On Books and Tomes

[OrlockDelesian]

How does the Majority of the playground deals with Books in game?
I mean, I was watching Buffy and Angel the other day, and I always liked the whole reshearch thing, with rare books that could not be found easily etch.
But, how can you translate that to d&d? I mean as you go up in LvLs you can add ranks to your knowledge skills even if your character is always crawling on a dungeon and never have been near a library?
How do you even traslate the Rarity of spells? Lets say you battle a 1000 year old Lich with your 32 year old 16 lvl Wizard.
Shouldn't it be logical that the lich has scores and scores of lost tomes of knowledge and spells that most people thought that where lost?

Personally I usually do the following (at least on spells)

Core Rulebook Spells are Considered Common. Anyone can learn them and anyone has a small idea of what they are doing.

Splatbook (but official) Spells (such as those from spell compendium) are considered Rare. A character needs to have ranks in Knowledge arcana = to spell lvl to learn the spell and he cannot learn it by himself, but needs to at least has seen it once

Spells form other Sources are conidered Forgotten. These spells require a scroll or a teacher , ranks in knowledge arcana = to spell lvl x 2 and have a +4 on a spellcraft dc to identify them.

Anything too Broken (such as many spells form Relics and Rituals) and many official but too powerfull spells (such as Ice Assasin or Shivering touch) is considered lost. They not only need a teacher, but also ranks in Knowl Arcana = 14+spell lvl. They have a +10 to the dc to identify them.


How do you find the idea?

[Melcar]

I think its a very good idea. But I would also, for the lich you mention create some personal spells for him.

Larloch will more likely cast spell that you dont know, than spell you know.

Just an idea! :smallbiggrin:

[Brookshw]

I'm all for it. You can use forgotten lore as plot hooks, have books give circumstance modifiers, if using training rules the books could have an effect, and if so desired a DM could use them as a reward to reduce the cost of learning or inscribing new spells. Useful stuff imo.

[Deophaun]

Splatbook (but official) Spells (such as those from spell compendium) are considered Rare. A character needs to have ranks in Knowledge arcana = to spell lvl to learn the spell and he cannot learn it by himself, but needs to at least has seen it once
Makes no sense for Sorcerers, who are magical by nature of their blood. Plus, needless skill tax on a 2+Dump Stat skill point class.

Also, if you need to have seen it first in order to learn it, then how did the first person to learn it... well... learn it? I call shenanigans on that. If you want to ban a spell, ban a spell. Don't force a player to hijack a session or two to haul the rest of the party on a quest just so he can learn benign transposition.

There's the additional point that most of the broken stuff is core, so you're steering your players to it instead of away from it.

[OrlockDelesian]

You are right, but even for sorcerers I require at least the Knowledge ranks and to have seen the spell first.
Since the Sorcerer CHOOSES his spells and not learn them randomly, it is logical to assume that he/she spends time between lvls trying to simmulate an effect.
Thus he needs to be able to know that this effect is possible.

At least this is how i see it.

The first person to learn it, is either very old (in tha case of a Lich) or found it in a scroll or a book. In case of lost spells, he might met a dragon who taught it to him.

Now for Core-broken spells, it takes tweaking but I usually say that "enter broken spell name here" is considered lost magic.

[Red Fel]

Not all spell research means looking for scrolls or books.

If you go by the more traditional style, which assumes that leveling up is something that occurs between adventures, and not overnight once you've killed the requisite number of goblins, a spellcaster may be spending his time researching in scrolls and old books, fine. But he may also be doing science - he may be researching spells through trial and error.

Not everyone learns Polymorph Any Object from a book, or a scroll, or observation, or tutoring by their mentor - although these are all reasonable methods. Some learn by experimenting. They study Polymorph, and maybe Baleful Polymorph, and perhaps Draconic Polymorph, studying the mechanics of the spell, figuring out how it works and how they can force it to work on a target. And then, by some miracle, they have an "Eureka!" moment, and Polymorph Any Object is born.

All this, and they never had to read a book or scroll to figure it out.

If you use the "Ding! Level up!" method of leveling and learning spells, this becomes more challenging, but one option is simply to let the players make an argument that, "Well, I've been using Fireball, and Evard's Black Tentacles, a lot, so I figure my character figured out how to combine the effects, and now he can cast Daltim's Fiery Tentacles." If your players use school specialists, or have a particular magical toolset they use often, it's not unreasonable to say that they've been developing new arcane formulae (read: learning spells), which go onto their spell lists upon leveling.

