-11-06, 05:11 PM
Juat to point out the usual impediments of using a non-humanoid as a caster: Somatic and Material Components. Cats will have a hard time holding material components, so you'll need eschew materials. Similarly, they do not have "Hands" as such, so depending on your DM they may not be able to use spells with Somatic components until you get access to Still Spell.


Surrogate Spellcasting (SavSpc), Nonverbal Spell (PlanarHB), and Whispercast (LoM) can help somewhat... maybe even the dreaded Natural Spell with a forgiving DM.



Specifically, a problem with being a cat wizard is that you won't be able to write through normal means, so no spellbook.

Hence why I thought warlock would be ideal (tibbits can speak feline in both forms, and I don't think you need thumbs for somatic gestures), but spontaneous casters such as Sorcerers and Beguilers don't need no stinkin' spellbooks. Material components, yeah, well... warlock or dragonfire adept (hey, if housecat + breathe fire isn't made of WIN, I don't know what is!)

Brock Samson
2009-11-06, 05:48 PM
Yeah, if Natural Spell works for a Druid, it'd probably work for a Tibbit, so it'd probably just work for anyone in cat form.

CATNIP FOR THE CATGOD!

Kylarra
2009-11-06, 05:54 PM
Eidetic Spellcaster ACF removes the need for a physical spellbook at the cost of your familiar.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-06, 07:14 PM
Eidetic Spellcaster ACF removes the need for a physical spellbook at the cost of your familiar.Wait, so you remove one of the main weaknesses of a Wizard in exchange for losing one of the other main weaknesses of a Wizard? Sign me up.

Frosty
2009-11-06, 08:14 PM
Eidetic Spellcaster ACF removes the need for a physical spellbook at the cost of your familiar.

Where is this ACF?

Starbuck_II
2009-11-06, 08:16 PM
Where is this ACF?

Eidetic Spellcaster from Dragon 357 is the ACF that swaps your familiar and scribe scroll feat in exchange for not needing a spellbook.

Which is pretty broken.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-06, 08:18 PM
Eidetic Spellcaster from Dragon 357 is the ACF that swaps your familiar and scribe scroll feat in exchange for not needing a spellbook.

Which is pretty broken.

How is not needed a spellbook broken, though? It's not like it's going to ever be an issue for 90% of actual characters. All it's going to do is enable odd stuff like this Catizard, far as I can see.

Kylarra
2009-11-06, 08:20 PM
It's still pretty nice to have, although the opportunity cost is Abrupt Jaunt and its ilk, so, worth considering that when claiming brokenness.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-06, 08:23 PM
It's still pretty nice to have, although the opportunity cost is Abrupt Jaunt and its ilk, so, worth considering that when claiming brokenness.I've seen people recommend taking Obtain Familiar to trade out for a second Wizardly ACF. That even seems to work, depending on how the ACFs are worded.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-06, 08:24 PM
How is not needed a spellbook broken, though? It's not like it's going to ever be an issue for 90% of actual characters. All it's going to do is enable odd stuff like this Catizard, far as I can see.

Because they can still can spells to their not existing spellbook by burning incense candles (I'm not joking here).
It provides too much benefit for little loss.
It changes the fundamentals of the wizard: who supposed to have a weak button: whether that flaw is ever taken accounted of isn't important.
It invalidates the feat Spell Mastery as well.

Arupt Jaunt is powerful, but not broken.

Kylarra
2009-11-06, 08:35 PM
I've seen people recommend taking Obtain Familiar to trade out for a second Wizardly ACF. That even seems to work, depending on how the ACFs are worded.I guess, it's not something I'd try to do in a real game though. Theoretically it's amusing.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-06, 08:35 PM
What benefit are they actually gaining though? Wizards only need their spellbook in the morning, when they prepare, so it's not like it's conceivable to sunder it, or in any way target it to prevent them doing stuff. If the DM has shown himself to be the sort to target the source of a characters entire means of contributing then likely the Wizard will have taken measures to make it pretty much entirely safe outside of jerk-fiat anyway.

Also, looking up Spell Mastery, it doesn't really strike me as...something that's really that good in the first place, really.

Besides, I thought the common opinion was that Wizards only remotely 'weak button' is their HP's, which is to say, they don't have one past a certain level?

LibraryOgre
2009-11-07, 03:30 AM
Tiki, it sounds like your DM doesn't target spellbooks. However, it's a pretty big target, so a lot of DMs do.

