Legitimate Adventure Hook, or Not?

[Amphetryon]

Would you be okay with a DM's proposed adventure hook of "Rival Wizard Magicto stole the spellbook of your party's 5th level Wizard; obviously, you need to find it"? Assume your party's Wizard has the Feat Spell Mastery (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#spellMasterySpecial), and that the rest of your party is competent in their own area of expertise but lacking in Arcane magic.

[Slipperychicken]

The villain stole his real spellbook. The one he's carrying around is his spare.

[Amphetryon]

The villain stole his real spellbook. The one he's carrying around is his spare.

I'm going with the belief that you know your answer is sidestepping the point.

[nedz]

Well it imposes resource challenges on the Wizard when it comes to rationing the use of those spells which he has memorised and are not part of his spell mastery set. It also stops him learning other spells.

You could compare him to a Level 5 Sorcerer who would know 6 spells, ignoring cantrips. Assuming that the Wizard has 18 Int: the Wizard would have X spells already memorised, and an additional 4 "known". The Wizard will still have some level 3 spells though, unlike the Sorcerer.

This probably knocks him down about a tier, but only in the short term. There is nothing to stop him acquiring further spells should they be ones he was going to obtain anyway.

If this is a short plot arc then it seems a reasonable challenge.
If it becomes a long arc due to side quests (or whatever) then it's just a WBL hit.

[Amnestic]

"Rival Wizard Magicto stole the spellbook of your party's 5th level Wizard; obviously, you need to find it"?

Few questions which come to mind are "How? When? Where? Why?"

[Amphetryon]

Few questions which come to mind are "How? When? Where? Why?"

There are several plausible methods; this is put forward as the McGuffin to make the plot go, and whether it is legitimate, rather than patently unfair or ham-handed, as that McGuffin. All the questions you posed would be dealt with either via the group's backstory thus far, or within the actual playing of the adventure, or in some combination of those two.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm going with the belief that you know your answer is sidestepping the point.

It's extraordinarily unfair, unless the Wizard either approves of it, or has some known means of swiftly restoring his spellbook.

[Clericzilla]

Go with it, I've heard worse.

But do ask if this "Rival Wizard Magicto" has a mustache ... Then he would be the "Rival Wizard Magicto Mustachio" and will be up for slaughter since he is obviously evil since he has a mustache.

[Amnestic]

There are several plausible methods; this is put forward as the McGuffin to make the plot go, and whether it is legitimate, rather than patently unfair or ham-handed, as that McGuffin. All the questions you posed would be dealt with either via the group's backstory thus far, or within the actual playing of the adventure, or in some combination of those two.

So is this the kickstarter for the beginning of a campaign? In which case I'd say 'no' unless it comes with prior agreement from the wizard. It's almost akin, I'd say, to having the campaign start with "Hey guys, welcome to the campaign. Okay, you're all in a tavern, the Paladin falls and loses his powers, now go quest to get them back."

[Amphetryon]

So is this the kickstarter for the beginning of a campaign? In which case I'd say 'no' unless it comes with prior agreement from the wizard. It's almost akin, I'd say, to having the campaign start with "Hey guys, welcome to the campaign. Okay, you're all in a tavern, the Paladin falls and loses his powers, now go quest to get them back."

Adventure, not campaign - as indicated in the title. Adventures are short, campaigns are long.

[Boci]

I think the more important question is how long does the DM intend the search for the spellbook to last? If it takes too long, its probably going to be more worthwhile to just get a new one.

[Amnestic]

Adventure, not campaign - as indicated in the title. Adventures are short, campaigns are long.

Not sure that makes it better really, so I'll stick with my previous answer "It's okay if the Wizard gives their okay". Since otherwise you're effectively sidelining one player's effective contributions for the entire duration of an adventure. In fact I'd arguably say it's worse. Rather the adventure sidelining say...a rogue because there's lots of undead and you didn't think of it beforehand (something which can be fixed easily because it's a mechanical, not a story, problem), this is an adventure which actively targets the wizard player to make him bad.

