Why does the Book of Infinite Spells have a finite number of spells?

[Aquillion]

The Book of Infinite Spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm) is perhaps the most poorly-named artifact ever made. It contains exactly 1d8+22 spells, no more and no less. You can't even cast them infinite times because of the way the pages turn automatically! It is literally more finite than an ordinary spellbook. It is the most specifically finite spellbook in the entire game! It lets you cast a finite number of spells, then disappears forever.

Why? Why is the most finite spellbook ever produced called the "book of infinite spells?"

(It's particularly odd because I don't think it would have been that difficult to balance it around providing genuinely infinite spells - it would need a few additional rules, like eg. "you can only turn the page once per day", and I'd probably require that you carry it on you to limit it a bit more, but notionally letting you cast a spell 1/day forever with the caveat that the granted spell will sometimes change randomly isn't exactly a broken ability for a CL 18 artifact that can't reasonably be stacked or collected. It's cool and interesting, but just having one of them is unlikely to break a high-level game.)

Besides, "The Book of 1d8+22 Spells" is totally an awesome name for an artifact.

Also, how do you even bind a book with 23 - 30 pages? That's a pretty thin spellbook. Is it, like... one of those little golden books for kids? Maybe it should be called the "Pamphlet of Infinite Spells", or, more accurately, "The Pamphlet of 1d8+22 Spells."

[hamishspence]

I think each time the book vanishes, it turns up again somewhere else in the multiverse with a completely new selection of spells.

[Bavarian itP]

Also, how do you even bind a book with 23 - 30 pages? That's a pretty thin spellbook. Is it, like... one of those little golden books for kids? Maybe it should be called the "Pamphlet of Infinite Spells", or, more accurately, "The Pamphlet of 1d8+22 Spells."

It contains probably more pages than you think. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0306.html)

[Florian]

Interesting. I´ve just compared the 3.5E version with the PF version. The difference is in the details and quite surprising: The PF version actually lets you recast the spell on the actual page over and over again, with a minimum of 10% per casting that the page will turn. Pack some reroll powers or a good source of a constant luck bonus and chances are good that you actually manage to spam, say, Fireball all day long.

[Andezzar]

Interesting. I´ve just compared the 3.5E version with the PF version. The difference is in the details and quite surprising: The PF version actually lets you recast the spell on the actual page over and over again, with a minimum of 10% per casting that the page will turn. Pack some reroll powers or a good source of a constant luck bonus and chances are good that you actually manage to spam, say, Fireball all day long.Why spam fireball when you can spam wish (to create fireballs)? :smallbiggrin:

[Florian]

Why spam fireball when you can spam wish (to create fireballs)? :smallbiggrin:

Happens when you have the Fireball page open. Sure, when you have the Wish or Miracle page open... go nuts.

[Andezzar]

I think fireball isn't one of the spells you would want to keep open.

[Florian]

I think fireball isn't one of the spells you would want to keep open.

Do you have concrete experience with that particular artifact in actual play? Once you hit a page with a spell that you know and is somehow usable, you will keep onto it and don't dare any changes.

[Andezzar]

I don't, but I think whether you want to turn the page will depend on the character using the book.

[ericgrau]

Why? Why is the most finite spellbook ever produced called the "book of infinite spells?"


Marketing. While the name isn't bad, no one ever searches for the "book of twenty-something or so spells".


I don't, but I think whether you want to turn the page will depend on the character using the book.
Using an actual random major scroll generator per the artifact instructions:

Animate Objects
Spell Immunity
Permanency
Discern Location
Dispel Chaos
Mass Cure Moderate Wounds
Baleful Polymorph
Summon Monster V
Hold Monster
Insanity
Stone to Flesh
Antilife Shell
Transmute Rock to Mud
Animate Plants
Overland Flight
Greater Arcane Sight
Heal
Mage's Faithful Hound

If you get something halfway useful and re-usable like fireball you'll want to keep it there as long as possible. Even as only a 3rd level spell. Most spells you'll want to cast once or not at all, burning it just so you can get to the next one. Btw before you speculate, you're lucky to get anything more than 2 CR 3 creatures out of animate objects, if there's anything around to animate at all. Likewise most spells require a pretty strong coincidence to be at all useful or more than barely useful. Run a mock case before assuming otherwise; use a random page in a random module or your last adventure if needed. You severely underestimate what we get from the ability to choose. Random spells are a great way to get a pile of suck.