Have it stolen. You rolled a 1 on a saving throw? I'm afraid your backpack has burned through; your spellbook is on the ground... that means its an unattended object, and it looks like the wyrm is taking a deep breath. Whoops, that dunking in the lake got into your spellbook... needs to make a saving throw v. waterlogging.

While the general opinion on these boards is that attacking people's equipment is unfair, the fact is that a wizard should put as much... if not more... effort into protecting his spellbook than he does into protecting himself. After all, he can be raised from the dead, but mending doesn't fix a disintegrated spellbook.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-07, 10:48 AM
Tiki, it sounds like your DM doesn't target spellbooks. However, it's a pretty big target, so a lot of DMs do.

Have it stolen. You rolled a 1 on a saving throw? I'm afraid your backpack has burned through; your spellbook is on the ground... that means its an unattended object, and it looks like the wyrm is taking a deep breath. Whoops, that dunking in the lake got into your spellbook... needs to make a saving throw v. waterlogging.

While the general opinion on these boards is that attacking people's equipment is unfair, the fact is that a wizard should put as much... if not more... effort into protecting his spellbook than he does into protecting himself. After all, he can be raised from the dead, but mending doesn't fix a disintegrated spellbook.

I've very rarely even HEARD of someone actually targeting the spellbook. It only ever comes up in 'Help me punish my wizard!' threads, far as I've seen.

Barlen
2009-11-07, 11:08 AM
If your DM is targeting your spell book, make a backup copy and keep it at the local mages guild (they rent storage don't they?).

A better response is of course, the cat is a sorcerer and doesn't need a spellbook.

I rather like this idea for a villain. Take your stereotypical BBEG with a cat that sits on his lap and he pets while giving orders or devising schemes. Have it turn out that the cat is the actual BBEG and the guy the PCs think is the BBEG is actually dominated, a simulacrum, or even just a henchman. When he dies and the cat runs away, the cat creates a new 'master' and continues his schemes. For added amusement have the cat be friendly to the PCs (rubs their legs affectionately and purrs) so they don't attack or kill it after the 'master' goes down. This would work great with a scheming Xanatos gambit type of BBEG.

edit: I can't spell even with a checker

Jack_Simth
2009-11-07, 01:10 PM
edit: I can't spell even with a checker

Eye half a spelling checker two. Eye make no spell ink miss steaks.

And the cat-Psion or Cat-Wilder would work very well, due to the lack of needing to worry about components. A dragon Compendium Tibbit-Psion or Tibbit-Wilder who simply never assumes humanoid form gets most the flavor you're after. Vow of Poverty (book of Exalted Deeds) is useful if you're actually playing it.

Bhu
2009-11-07, 01:10 PM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4853968&postcount=264

You could play a Cat Burglar with the Familiar PrC if he allows Homebrew stuff :smallbiggrin:

Kylarra
2009-11-07, 01:13 PM
Eye half a spelling checker two. Eye make no spell ink miss steaks.
Thus we learn about the the impotence of proofreading (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OonDPGwAyfQ). :smallbiggrin:

hiryuu
2009-11-07, 01:16 PM
You have to fudge a little to get this to work. When I did this, I made a cat hengeyokai and took Improved Familiar for a commoner kid. Hengeyokai don't have an LA in 3.5 (due to no longer being shapeshifters and being humanoids with the (shapeshifter) subtype).

LibraryOgre
2009-11-07, 04:44 PM
I've very rarely even HEARD of someone actually targeting the spellbook. It only ever comes up in 'Help me punish my wizard!' threads, far as I've seen.

As I said, most players regard it as mean or "getting the wizard". I view it as a good tactics on the part of the bad guys. Sure, if you disintegrate the wizard's spell book, he isn't any less powerful at that instant... but every spell he spends is now GONE, unless he has a backup spell book. If you know that a wizard is coming after you, isn't it worth a few gold to have a thief break into his room and steal it, so you can personally chuck it in a fire? It's analogous to sundering (or shattering (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0112.html)) the fighter's sword because it poses a threat to you.

Wizards should take care of their spell books. Their players should tell the DM what steps they are taking to preserve their spell books. We'd make slipcases for them out of dragonhide, with metal frames and plates to protect against weapon blows. We'd keep them inside waterproof bags made from an animal's stomach. Our spell books were usually under our pillows, if not actually our nightly pillow. Why? We'd seldom need our book in a hurry, but we needed to know it was safe.