Again, I'll refer to the Fallen Paladin adventure hook - it's hardly fair to start it off with "Paladin falls->Quest to fix" unless the Paladin player in question gives their okay. The DM doesn't have to run everything by their players by any means, but something that major I'd say so, otherwise there's probably gonna be some hurt feelings and potentially a drop out.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Instead of stealing the entire spell book, how about only a few pages, that contain an important spell, it could be an anscestral spell or one that was recently recovered from a lost tomb by the Wizard. The same general idea is there and it doesn't harm the Wizard quite so badly.

[mattie_p]

Considering the player already has the Spell Mastery feat, I'd say it is fair, with many of the caveats mentioned above.

It is more fair than sundering a BSF's sword or shield.

It is more fair than targeting a familiar.

[Palanan]

As Amnestic said before, I think the main issue is whether the wizard's player is okay with this, and that in turn depends on your vibe with the player.

To me, it sounds like a fun challenge, and there should be an obvious payoff here--that once the party tracks down the mustachioed villain and recovers the stolen spellbook, they should also pillage the villain's own spellbook. I've rarely played arcane casters, but I'd be willing to put up with a missing spellbook for the challenge alone, and especially if it meant payback and some free extra spells at the end of the trail.
.
.

[hymer]

If I was the wizard, I'd get that tired feeling inside I always get when my options are seriously hampered for what appears to be no good reason. I'd start by exploring the options for not biting the hook. If the DM obviously intends for us to bite the hook, I'd bite. I'd be rather quiet all that session and not look at people's faces, but I'd help out the party as best I could.
If I was another player, I'd be livid, unless I felt quite certain the wizard player was ok with it.
Regardless, I'd lose a lot of enthusiasm for the game for quite some time.

Would I be justified in feeling like that? Perhaps not. But I don't choose my emotions, as much as I sometimes wish I could.

[Demons_eye]

Personally I would love a low level adventure where my book was stolen, I only have a few spells I can cast, and only the party and my wit to succeed. It would be challenging and interesting to pull it off. As an adventure I wouldn't be too attached to my character yet and wouldn't be miffed about it.

[SowZ]

It is perfectly fine if the wizard was allowed reasonable precautions to prevent its theft. Like, you don't completely sidestep his contingencies with fiat. Anyway, yeah, if it is a one session thing the wizard has no right to complain. He gets some RP focus instead of 'lawl, I dominate the demon' focus. If the wizard has spell focus, it would be similar to a Fighter getting his sword stolen for a session.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The real question is whether the wizard will even take this hook. If he has the bulk of his spells still memorized from the day before, he can replace a significant portion of his spell book in relatively short order and leave revenge on the back burner for a while.

The rules for scribing spell-books say that a wizard can scribe any spell he has memorized with no checks involved and that making a copy of his spellbook takes half the time and expense of the original. Together these two rules mean that a wizard can replace the portion of his spellbook he has memorized immediately.

If the player is aware of this, and doesn't have a tremendous number of extra spells known in his book, he may not even take this hook. If he doesn't he'll likely call foul. Incidentally, this particular plot-arc possibility is why my wizards always have a few spells scribed as tattoos on their body and always cast drawmij's instant summons on their travel spellbook. The major spell-book, the BBB with all his spells, is stored in a safe place well away from the adventure.

[Amphetryon]

The takeaway I'm getting from responses is that most people feel it's never acceptable for any DM to take away any items from a PC, even if that equipment is not destroyed, the loss is not threatened as permanent, and even if that theft could open up an adventure hook.

Is that the consensus?

[hymer]

Well, no. Not "any items". We're talking the wizard's spellbook, that's not like taking one of the party's spare torches or anything. The spellbook is likely to be the wizard's most prized and useful possession.

[Amphetryon]

Well, no. Not "any items". We're talking the wizard's spellbook, that's not like taking one of the party's spare torches or anything. The spellbook is likely to be the wizard's most prized and useful possession.

If you find "they stole our torch" to be an acceptable adventure hook at 5th level - which is the basic premise here - then your concept of an adventure is substantially different than mine.

[Boci]

If you find "they stole our torch" to be an acceptable adventure hook at 5th level - which is the basic premise here - then your concept of an adventure is substantially different than mine.

To quote you from earlier in this thread: "I'm going with the belief that you know your answer is sidestepping the point."