[Andezzar]

I am not sure where you got that list but in the DMG gate and wish are possible

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I am not sure where you got that list but in the DMG gate and wish are possibleAhem.


Using an actual random major scroll generator per the artifact instructions:
[snip]Whitespace

[Jack_Simth]

I am not sure where you got that list but in the DMG gate and wish are possible

"Possible" - yes, absolutely. "Likely" - not so much. Using the 3.5 version (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm#bookofInfiniteSpells), and the 3.5 scroll tables (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm): To get Wish, you need to roll Arcane (70%), 9th level (6%), and then roll Wish itself (which is 1%). Cumulatively, that's a 0.042% chance per page. Even with the maximum number of pages in the book, you're still looking at just barely over 1% total probability that it will come up at all. Gate is better (it's on both DMG lists, and is 5% of the Arcane 9ths, 6% of the Divine 9ths), but it's still a very low likelihood that it'll come up.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

The Book of Infinite Spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm) is perhaps the most poorly-named artifact ever made. It contains exactly 1d8+22 spells, no more and no less. You can't even cast them infinite times because of the way the pages turn automatically! It is literally more finite than an ordinary spellbook. It is the most specifically finite spellbook in the entire game! It lets you cast a finite number of spells, then disappears forever.
I feel like it would have been fine as long as it didn't have the automatic page turning. Then it would have been an infinite number of casts (over time) at least.

[Jack_Simth]

I feel like it would have been fine as long as it didn't have the automatic page turning. Then it would have been an infinite number of casts (over time) at least.
If it didn't, then particularly lucky rolls would break games into very small pieces, with Gate, Wish, and Miracle featuring rather prominently in that poster.

Edit: Hmm.
What if we kept the automatic page turning, got rid of the page limit, and made it so that the ONLY way to turn the page was the automatic method? It's got per-day use limits, so you can't just spam it until you get something good (except during down-time, but even then, once you get it, you need to be careful).

[Aquillion]

What if we kept the automatic page turning, got rid of the page limit, and made it so that the ONLY way to turn the page was the automatic method? It's got per-day use limits, so you can't just spam it until you get something good (except during down-time, but even then, once you get it, you need to be careful).That would work.

I might also require that the user actually pay costly material components or XP components for spells cast through it (it's not 100% clear, but it says they're cast "as if scrolls were employed", which seems to imply the book spots you the costs.) In that case you'd probably want to let people spend their casting trying to turn the page as if they cast a spell so it doesn't get stuck on a spell whose costs they don't want to pay (or can't pay, in rare situations.) Though the chance of getting Wish is low enough that it's probably not a huge deal.

[rferries]

I feel like the book should simply have been: contains ALL spells, arcane and divine. Spellcasters can research new spells from the book at no cost (except maybe time), wizards can transcribe any number of spells from it into their own spellbooks, etc. Maybe a risk of going mad from forbidden knowledge a la contact other plane too.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I feel like the book should simply have been: contains ALL spells, arcane and divine. Spellcasters can research new spells from the book at no cost (except maybe time), wizards can transcribe any number of spells from it into their own spellbooks, etc. Maybe a risk of going mad from forbidden knowledge a la contact other plane too.

You don't see any potential problems with that plan? Really? :smallconfused:

[rferries]

You don't see any potential problems with that plan? Really? :smallconfused:

Not really? Unlike the current tome it doesn't provide any "extra" ability, mostly just saves wizards some gp scribing costs. As for researching new spells, that's always been subject to DM approval - the player has to submit an idea first.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not really? Unlike the current tome it doesn't provide any "extra" ability, mostly just saves wizards some gp scribing costs. As for researching new spells, that's always been subject to DM approval - the player has to submit an idea first.