Roderick_BR
2009-11-07, 10:06 PM
Like Arguskos said (2nd post), but use your leadership to get a strong cohort like a figther or warblade, or even a swordsage. A lot of people will be in for a surprise.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-08, 02:15 AM
As I said, most players regard it as mean or "getting the wizard". I view it as a good tactics on the part of the bad guys. Sure, if you disintegrate the wizard's spell book, he isn't any less powerful at that instant... but every spell he spends is now GONE, unless he has a backup spell book. If you know that a wizard is coming after you, isn't it worth a few gold to have a thief break into his room and steal it, so you can personally chuck it in a fire? It's analogous to sundering (or shattering (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0112.html)) the fighter's sword because it poses a threat to you.

Wizards should take care of their spell books. Their players should tell the DM what steps they are taking to preserve their spell books. We'd make slipcases for them out of dragonhide, with metal frames and plates to protect against weapon blows. We'd keep them inside waterproof bags made from an animal's stomach. Our spell books were usually under our pillows, if not actually our nightly pillow. Why? We'd seldom need our book in a hurry, but we needed to know it was safe.3 issues: Metagame, eliminating a spellbook is worse that just killing the character. Don't do that.
IC, destroying a spellbook is wasting something worth tens of thousands of gold for no immediate tactical advantage. Stealing it makes more sense, but also is harder.
Game-based, a caster can render their book more immortal than they are fairly easily. Any DM actually going to go after it, I'd have a book surrounded by wards, chained to my belt, in an iron cover, that I use as a pillow. Each page is covered in Explosive Runes. I may or may not mention that to the DM beforehand. The real one is in a Secret Chest, the focus for which is surgically implanted in my hand.

Optimystik
2009-11-08, 03:26 AM
Tiki, it sounds like your DM doesn't target spellbooks. However, it's a pretty big target, so a lot of DMs do.

Have it stolen. You rolled a 1 on a saving throw? I'm afraid your backpack has burned through; your spellbook is on the ground... that means its an unattended object, and it looks like the wyrm is taking a deep breath. Whoops, that dunking in the lake got into your spellbook... needs to make a saving throw v. waterlogging.

While the general opinion on these boards is that attacking people's equipment is unfair, the fact is that a wizard should put as much... if not more... effort into protecting his spellbook than he does into protecting himself. After all, he can be raised from the dead, but mending doesn't fix a disintegrated spellbook.

It seems to me that DMs that do that might as well just say "I hate wizards" and force everyone at their table to play spontaneous casters instead.

The Big Dice
2009-11-08, 07:56 AM
I can think of good in game rather than metagame reasons to steal a Wizard's spellbook. Particularly if the BBEG is a Wizard himself. After all, the PCs would do it to the NPCs, and if they can do it, then it's fair game for the BBEG to use the same methods.

But that said, nothing ruins a Wizard's day more than getting hit by a splash weapon filled with treacle. Or molasses for those readers who might not be familiar with treacle. Not only would it ruin spellbooks and scrolls, but try digging out carefully sorted spell ingredients when your fingers are covered in thick sticky goop.

And if you're in feline form at the time, wow is that going to be one kitty taking all day to clean itself :smallfurious:

LibraryOgre
2009-11-08, 12:14 PM
3 issues: Metagame, eliminating a spellbook is worse that just killing the character. Don't do that. I disagree. A dead wizard is dead... bringing him back to life costs him a level, and, in any case, he's still dead. A spellbook, even a highly valuable one, is a possession which can be replaced... expensively, but it can be replaced. A wizard without a spell book is one with MOTIVATION, and with a need for a fair bit of caution (read Joel Rosenberg's The Sleeping Dragon).


IC, destroying a spellbook is wasting something worth tens of thousands of gold for no immediate tactical advantage. Stealing it makes more sense, but also is harder.

There may be no immediate tactical advantage, but there's a massive strategic advantage. Unless they have a spare, they're at a severe strategic disadvantage. Even if they've got the money to immediately replace it, they're tied down doing so.


Game-based, a caster can render their book more immortal than they are fairly easily. Any DM actually going to go after it, I'd have a book surrounded by wards, chained to my belt, in an iron cover, that I use as a pillow. Each page is covered in Explosive Runes. I may or may not mention that to the DM beforehand. The real one is in a Secret Chest, the focus for which is surgically implanted in my hand.