There is a vast difference between something mechanically essential to a PC, something important (sentimentally or mechanically) and something easily replaceable.

[SowZ]

To quote you from earlier in this thread: "I'm going with the belief that you know your answer is sidestepping the point."

There is a vast difference between something mechanically essential to a PC, something important (sentimentally or mechanically) and something easily replaceable.

If the wizard has the feat spell mastery, stealing the spellbook is no more crippling than stealing the fighters best sword.

[Kobold Esq]

The vast majority of players don't like having their characters gimped. I know many people that would rather just start a new campaign than keep adventuring if they got hit with a Disjunction, for example. Not everyone feels that way, but it certainly is a common feeling.

This is especially true if the gimping happened in a way that the player was powerless to prevent, and was just DM fiat.

[Boci]

If the wizard has the feat spell mastery, stealing the spellbook is no more crippling than stealing the fighters best sword.

You are a 5th level wizard with intelligence modfier spells + read magic. Are you sure the above statement is accurate?

[hymer]

@ SowZ: He won't have access to third level spells, and he'll know, probably, 4 spells he can memorize. This need not be crippling, but the spellbook is still the very worst thing he can lose.

Edit: Boci's right, 4 spells + read magic. My bad.

[Boci]

@ SowZ: He won't have access to third level spells, and he'll know, probably, 4 spells he can memorize. This need not be crippling, but the spellbook is still the very worst thing he can lose.

Edit: Boci's right, 4 spells + read magic. My bad.

How dare you neglect read magic? That entirely changes the situation /sarcasm.

Actually the wizard will have access to 3rd level spells if they took the feat at level 5 (I think. I never bothered learning order of operations for leveling). But its still 3-5 spells vs. 7-9 first level spells, 4 second level spells and 2 third level spells, and that is assuming no extra money was spent to scribe.

[hymer]

I know, I feel so ashamed.

But you don't get a feat on level 5, only a bonus feat you can use for metamagic or item creation. Spell Mastery isn't either of these. Best case scenario is getting it at level 3.

[Boci]

"At 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level, a wizard gains a bonus feat. At each such opportunity, she can choose a metamagic feat, an item creation feat, or Spell Mastery."

[Kelb_Panthera]

The takeaway I'm getting from responses is that most people feel it's never acceptable for any DM to take away any items from a PC, even if that equipment is not destroyed, the loss is not threatened as permanent, and even if that theft could open up an adventure hook.

Is that the consensus?

I certainly don't agree with that sentiment.

Stealing a spellbook, as opposed to destroying it, is certainly a major setback but it's also a failure of the wizard to plan for a rather obvious contignency. If you're that reliant on one item then not putting -some- kind of defense around that item is just asking for trouble.

It should be used infrequently, because it -is- a huge, if temporary, power hit but I don't think it needs to be off the table altogether.

Let's look at some numbers.

A wizard of this level should have 4 cantrips, 4 first level slots, 3 second level, and 2 third level. His book will contain all the cantrips (which noone cares about) 9 first level, 4 second level, and 2 third level spells that didn't cost him anything. The value of such a book is
Number of spells X spell level X 50gp

9 X 1 X 50 = 450
4 X 2 X 50 = 400
2 X 3 X 50 = 300

for a total of 1150gp worth of spellbook. This is less than 13% of the wizard's WBL.

If he'd burned off, let's say, two of his first level spells on minor enemies and both his third levels on major enemies yesterday, he still has the capacity to restore 2 first level and all 3 second level spells to a new book at half the original cost.

That's

3 X 2 X 25 = 150
2 X 1 X 25 = 50

200 gold to replace a portion of the book. 300 to learn two new third level spells to replace the ones lost and an arbitrary amount of gold to replace the 1st levels. Let's say 150 for Sleep, web, and fog cloud.

650gp total gets you back to having a respectable spellbook with which to hunt down the one that was stolen, plus the spells for which the fellow had spell mastery. A few days down time and a relatively small expense gets him back in the game at a fair portion of his previous capacity.

This is not as big a deal as it's typically made out to be.

[Amphetryon]

"At 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level, a wizard gains a bonus feat. At each such opportunity, she can choose a metamagic feat, an item creation feat, or Spell Mastery."