Having access to -literally- every wizard spell except those explicitly banned by the GM is bonkers. It's the best list by a substantial margin and the class' chief limiting factor is the cost/ access issue with acquiring new spells outside of the level-up freebies. If you're letting them get the whole of -all- spells, as what you've written strongly suggests, that's something that normally takes some serious TO shenanigans to -nearly- accomplish and you're suggesting just handing that to a player on a silver platter. This will absolutely shatter a typical GMs game in the wrong hands.

Edit: seriously, I don't know if I'd trust myself with such a thing as a PC and I'm pretty good about trying not to break things.

[Thurbane]

It's also one of the more easily destroyed artifacts I've read about:


The pages cannot be ripped out without destroying the book.

[rferries]

Having access to -literally- every wizard spell except those explicitly banned by the GM is bonkers. It's the best list by a substantial margin and the class' chief limiting factor is the cost/ access issue with acquiring new spells outside of the level-up freebies. If you're letting them get the whole of -all- spells, as what you've written strongly suggests, that's something that normally takes some serious TO shenanigans to -nearly- accomplish and you're suggesting just handing that to a player on a silver platter. This will absolutely shatter a typical GMs game in the wrong hands.

Edit: seriously, I don't know if I'd trust myself with such a thing as a PC and I'm pretty good about trying not to break things.

Again, the non-Core spells available to PCs are subject to DM approval -doubly so in this case, as the Book is an artifact. You can't buy it or find it as random treasure, you can only get it if the DM wants you to have it.

Normally I would take your point, however! :)

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Remember: you can pull one out of your spell component pouch any time you like.

Infinite spells for 5 gp? Heck yeah.

[Andezzar]

Remember: you can pull one out of your spell component pouch any time you like.

Infinite spells for 5 gp? Heck yeah.Is there a spell that requires an artifact as spell component?

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Is there a spell that requires an artifact as spell component?Yep. Apocalypse from the sky uses an artifact as a spell component. Artifacts have 0 gp cost. Therefore, RAW, you can pull artifacts out of your spell component pouch any time you like.

Dumb, but it is what it is.

[edit] Also, any spell that requires a creature's body part. Vecna's hand/eye/head say 'hi.' Possibly literally.

[The Glyphstone]

It's also one of the more easily destroyed artifacts I've read about:

It's a Minor Artifact. They're not supposed to typically be uncommonly resilient, beyond their status as an extremely high-CL magic item with the accompanying Hardness and HP. Only Major Artifacts get weird specific destruction rituals.

[Celestia]

My fix for the book would be that the book can be cast from a total of three times per day and the page can be turned a total number of times per day equal to the intelligence modifier of the first person to touch it that day. The book also automatically turns the page if it has not been turned in the past three days. Then it is truly a book of infinite spells, but there's still a reasonable limit to it.

[rferries]

Yep. Apocalypse from the sky uses an artifact as a spell component. Artifacts have 0 gp cost. Therefore, RAW, you can pull artifacts out of your spell component pouch any time you like.

Dumb, but it is what it is.

[edit] Also, any spell that requires a creature's body part. Vecna's hand/eye/head say 'hi.' Possibly literally.

That loophole doesn't work, really. An artifact is priceless, which means "arbitrarily high" gp cost, not 0 gp. Plus, a spell component pouch specifically doesn't hold focuses that don't fit in it.

[digiman619]

Yep. Apocalypse from the sky uses an artifact as a spell component. Artifacts have 0 gp cost. Therefore, RAW, you can pull artifacts out of your spell component pouch any time you like.

Dumb, but it is what it is.

[edit] Also, any spell that requires a creature's body part. Vecna's hand/eye/head say 'hi.' Possibly literally.

No, it has no GP cost. It's the difference between Con 0 and Con -.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I beg to differ.


Spell Component Pouch
A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.Artifacts don't have a specific cost.

Just get yourself an extra-large spell component pouch, and you'll be just fine.

[Thurbane]

RAW or not, good luck finding a table that actually allows it. I'm not sure this would even fly in the Tippyverse...

[Aetis]

It's a typo.

It's supposed to say Book of Finite Spells.