If you don't mention it to the DM, it doesn't happen. "Oh, didn't I tell you that I had an iron cover and every page covered in explosive runes?" "No, that's why I didn't tell you that it would've weighed 30 more pounds and had half the capacity, since you filled every page up with non-spell writing." Unless you can manage something like this (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php?date=2003-09-24), telling the GM after the fact is about as effective as saying "NUH-UH! 'Cause I was surrounded by a forcefield!"

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-08, 12:33 PM
I think the point is, that if the DM is the type to be that much of a jerk as to destroy spellbooks on any kind of regular basis, the wizard will take sufficient steps that it's not going to be realistically possible anyway.

Which leaves us with DM Fiat attacks, "oh, your bag has come undone, and oh look, you're spellbook has fallen out. The Hobgoblin stops what he's doing and full attacks your spellbook!"

If the DM really wants to remove a wizard from being able to contribute he might as well just tell the spellbook-less variant that he's developed a brain tumour and can't recall any spells right now, it's about as fair and as reasonable.

LibraryOgre
2009-11-08, 12:56 PM
I think the point is, that if the DM is the type to be that much of a jerk as to destroy spellbooks on any kind of regular basis, the wizard will take sufficient steps that it's not going to be realistically possible anyway.

See, I disagree. If the wizard isn't explicitly taking the steps, then he's not taking the steps. And if the enemies choose to take advantage of this vulnerability... well... it would be like them agreeing to stab the fighter because he didn't bother to put on armor. If a character is taking steps to protect their spell book, that's one thing; but if they're not bothering to take any steps to protect it, why should the DM assume that they are?


Which leaves us with DM Fiat attacks, "oh, your bag has come undone, and oh look, you're spellbook has fallen out. The Hobgoblin stops what he's doing and full attacks your spellbook!"

Which are quite a bit different. Those are DM fiat, rather than being driven by the characters in the story. Is it "DM being evil" if the character rolls a 1 on a saving throw v. fireball, and their backpack disintegrates in the flames? Is the DM being evil if a second fireball (what the bad guys would have done anyway) then damages the unattended item?


If the DM really wants to remove a wizard from being able to contribute he might as well just tell the spellbook-less variant that he's developed a brain tumour and can't recall any spells right now, it's about as fair and as reasonable.

Which is again different from "The Bad Guy commissioned someone to steal your spell book." If the bad guy is a Cancer mage, is it unreasonable for members of the party to contract cancer as a result of his powers?

It's not a matter of "trying to get the wizard out of the game." It's about giving challenges to the players. Losing a spell book is a BIG challenge. The question becomes do they rise to meet it, or do they fall before it, not if the DM is being mean.

Xenogears
2009-11-08, 01:25 PM
I rather like this idea for a villain. Take your stereotypical BBEG with a cat that sits on his lap and he pets while giving orders or devising schemes. Have it turn out that the cat is the actual BBEG and the guy the PCs think is the BBEG is actually dominated, a simulacrum, or even just a henchman. When he dies and the cat runs away, the cat creates a new 'master' and continues his schemes. For added amusement have the cat be friendly to the PCs (rubs their legs affectionately and purrs) so they don't attack or kill it after the 'master' goes down. This would work great with a scheming Xanatos gambit type of BBEG.

If you go with the Tibbit idea you could always have the cat transform into a beautiful princess and tell the heroes how they removed her "curse" by killing the BBEG.Then she asks them to take her to her fathers palace across the continent. Then of course when they arrive at the palace it is filled with her cat-themed minions and she starts hurling powers at them. Plus now she has an IC reason to know the parties tactics.

Optimystik
2009-11-08, 02:43 PM
If you don't mention it to the DM, it doesn't happen. "Oh, didn't I tell you that I had an iron cover and every page covered in explosive runes?" "No, that's why I didn't tell you that it would've weighed 30 more pounds and had half the capacity, since you filled every page up with non-spell writing." Unless you can manage something like this (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/ffn/index.php?date=2003-09-24), telling the GM after the fact is about as effective as saying "NUH-UH! 'Cause I was surrounded by a forcefield!"