That's what I see in the SRD and my 3.5 PhB, anyhow.

[hymer]

Very well, I'll accept that my memory were not to be trusted there.

[Amnestic]

This is not as big a deal as it's typically made out to be.

I suppose that's true at 5th level, but in that case it becomes a terrible plothook because the Wizard ceases to care except for revenge purposes. So either it's an enormous gimp if they can't replace it (due to...I dunno, environmental difficulties - stuck in the wilderness or something) or inconsequential?

[SowZ]

You are a 5th level wizard with intelligence modfier spells + read magic. Are you sure the above statement is accurate?

Yep. At fifth level, the fighter probably doesn't have multiple magic weapons. The fighter without his magic sword at level five is actually worse off than the Wizard without his spellbook and spell mastery.


@ SowZ: He won't have access to third level spells, and he'll know, probably, 4 spells he can memorize. This need not be crippling, but the spellbook is still the very worst thing he can lose.

Edit: Boci's right, 4 spells + read magic. My bad.

His only magic weapon is the very worst thing a Fighter can lose.

[nedz]

The takeaway I'm getting from responses is that most people feel it's never acceptable for any DM to take away any items from a PC, even if that equipment is not destroyed, the loss is not threatened as permanent, and even if that theft could open up an adventure hook.

Is that the consensus?

Doing a rough count up until this particular post, there seemed to be: 6 in favour of running this, 3 against and 2 said it depended upon the player.

But consensus be damned — it's your game and you know the player.

The fact that you miscounted the opinions, or even felt the need to post the question here at all, is probably telling. You are obviously unhappy with this hook — therefore you shouldn't run this.

[Boci]

Yep. At fifth level, the fighter probably doesn't have multiple magic weapons. The fighter without his magic sword at level five is actually worse off than the Wizard without his spellbook and spell mastery.

Of course he's worse off, he's a fighter (and the wizard has spent a feat specifically for such a situation). But the fighter just has to pick up a mundane weapon for 50gp and his net loss is -1 to hit and -1 damage, and the party caster needing to ready magic weapon incase some incorporeal creatures come up.

[Amphetryon]

Doing a rough count up until this particular post, there seemed to be: 6 in favour of running this, 3 against and 2 said it depended upon the player.

But consensus be damned — it's your game and you know the player.

The fact that you miscounted the opinions, or even felt the need to post the question here at all, is probably telling. You are obviously unhappy with this hook — therefore you shouldn't run this.I never said I was unhappy with the hook.

[hymer]

@ SowZ: And I'd probably react the same way I described if the fighter lost his weapon to an adventure hook (with the exception that it's very unlikely I'd play a fighter myself). I don't know why you'd think otherwise.

[SowZ]

Of course he's worse off, he's a fighter (and the wizard has spent a feat specifically for such a situation). But the fighter just has to pick up a mundane weapon for 50gp and his net loss is -1 to hit and -1 damage, and the party caster needing to ready magic weapon incase some incorporeal creatures come up.

Betting on another character to have a solution to your malady isn't really fair when talking about balance. My point was that a fighter without a magic weapon is the same as a wizard without a spell book but spell mastery at level 5.


@ SowZ: And I'd probably react the same way I described if the fighter lost his weapon to an adventure hook (with the exception that it's very unlikely I'd play a fighter myself). I don't know why you'd think otherwise.

I didn't imply that at all. My only point in that post was that stealing the wizards spellbook is similar to stealing the fighters weapon. Why you disagreed with that statement if you agree with it, I don't know.

[Randomguy]

It'd be decent if the wizard was allowed to use the rules that let him tattoo spells onto himself, so then he'd have more than just 4 spells.

[Palanan]

I really think this all comes down to how your individual player feels about this. The rest of us can either generalize in an abstract way, or express how we'd feel personally, or some amalgam of the two--but as several folks have pointed out, it's your game and your player, and you know that individual far better than we do.

I don't see that the question's been raised before, so I'll ask it now: have you discussed this with the wizard's player? You haven't mentioned how well you know this person, but I'd think that would be a useful first step.