Tl;dr: I think the research option is great, and fun, for book-dependent casters. However, I don't think all casters, even Wizards, need to be dependent solely on books. Somebody had to invent the spell in the first place, and what's wrong with reinventing the wheel?

[Deophaun]

Since the Sorcerer CHOOSES his spells and not learn them randomly, it is logical to assume that he/she spends time between lvls trying to simmulate an effect.
No.

The PLAYER chooses the spells. The Sorcerer character does not.

So, do you give Sorcerers extra skill points to compensate? Or are they just so much more powerful than Wizards that you need to nerf them?

[OrlockDelesian]

I do not nerf them.
And they are not as Powerfull as wizards, I know that.


But I do not like the idea that the Sorcerer does nothing and suddenly BOOM new spell.
It seems much more "realistic" -for lack of a better word- that he tries to focus this wild energy in a specific way.
The perfect sorcerer would be one that does not use spells at all but combines elements of spells how he sees fit everytime he casts, but this would require tremendus homebrewing.

[BWR]

How does the Majority of the playground deals with Books in game?
I mean, I was watching Buffy and Angel the other day, and I always liked the whole reshearch thing, with rare books that could not be found easily etch.
But, how can you translate that to d&d? I mean as you go up in LvLs you can add ranks to your knowledge skills even if your character is always crawling on a dungeon and never have been near a library?
How do you even traslate the Rarity of spells? Lets say you battle a 1000 year old Lich with your 32 year old 16 lvl Wizard.
Shouldn't it be logical that the lich has scores and scores of lost tomes of knowledge and spells that most people thought that where lost?

Personally I usually do the following (at least on spells)

Core Rulebook Spells are Considered Common. Anyone can learn them and anyone has a small idea of what they are doing.

Splatbook (but official) Spells (such as those from spell compendium) are considered Rare. A character needs to have ranks in Knowledge arcana = to spell lvl to learn the spell and he cannot learn it by himself, but needs to at least has seen it once

Spells form other Sources are conidered Forgotten. These spells require a scroll or a teacher , ranks in knowledge arcana = to spell lvl x 2 and have a +4 on a spellcraft dc to identify them.

Anything too Broken (such as many spells form Relics and Rituals) and many official but too powerfull spells (such as Ice Assasin or Shivering touch) is considered lost. They not only need a teacher, but also ranks in Knowl Arcana = 14+spell lvl. They have a +10 to the dc to identify them.


How do you find the idea?

Generally this looks fine.
I'm not sure I like the idea that you can't reasearch certain spells yourself. By all means, make it so that learning from books and scrolls is easier and quicker, make it so that some non-standard spells are even harder to make but flat-out preventing characters from research is not something I would advise. It brings up the question about how someone was able to get them in the first place. Making it harder so people are better off using their time on easier stuff is ok, but the 'lost lore that cannot be replicated' idea has rarely appealed to me. 'Lost lore that no one has replicated until now' is a lot more fun.

[Deophaun]

But I do not like the idea that the Sorcerer does nothing and suddenly BOOM new spell.
I do not like the idea that the Warlock does nothing and suddenly BOOM new invocation.

I do not like the idea that the Fighter does nothing and suddenly BOOM new feat.

I do not like the idea that the Cleric does nothing and suddenly BOOM new spells.

That's how the game mechanics run because of its level-based nature. That does not mean that's how it's actually happening.

The sorcerer is a class that demands the universe does the impossible through its force of personality, and you're saying "well, they can do that, only as long as they know they're demanding the reasonably possible impossible." You are eliminating an entire archetype from the game due to a narrow view of how magic "realisitically" works. Harry Potter did not know it was possible to remove the glass from the snake pen, but he did it anyway.

Anyway, whenever I see "you have to have seen it first," whether it be with spells or, more commonly, polymorph/wildshape, I just interpret that to be "banned," because 90% of the time, that's what it actually is.

[Dawgmoah]

Not all spell research means looking for scrolls or books.

If you go by the more traditional style, which assumes that leveling up is something that occurs between adventures, and not overnight once you've killed the requisite number of goblins, a spellcaster may be spending his time researching in scrolls and old books, fine. But he may also be doing science - he may be researching spells through trial and error.