[Andezzar]

It's supposed to say Book of Finite Spells.Unfortunately that is a fitting description for any ordinary spellbook as well.

[ericgrau]

If you roll really well forever you can cast a spell from the book an unlimited number of times?

[Celestia]

I beg to differ.

Artifacts don't have a specific cost.

Just get yourself an extra-large spell component pouch, and you'll be just fine.
Dragons cast spells, and they can get up to colossal size. So, naturally, that means that colossal size component pouches must exist. :smallwink:

[hamishspence]

I beg to differ.

Artifacts don't have a specific cost.

Just get yourself an extra-large spell component pouch, and you'll be just fine.

Errata for BOVD clarified that the artifact was a focus, not a component - so that's fixed.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Errata for BOVD clarified that the artifact was a focus, not a component - so that's fixed.And where in the list of errata documents is the BoVD? (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata) Because I ain't seein' it.

I'm pretty sure you're looking at homebrew, because there is no errata. At all.

[hamishspence]

I may have been thinking of the FAQ - which includes errata in some cases:

FAQ archive (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)

That, or it was Dragon Magazine's FAQ.

[OgresAreCute]

I may have been thinking of the FAQ - which includes errata in some cases:

FAQ archive (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)

That, or it was Dragon Magazine's FAQ.

It's in the FAQ.
https://i.gyazo.com/92dc86c5c8acd2a3fba143442cfb7fb8.png

[Andezzar]

That is an impressive lack of rules knowledge from the FAQ author. While foci and material components are spell components, foci are not material components.

[hamishspence]

Focus components are assumed to be of negligible cost unless specified otherwise - and negligible cost ones are assumed to be present in the pouch:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#components

Focus (F)
A focus component is a prop of some sort. Unlike a material component, a focus is not consumed when the spell is cast and can be reused. As with material components, the cost for a focus is negligible unless a price is given. Assume that focus components of negligible cost are in your spell component pouch.


However, it's safe to say that artifacts not having a listed price, is not intended to be taken as "every spellcaster has artifacts in their pouch".




Artifacts don't have a specific cost.


"Pouch components" though, have to be of negligible cost, rather than "non-specific cost" for you to be guaranteed to have them.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

However, it's safe to say that artifacts not having a listed price, is not intended to be taken as "every spellcaster has artifacts in their pouch".

"Pouch components" though, have to be of negligible cost, rather than "non-specific cost" for you to be guaranteed to have them.You are incorrect. Both the SRD and the Player's Handbook have the same wording:


Spell Component Pouch: This small, watertight leather belt pouch has many compartments. A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch (such as the natural pool that a druid needs to look into to cast scrying).You're thinking of Eschew Materials.

Any material component without a "specific cost" is in the spell component pouch, not a "negligible cost." Eschew Materials, on the other hand, is negligible cost (anything under 1 gp).

And the FAQ is not errata, nor is it RAW. It is demonstrably wrong often enough that taking it with a mere grain of salt will leave you with terminally low blood pressure.

As it stands, apocalypse from the sky has an artifact as a material component, which can be found in a spell component pouch.

And even if you take it as being a focus, the pouch still has it. Foci are mentioned, if you'll notice.

[hamishspence]

You are incorrect. Both the SRD and the Player's Handbook have the same wording.

In the section on the pouch near the beginning of the book - items. However, the section on components, in the Magic part of the rulebook, has its own wording.

Therefore, it seems clear that "without a specific cost" means "negligible cost".

[MaxiDuRaritry]

In the section on the pouch near the beginning of the book - items. However, the section on components, in the Magic part of the rulebook, has its own wording.Since the latter doesn't negate the former, it apparently has both "negligible" and "non-specific" components and foci in it.

That, or the former overrides the latter, since the former is more specific to the item in question.

Either way, pouches still contain artifacts, by RAW.

[edit]

Therefore, it seems clear that "without a specific cost" means "negligible cost".Then it still works, as "without a specific cost" still works with artifacts.

[hamishspence]

Artifacts not having a given price, does not mean they are of negligible cost - it means the cost is up to the DM, when the players find a merchant that happens to have a Staff of the Magi, Talisman of Ultimate Evil, or similar non-unique artifact, in stock.