[hymer]

@ SowZ: It might just be that I'm getting tired, but I didn't quite follow that. :smallsmile: I didn't make any judgment on the severity on fightersword vs. wizardspellbook lost, did I?
My point was simply that of all the things you could take away from the wizard, the worst is usually his spellbook. I agree that the fighter's main weapon is the worst thing for him to do without. [Edit: Well, his armour at level 5 could well be worse, as long as he has any sort of backup weapon; he's not likely to have backup armour. But that's beside the point.]
As I said, neither is crippling, but being without a weapon takes away the fighter's ability to fight. Losing the wizard's spellbook takes away his versatility.
Anyway, we're talking very generally here. Specific instances could lessen or worsen the blows greatly.

@ Amphetryon: So how do you feel about this whole discussion? I read you as a trifle irked, am I wrong?

[SowZ]

Is it just D&D that has this hyper-gamist perception to temporary power debuffs being so terribad? I've never had problems with, say, super hero games where a character loses his powers for a session. Or a horror game where a character loses their family artifact and has to go find it. I mean, it makes for a more interesting story as a side plot for that session.


@ SowZ: It might just be that I'm getting tired, but I didn't quite follow that. :smallsmile: I didn't make any judgment on the severity on fightersword vs. wizardspellbook lost, did I?
My point was simply that of all the things you could take away from the wizard, the worst is usually his spellbook. I agree that the fighter's main weapon is the worst thing for him to do without. [Edit: Well, his armour at level 5 could well be worse, as long as he has any sort of backup weapon; he's not likely to have backup armour. But that's beside the point.]
As I said, neither is crippling, but being without a weapon takes away the fighter's ability to fight. Losing the wizard's spellbook takes away his versatility.
Anyway, we're talking very generally here. Specific instances could lessen or worsen the blows greatly.

Oh, uh, the first thing I said was ,

If the wizard has the feat spell mastery, stealing the spellbook is no more crippling than stealing the fighters best sword.,

you said that the worst thing a wizard can lose is his spellbook, I said the worst thing a fighter can lose is his sword, then you said why would I assume you think it any better to take away a sword than a spellbook. You replying to my comment that it is no more crippling than taking away the fighters best sword with a negative implied you disagreed with it, to me.

[hymer]

You replying to my comment that it is no more crippling than taking away the fighters best sword with a negative implied you disagreed with it

Right. Uh, where did I do that? :smallredface: Could you quote me?

[Boci]

Betting on another character to have a solution to your malady isn't really fair when talking about balance.

No, discarding it isn't far. If the fighters loses their magical weapon, the casters can help them overcome that weakness. What can the fighter do to restore the wizards spell book again?
Not to mention the spell magic weapon is only relevant if fighting incorporeal creatures, or those with DR/magic. If no such creature are thought (not that unlikely at level 5), then the only difference is a minor statical downgrade. Where as a wizard will likely be affected far more by their loss of versatility against different enemy encounters.


My point was that a fighter without a magic weapon is the same as a wizard without a spell book but spell mastery at level 5.

And my point is that such a claim is wrong.

[SowZ]

If the wizard has the feat spell mastery, stealing the spellbook is no more crippling than stealing the fighters best sword.


@ SowZ: He won't have access to third level spells, and he'll know, probably, 4 spells he can memorize. This need not be crippling, but the spellbook is still the very worst thing he can lose.

Edit: Boci's right, 4 spells + read magic. My bad.


His only magic weapon is the very worst thing a Fighter can lose.


@ SowZ: And I'd probably react the same way I described if the fighter lost his weapon to an adventure hook (with the exception that it's very unlikely I'd play a fighter myself). I don't know why you'd think otherwise.

Here you go. It's no big deal, its just all I was saying was that a Fighter losing his best sword is the same and I kept reiterating the point during the our discourse.

[hymer]

Right, looks to me like we're saying the same thing to each other. "No it's A." "No, I'm telling you, it's A." "Nono, it's really A."
I can't seem to make myself clear, so I'll turn in for the night. Nice talking with you, and thanks for the clarification. :smallsmile:

[SowZ]

Right, looks to me like we're saying the same thing to each other. "No it's A." "No, I'm telling you, it's A." "Nono, it's really A."
I can't seem to make myself clear, so I'll turn in for the night. Nice talking with you, and thanks for the clarification. :smallsmile:

I don't think I really clarified anything, really, I jsut kept saying the same stuff. Like a kid on a playground, "Nu-uh, it's 'X'!" Hehe. Yeah, I don't think we have a real disagreement.