From an earlier post Deophaun made: he does not believe in trail and error but believes any magician who gets a spell should automatically know how it will react with ANYTHING (emphasis mine). It was something to do with a player complaining that the wizard in their game tried to use Ray of Stupidity on a dinosaur while on an alien plane and it didn't work just right. He said the spellcaster should know what his spell does.... I'm all for trail and error; that's what happens most of the time (can we say Edison, Bell, or any other inventor?) Necessity is indeed the mother of invention, but slow trail and error is it's father while "out of the blue" bolts of genius are its' godfather.


Not everyone learns Polymorph Any Object from a book, or a scroll, or observation, or tutoring by their mentor - although these are all reasonable methods. Some learn by experimenting. They study Polymorph, and maybe Baleful Polymorph, and perhaps Draconic Polymorph, studying the mechanics of the spell, figuring out how it works and how they can force it to work on a target. And then, by some miracle, they have an "Eureka!" moment, and Polymorph Any Object is born.

All this, and they never had to read a book or scroll to figure it out.

If you use the "Ding! Level up!" method of leveling and learning spells, this becomes more challenging, but one option is simply to let the players make an argument that, "Well, I've been using Fireball, and Evard's Black Tentacles, a lot, so I figure my character figured out how to combine the effects, and now he can cast Daltim's Fiery Tentacles." If your players use school specialists, or have a particular magical toolset they use often, it's not unreasonable to say that they've been developing new arcane formulae (read: learning spells), which go onto their spell lists upon leveling.

Tl;dr: I think the research option is great, and fun, for book-dependent casters. However, I don't think all casters, even Wizards, need to be dependent solely on books. Somebody had to invent the spell in the first place, and what's wrong with reinventing the wheel?

Step back for a second and think of what "we know" compared to what people knew a hundred years ago. Think of all of the changes that have come about with all of the synergy created and now spurred by mass communications. When radio was first invented it was meant to be only a point to point private messaging system. It wasn't until years later that someone, I think Sarnoff, saw the utility of using it as a broadcast medium. Take real world examples and extrapolate them into the game. Yes, different magicians across the world will come up with the same ideas and perhaps spells. But the way they discover these spells would not necessarily be the same. So books can help and a person can build upon existing work (like broadcast radio) or a lonely mage might be sitting in his tower watching two birds flitting about his window and think of a spell (like the guy who invented modern cooling when cold water from a pipe dripped on his head.)

[Deophaun]

From an earlier post Deophaun made: he does not believe in trail and error but believes any magician who gets a spell should automatically know how it will react with ANYTHING (emphasis mine). It was something to do with a player complaining that the wizard in their game tried to use Ray of Stupidity on a dinosaur while on an alien plane and it didn't work just right.
ANYTHING is your term, as I said no such thing. Here's the (old, avoid necromancy) thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292990) The DM had a general rule (not one to do only with dinosaurs on an unusual plane) that ray of stupidity did not work on creatures with an Int less than 4. The issue there was the DM not correcting a rules "misunderstanding" when he had a chance before it actually became an issue in game, not that spellcasters should know every conceivable way their spells can interact with exotic effects (that's what the various Knowledge skills are for; and it's only in that sense that I do not believe in trial and error, at least in this system where a single error gets you throwing away a character with a lot of time and effort invested into it).

Anyway, it's OT for this thread.

[Seharvepernfan]

I sometimes have books be treasure, kinda like art objects.

As for knowledge, not all books are correct, and some are outright lies. Just because you went to school and studied and blah blah blah doesn't mean that your knowledge is correct. There are so many conflicting interests and parties in the world with so many powers and abilities, how can you be sure than anything written by another is true? Adventurers are out there seeing the real world with their own eyes, and all the various stimuli and things they come across leave them with insights into things, both old and new.

You know how you often get new/good ideas while doing something unrelated to whatever the idea pertains too?

[Erth16]

The perfect sorcerer would be one that does not use spells at all but combines elements of spells how he sees fit everytime he casts, but this would require tremendus homebrewing.

If you don't mind Pathfinder, I believe this could be just what you are looking for.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/words-of-power

[Hangwind]

So... you want to change the Sorcerer into a copy of the Sha'ir? They already have to have seen a spells efect to use it. Maybe. it actually is a point of debate at my table.

Anyway, apparently every spell ever exists on the elemental planes so that would be another source.