It doesn't have to be explicit. Let's say I write something down on a piece of paper when I sit at the table and put it face down. Later, my DM pulls one of the whole "oops, your spellbook's ruined!" tricks. I turn the paper over to show that my real spellbook is in a force chest. It's clearly something I did in advance, so it doesn't count as a "Nuh-uh!" move. It's just something I was keeping secret.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-08, 02:47 PM
It doesn't have to be explicit. Let's say I write something down on a piece of paper when I sit at the table and put it face down. Later, my DM pulls one of the whole "oops, your spellbook's ruined!" tricks. I turn the paper over to show that my real spellbook is in a force chest. It's clearly something I did in advance, so it doesn't count as a "Nuh-uh!" move. It's just something I was keeping secret.

Like putting it in a sealed envelope and not opening it till proof is needed?

LibraryOgre
2009-11-08, 02:57 PM
It doesn't have to be explicit. Let's say I write something down on a piece of paper when I sit at the table and put it face down. Later, my DM pulls one of the whole "oops, your spellbook's ruined!" tricks. I turn the paper over to show that my real spellbook is in a force chest. It's clearly something I did in advance, so it doesn't count as a "Nuh-uh!" move. It's just something I was keeping secret.

You mean like the thing I specifically linked to in the post?

rezplz
2009-11-08, 04:07 PM
It doesn't have to be explicit. Let's say I write something down on a piece of paper when I sit at the table and put it face down. Later, my DM pulls one of the whole "oops, your spellbook's ruined!" tricks. I turn the paper over to show that my real spellbook is in a force chest. It's clearly something I did in advance, so it doesn't count as a "Nuh-uh!" move. It's just something I was keeping secret.

Sure, that would work as long as your DM didn't mind you keeping stuff secret from him, written down or not. I know that as a DM, if I didn't know about it beforehand it didn't happen, no matter how long ago you wrote it down. Keeping something secret from other players is one thing, but you don't keep secrets from the DM.

Just my two cents.

Optimystik
2009-11-08, 05:01 PM
You mean like the thing I specifically linked to in the post?

I wouldn't know, your link didn't work for me.


Sure, that would work as long as your DM didn't mind you keeping stuff secret from him, written down or not. I know that as a DM, if I didn't know about it beforehand it didn't happen, no matter how long ago you wrote it down. Keeping something secret from other players is one thing, but you don't keep secrets from the DM.

Just my two cents.

Well if my DM started going after my spellbook/component pouch to that degree even after I talked to him about it, I'd either resort to such measures or start rolling Psions.

taltamir
2009-11-09, 12:07 AM
It seems to me that DMs that do that might as well just say "I hate wizards" and force everyone at their table to play spontaneous casters instead.

that... If a DM did that my character will immediately retire... to be replaced by a sorcerer with eschew materials (and maybe still and silent). Problem solved.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-09, 12:51 AM
Which are quite a bit different. Those are DM fiat, rather than being driven by the characters in the story. Is it "DM being evil" if the character rolls a 1 on a saving throw v. fireball, and their backpack disintegrates in the flames? Is the DM being evil if a second fireball (what the bad guys would have done anyway) then damages the unattended item?

Well, frankly, yes. Because in the example, the DM has clearly decided that he will destroy the Spellbook first and justified it flimsily second.

Ie; The attended backpack is disintergrated by a fireball, despite no other fireball ever destroying a backpack. The Spellbook just happens to end up on the floor, and oh, they just happen to follow up with a spell that also hits the spellbook.

It's just DM fiat.

SO; We are left with a couple of situations - Either the Wizard is not allowed to ever have an unassailable spellbook without sinking in a significant portion of their wealth into doing so, or a Wizard is allowed to make their spellbook safe in a reasonable way so as to negate such 'accidents'.

So either simply charge the Spellbook-less wizard the extra wealth to maintain his pseudo-mystic memory-charms, (via the periodic consumption of certain herbs, or snorting ground up gems. Go hog-wild), or there's just no problem anyway, because he's gained nothing.

I suppose there is the third possibility, though; 'Wizards, no matter the preperation, aren't allowed to make their spellbooks actually safe, under any circumstances'.
If the DM is firmly taking this latter route, consider yourself for-warned, best stick to druids or something.

LibraryOgre
2009-11-09, 01:52 AM
Ie; The attended backpack is disintergrated by a fireball, despite no other fireball ever destroying a backpack. The Spellbook just happens to end up on the floor, and oh, they just happen to follow up with a spell that also hits the spellbook.