[Layman]

I don't know if Amphetryon decided in the last 3 days, but I think there is a point that wasn't covered much in this thread.

The way I see it, this adventure hook might just give the spell mastery feat its value for the player. Why would you take it if you weren't affraid to end up losing access to your spellbook at some point?

Also, I don't know who the other members of the group are, but I think it can help the group dynamics, because the wizard will have to rely on his comrades a bit more. I don't see it as blatantly unfair to the player. If the wizard end up being useless in the adventure, you can throw a few scrolls in the loot so he's got more options.

[Amphetryon]

Doing a rough count up until this particular post, there seemed to be: 6 in favour of running this, 3 against and 2 said it depended upon the player.

But consensus be damned — it's your game and you know the player.

The fact that you miscounted the opinions, or even felt the need to post the question here at all, is probably telling. You are obviously unhappy with this hook — therefore you shouldn't run this.

Slipperychicken finds it "extraordinarily unfair," while hymer would have to seach within himself to find the resolve to continue to play in the game, let alone trust the DM. That's two strongly against.

Kobold Esq appears to believe this is nothing more than a gimping of the Character via DM fiat, which I cannot personally read as an endorsement. That's another strongly against.

Amnestic, Palanan, SowZ, Kelb all seem to fall within the spectrum of "you need to get your Player's explicit permission before using this idea," often coupled with the idea of "your Wizard Player likely has no reason to take this hook." I read that as four more against this hook.

Sgt. Cookie appears to think it's unfair unless the spellbook is only robbed of a SINGLE spell - which reads from here as not as significant a hook if Magic Marts of any kind exist (and D&D's default assumption is that they do). That's another against.

You, nedz, while appearing - from my reading of your response - to agree with Kelb's assertion that it's entirely likely that the Wizard Player will not take this hook, see it as a minor inconvenience at best. That's a very tepid acceptance, with reservations.

Randomguy is okay with the hook (apparently) only if the Wizard has spells tattooed on his body, so that the loss of the spell book is all but without consequence. As with nedz's response, this is at best a very tepid acceptance with reservations.

Clericzilla and Demons_eye are okay with the hook. That's two slightly less tepid approvals.

I cannot tell from Boci's responses to date whether he is in favor of, or against, this particular adventure hook. In the absence of a clearer indicator, I'd call that an abstention.

My count is apparently different than yours, nedz. Interesting comment on "miscounted," by the way.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You don't need explicit permission, but you do need to have guaged how you think the player will react.

If the player has a history of reacting poorly to being debuffed or having less important items stolen then expecting a hissy fit or a rage-quit isn't unreasonable. If, on the other hand, they've been known to take adversity in stride then expecting them to do so once again and seek to overcome the challenge at hand isn't unreasonable.

I was only pointing out that this wasn't as massive a nerf as it's often regarded and that if you use it the player will have the option of choosing whether or not to take the hook if he knows about those mechanics as well as he really should.

Personally, unless there was a more pressing matter in-game, I'd chomp on that hook full force. If you mess with me, I make an example of you for the next guy.

[Boci]

I cannot tell from Boci's responses to date whether he is in favor of, or against, this particular adventure hook. In the absence of a clearer indicator, I'd call that an abstention.

Call my vote a hesistant yes, as I think it could work but have some problems with it. (Potential player respose, ad a preferece for such evets to happen game time).


Sgt. Cookie appears to think it's unfair unless the spellbook is only robbed of a SINGLE spell - which reads from here as not as significant a hook if Magic Marts of any kind exist (and D&D's default assumption is that they do). That's another against.

Wasn't there scenario that the stolen spell was a custom one, which wouldn't be available on the magic mart?