Area effect spells will damage attended objects if the attender rolls a 1. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow) That a 1 was rolled was stipulated in the post. Now, backpacks aren't specifically mentioned in that list... but armor and a cloak (which cover clothes, as a backpack does), are both listed before clothing, and armor comes before item in hand. So, while it's DM fiat, it's one that has backing in the rules themselves. It is also mentioned in the post you responded to that the bad guys would have thrown a fireball anyway... this character just had the bad luck to lose their backpack before the second one came.

This is nicer than the rules under which we played paranoia games with our spell books... in 2e (and 1e), items needed to make saving throws when the player failed his. It happened to my brother; his barbarian's (i.e. fighter who called himself a barbarian) plate armor was destroyed in the midst of a fight... the conjurer put an Armor spell on him to let him keep fighting.



I suppose there is the third possibility, though; 'Wizards, no matter the preperation, aren't allowed to make their spellbooks actually safe, under any circumstances'.

You seem to be under the impression that it's a matter of "It's Thursday, looks like it's time to get your spell book stolen." I don't think I ever implied that losing a spell book was anything but a rare and/or unfortunate event. I implied that theft or destruction of a spell book is possible, and that reasonable wizards would take steps to avoid it. You can take steps to make your spell book safer, but if you're going around with a multiple-thousand gold item that is essential to your power, AND you are actively ticking off people while you do so, NOTHING you have is safe... merely "safer" or "as safe as you can make it."
That said, this is not a technique you should use all the time... it would be annoying and frustrating. However, occasionally, it is a technique for adding tension to a game... putting the wizard under stress by removing his spell book. But, just because a DM shouldn't use it all the time, neither should a wizard assume it won't happen, nor fail to protect their spell book because it's only going to happen once in a while.


If the DM is firmly taking this latter route, consider yourself for-warned, best stick to druids or something.

And heavens forfend if the DM ever kills your animal companion or, worse yet, breaks the wand you're holding. Can't have anything bad happen to the characters that's not fixable with a potion of Cure Light Wounds and 20gp.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-09, 09:59 AM
So, let me get this straight; The Spellbook is easy to make relatively safe, and the DM won't target it more than once or twice and only incredibly rarely if ever.

So, really, unless the DM really goes after it, it's never going to be an issue.

So, in what way is not having one over-powered? :)

LibraryOgre
2009-11-09, 12:47 PM
So, let me get this straight; The Spellbook is easy to make relatively safe, and the DM won't target it more than once or twice and only incredibly rarely if ever.

So, really, unless the DM really goes after it, it's never going to be an issue.

So, in what way is not having one over-powered? :)

Because not having one is one less thing that can get lost, stolen, or shot up, especially accidentally.. As they said in Shadowtech, when comparing a cranial cyberdeck to a standard (which was, at the time, about twice the size of an old keyboard), "It's a lot of freedom." I don't know the ACF mentioned, but there may also be a cost savings, which is really big early on. It also avoids the problem of having to adapt to other spell books.

Furthermore, it's at the cost of a familiar, which many regard as a liability.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-09, 04:42 PM
Because not having one is one less thing that can get lost, stolen, or shot up, especially accidentally.. As they said in Shadowtech, when comparing a cranial cyberdeck to a standard (which was, at the time, about twice the size of an old keyboard), "It's a lot of freedom." I don't know the ACF mentioned, but there may also be a cost savings, which is really big early on. It also avoids the problem of having to adapt to other spell books.

Furthermore, it's at the cost of a familiar, which many regard as a liability.

But you implied that it was only getting lost, shot up, or stolen on account of it being there, and suffering realistic consequences of such.

And sure, lots of people dislike Familiars, but you can also dodge that 'liability' simply by *not summoning one*. Not to mention there are legitimate uses for Familiars, no matter how generally unpopular they may be.

I believe, though I am infering of course, that the cost of inscribing is shifted to the cost of the specialist incenses required to allow the mage to memorise the new spell properly. Not sure I understand the 'adapt to other spellbooks' thing.

Basically, given that very, very few DM's ever target spellbooks, that most players would be very unhappy if they did, and as you said, it's a pretty rare occurance even under DM's who do, I really do not see a quantifyable difference in power between having or not having to use a spellbook in the morning.

Optimystik
2009-11-09, 04:52 PM
Basically, given that very, very few DM's ever target spellbooks, that most players would be very unhappy if they did, and as you said, it's a pretty rare occurance even under DM's who do, I really do not see a quantifyable difference in power between having or not having to use a spellbook in the morning.