[absolmorph]

Is it just D&D that has this hyper-gamist perception to temporary power debuffs being so terribad? I've never had problems with, say, super hero games where a character loses his powers for a session. Or a horror game where a character loses their family artifact and has to go find it. I mean, it makes for a more interesting story as a side plot for that session.
I've never enjoyed my character not being able to be useful in some way during a session (even if it's just the character doing something nobody else has gotten around to).
Removing one of their primary assets (which a spell book would count as) will make such a session more likely. Depending on which spells were selected for Spell Mastery, the wizard could be almost entirely useless for the session


I was only pointing out that this wasn't as massive a nerf as it's often regarded and that if you use it the player will have the option of choosing whether or not to take the hook if he knows about those mechanics as well as he really should.

Personally, unless there was a more pressing matter in-game, I'd chomp on that hook full force. If you mess with me, I make an example of you for the next guy.
Depending on the game, the amount of down-time required to fill a new spell book with the spells lost could be a very big deal. To get all their spells written down again, the wizard is going to need 11 plus their Intelligence modifier (which I'm just gonna assume is 4 for now) days, not including their cantrips. Assuming they took the highest level spells they could, they'll have to spend 2,300 gp (again, not counting their cantrips). That's over a quarter of their WBL. Because scribing each page costs 100 gp, not 50 gp.
Providing a way to get their spell book back means that they don't need to go fill a new one, but it's a significant chunk of cash at this level to replace it. And, without Spell Mastery, the wizard can only use the spells they've already prepared, unless they get ahold of someone else's spell book.

[Amphetryon]

Call my vote a hesistant yes, as I think it could work but have some problems with it. (Potential player respose, ad a preferece for such evets to happen game time).



Wasn't there scenario that the stolen spell was a custom one, which wouldn't be available on the magic mart?
To the first part: Thank you for clarifying.

To the second part: That was Sgt. Cookie's scenario, who talked about a spell of specific ancestral importance to the Wizard in question. Nothing that I read explicitly within his response forbade the spell (or one exactly duplicating its effects, just not in Great Grandfather's handwriting or what have you) from appearing in a magic mart.

[JaronK]

I think this can work, but only if the theft is reasonable. If he's keeping his book well secured (such as inside a Handy Haversack) it'll feel really stupid. If he's in a situation where it could happen reasonably in a situation where the players had a chance (the party gets taken out by an encounter in a non lethal way, such as bandits attacking with Glitterdust who blind the whole party then hit them with other debuffs, then grab their stuff and run) it could be a fine adventure.

JaronK

[Boci]

To the first part: Thank you for clarifying.

To the second part: That was Sgt. Cookie's scenario, who talked about a spell of specific ancestral importance to the Wizard in question. Nothing that I read explicitly within his response forbade the spell (or one exactly duplicating its effects, just not in Great Grandfather's handwriting or what have you) from appearing in a magic mart.

Wouldn't that be the whole point of getting it back?

[Toy Killer]

Personally, I think the idea is more interesting in the reverse.

The players go through and kick out an orc mongering planning to rain doom down upon the heads of an innocent village of basket-weavers. They knew the Orc warband had a magic user, judging by the potions available to them and the over abundance of other small magical items, plus the nifty spell book the wizard found.

a week or so later, every place they've visited for the last week get's razed to the ground by a very angry Hobgoblin wizard, looking for his lost spell book (Whom, apparently, only memorized evocation and summoning spells).

[nedz]

Slipperychicken finds it "extraordinarily unfair," while hymer would have to seach within himself to find the resolve to continue to play in the game, let alone trust the DM. That's two strongly against.

Kobold Esq appears to believe this is nothing more than a gimping of the Character via DM fiat, which I cannot personally read as an endorsement. That's another strongly against.

Amnestic, Palanan, SowZ, Kelb all seem to fall within the spectrum of "you need to get your Player's explicit permission before using this idea," often coupled with the idea of "your Wizard Player likely has no reason to take this hook." I read that as four more against this hook.

Sgt. Cookie appears to think it's unfair unless the spellbook is only robbed of a SINGLE spell - which reads from here as not as significant a hook if Magic Marts of any kind exist (and D&D's default assumption is that they do). That's another against.

You, nedz, while appearing - from my reading of your response - to agree with Kelb's assertion that it's entirely likely that the Wizard Player will not take this hook, see it as a minor inconvenience at best. That's a very tepid acceptance, with reservations.