This is close to the way I see it too. Why bother going after spellbooks? It's a nice "gotcha!" to the wizard done once, but it seems like all it will do is drive a rift between the DM and the player going forward. The player will respond by either being paranoid (and unwilling to share his protective measures with the DM, lest they be countered) or simply discouraged from playing prepared casters entirely.

LibraryOgre
2009-11-09, 05:08 PM
But you implied that it was only getting lost, shot up, or stolen on account of it being there, and suffering realistic consequences of such.

Because if you have something that you bring into harm's way, it is possible that it will get lost, shot up, or stolen. You can take steps to avoid this, but it's still a possibility.

Regarding costs, I don't know anything about the ACF... if you have to pay for incenses and the like, it doesn't do much about the cost. Regarding "adapting to a new spell book", it's a way we frequently avoided costs (and page limitations): when you get a magic-user's spell book, you just use his for the spells you want, instead of copying them into your spell book. In Complete Arcane, I believe, there's an option for adapting or decoding or something another's spell book... where you normally have to make Spellcraft(?) checks to use someone else's spell books, you can spend enough time and energy to simply understand that person's own notations.

Optimystik
2009-11-09, 05:11 PM
"Backpacks are at risk when the wearer fails a saving throw." Is this rule applied universally in your games, or just against wizards and spellbooks? Can the bard's lute be melted by acid? Will a fireball burn a hole in the fighter's backpack too, causing his potions to crash to the dungeon floor?

If a wizard wards himself (say, with endure elements) and still rolls a one on the reflex save, will his abjuration protect his backpack the way it protects his clothing?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-09, 05:16 PM
Because if you have something that you bring into harm's way, it is possible that it will get lost, shot up, or stolen. You can take steps to avoid this, but it's still a possibility.

Regarding costs, I don't know anything about the ACF... if you have to pay for incenses and the like, it doesn't do much about the cost. Regarding "adapting to a new spell book", it's a way we frequently avoided costs (and page limitations): when you get a magic-user's spell book, you just use his for the spells you want, instead of copying them into your spell book. In Complete Arcane, I believe, there's an option for adapting or decoding or something another's spell book... where you normally have to make Spellcraft(?) checks to use someone else's spell books, you can spend enough time and energy to simply understand that person's own notations.First off, the rules are core, not CArc. The spellcraft checks are doable at level 1 100% of the time, with 16 int and no focus on spellcraft other than ranks. They are not a balancing factor. You can also learn their book fairly simply from level 5 on, again with no particular effort.

LibraryOgre
2009-11-09, 05:42 PM
"Backpacks are at risk when the wearer fails a saving throw." Is this rule applied universally in your games, or just against wizards and spellbooks? Can the bard's lute be melted by acid? Will a fireball burn a hole in the fighter's backpack too, causing his potions to crash to the dungeon floor?

If a wizard wards himself (say, with endure elements) and still rolls a one on the reflex save, will his abjuration protect his backpack the way it protects his clothing?

Why would it not be applied to everyone? Swords, armor, all sorts of things are at risk when you fail a saving throw. Heck, I specifically mentioned the time my younger brother's fighter's armor was destroyed while fighting a fire elemental.

Endure elements wouldn't help (since it specifically doesn't help against damage), but Resist Energy would (since it specifically protects equipment).



First off, the rules are core, not CArc. The spellcraft checks are doable at level 1 100% of the time, with 16 int and no focus on spellcraft other than ranks. They are not a balancing factor. You can also learn their book fairly simply from level 5 on, again with no particular effort.

While the rules for using another's spell book are core, there are rules, I believe in the Complete Arcane, for making a check (or series of checks; I'm AFB right now) to stop needing to make daily checks. While they can be made fairly easily, I don't recall if the provision for taking 10 works with them. Of course, in 1st/2nd edition, if you learned a spell from someone's spell book, you knew it, not needing to make further check.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-09, 06:10 PM
Unless I'm missing something, there you go. A further mitigating cost; The Spellbookless Wizard doesn't use spellbooks to memorise spells. He can learn them from the book he has found as normal, but must pay for his incense stuff as usual, and cannot instead simply use the book.

:)

ravenkith
2009-11-09, 06:29 PM
Y'know, a Tibbit Psion w/ a psicrystal and a polymorph any object could totally make this work (Hint: target the psicrystal)

/rerail thread.