Randomguy is okay with the hook (apparently) only if the Wizard has spells tattooed on his body, so that the loss of the spell book is all but without consequence. As with nedz's response, this is at best a very tepid acceptance with reservations.

Clericzilla and Demons_eye are okay with the hook. That's two slightly less tepid approvals.

I cannot tell from Boci's responses to date whether he is in favor of, or against, this particular adventure hook. In the absence of a clearer indicator, I'd call that an abstention.

My count is apparently different than yours, nedz. Interesting comment on "miscounted," by the way.
How I saw it:
y I said — OK for a short arc, pointless for a long one
n Slipperychicken said — It's extraordinarily unfair
y Clericzilla said — Go with it, I've heard worse.
n Amnestic said — 'no' unless it comes with prior agreement
Boci said — pointless for a long arc
Sgt. Cookie suggested toning it down
y mattie_p said — it is fair, with many of the caveats mentioned above.
y Palanan said — whether the wizard's player is okay with this ... To me, it sounds like a fun challenge
n hymer was against
y Demons_eye — would love a low level adventure where my book was stolen
y SowZ said — It is perfectly fine if (you don't railroad)
Kelb_Panthera — was more nuanced, but probably against

#20 is where I stopped counting, because that's where you made your comment.

Assuming a short arc: that's how I came to 6 for and 3 against. On reflection I think 6 - 5 would have fairer; I think I counted Sgt. Cookie and Kelb_Panthera as neutral.

Your comment incidentally was

The takeaway I'm getting from responses is that most people feel it's never acceptable for any DM to ...

I did then follow this with a sweeping statement which has obviously touched a nerve. I apologise if I have annoyed you, that was not my intention.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm going to point out here that I'm neither for nor against the hook in this discussion. I don't have enough information about the player that would be the target to make a decision one way or the other.

In general, I have used it in the past and, with a player that I think would handle it well, will probably use it again in the future. My venom in commenting that I'd make an example of the thief is entirely predicated on my attitude toward vengeance in general. The DM can mess with my characters because that's part of his job as a DM. The NPC's that mess with my characters pay the price in blood.

[SowZ]

Slipperychicken finds it "extraordinarily unfair," while hymer would have to seach within himself to find the resolve to continue to play in the game, let alone trust the DM. That's two strongly against.

Kobold Esq appears to believe this is nothing more than a gimping of the Character via DM fiat, which I cannot personally read as an endorsement. That's another strongly against.

Amnestic, Palanan, SowZ, Kelb all seem to fall within the spectrum of "you need to get your Player's explicit permission before using this idea," often coupled with the idea of "your Wizard Player likely has no reason to take this hook." I read that as four more against this hook.

Sgt. Cookie appears to think it's unfair unless the spellbook is only robbed of a SINGLE spell - which reads from here as not as significant a hook if Magic Marts of any kind exist (and D&D's default assumption is that they do). That's another against.

You, nedz, while appearing - from my reading of your response - to agree with Kelb's assertion that it's entirely likely that the Wizard Player will not take this hook, see it as a minor inconvenience at best. That's a very tepid acceptance, with reservations.

Randomguy is okay with the hook (apparently) only if the Wizard has spells tattooed on his body, so that the loss of the spell book is all but without consequence. As with nedz's response, this is at best a very tepid acceptance with reservations.

Clericzilla and Demons_eye are okay with the hook. That's two slightly less tepid approvals.

I cannot tell from Boci's responses to date whether he is in favor of, or against, this particular adventure hook. In the absence of a clearer indicator, I'd call that an abstention.

My count is apparently different than yours, nedz. Interesting comment on "miscounted," by the way.

Hmm, actually, I have been trying to argue for this hook, under the assumption it is a one session detour and not a drawn out sub-plot.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Amphetryon
Amnestic, Palanan, SowZ, Kelb all seem to fall within the spectrum of "you need to get your Player's explicit permission before using this idea," often coupled with the idea of "your Wizard Player likely has no reason to take this hook." I read that as four more against this hook.

Actually, I love the idea of the hook and think it could stimulate some excellent roleplaying. I'm just cautioning that, depending on your familiarity with the player and his/her style, it might be best to float the idea first.

So, I'm not against the hook by any means, only aware it might require some conversation beforehand.