As pointed out

RAW or not, good luck finding a table that actually allows it. I'm not sure this would even fly in the Tippyverse...

DMs generally are not going to let you pull the Eye of Vecna out of your pouch.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Artifacts not having a given price, does not mean they are of negligible cost - it means the cost is up to the DM, when the players find a merchant that happens to have a Staff of the Magi, Talisman of Ultimate Evil, or similar non-unique artifact, in stock.Costs may or may not be negligible, but since component pouches contain NON-SPECIFIC costed items, that doesn't matter.

What costs do the books specify that each artifact has?

They don't specify. Therefore, their costs are non-specified. Therefore, they are non-specific.

Since their costs are non-specific, and spell component pouches contain all components with non-specific costs, spell component pouches contain them.

It's not hard logic to follow.

It may not be RAI, nor might it make sense, but there's literally no argument you can make that it's not RAW, because the RAW is very clear on the subject.

[hamishspence]

IMO "negligible" in the part of the PHB that focuses on magic overrides "non-specific" in the part of the PHB that doesn't.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

IMO "negligible" in the part of the PHB that focuses on magic overrides "non-specific" in the part of the PHB that doesn't.Except the description of the spell component pouch is more specific than the general magic rules, because it specifically describes the item in question.

Plus, saying that component pouches contain foci and components of negligible cost does not override the fact that they also contain those of non-specific cost.

Unless the fact if I note that Person A is male when you say Person A is an American somehow means that the fact that he is male negates the fact that he is from America? This is a similar situation. They're unrelated, and both can be true.

[hamishspence]

RAW or not, good luck finding a table that actually allows it. I'm not sure this would even fly in the Tippyverse...
Tippy's certainly mentioned that trick:


Which technically means that your spell component pouch is filled with artifacts (no listed price and are a material component for apocalypse from the sky).

I doubt it would fly in regular games though.




Plus, saying that component pouches contain foci and components of negligible cost does not override the fact that they also contain those of non-specific cost.

The point is, that the Components section of the Magic rules, clarifies what "non-specific cost" means in the context of components - it means negligible cost, and only negligible cost.

An artifact is priceless, which means "arbitrarily high" gp cost, not 0 gp.

[Andezzar]

An artifact is priceless, which means "arbitrarily high" gp cost, not 0 gp.Arbitrarily high/low is pretty unspecific. So the artefact has a non-specific cost.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Arbitrarily high/low is pretty unspecific. So the artefact has a non-specific cost.Don't bother; they're not listening.

[hamishspence]

Another example of "focus with unlisted price" not corresponding to "focus therefore has negligible price and is included in a pouch" -

the forks used in the Plane Shift spell.


Player's Handbook, p.181 says, "an M or F appearing at the end of a spell's name in the spell lists denotes a spell with a material or focus component, respectively, that is not normally included in a spell component pouch." P.185 ("5th-level cleric spells") and p.195 ("7th-level sorcerer/wizard spells") both list plane shift with an F; so just because the fork components don't have a listed price doesn't necessarily mean you'll find 'em in a spell component pouch.

I'd say the same principle applies to any really oddball focus or material component - like an artifact.



Marking spells which require special components in a spell list, was only done in 3.5 though. As a 3.0 book, BoVD doesn't have any marks on its spell lists for that reason. But the precedent, that "no listed price" does not guarantee it being present in a pouch, is set. Result - it becomes DM's discretion whichever direction it's ruled -

so one cannot accurately say that "RAW, all spell component pouches contain artifacts - and the DM ruling otherwise is a houserule".

Them containing artifacts is just as much a houserule as them not containing them.

[rferries]

Don't bother; they're not listening.

I was originally responding to your original post that specified "0 gp" for artifact costs (which isn't listed in RAW). You're correct that the spell component pouch references "without a specific cost", though.

However, I'll also say that "without a specific cost" can be interpreted as "possible to purchase, at an unknown price" - whereas artifacts specifically can't be purchased (i.e. have no cost, specified or otherwise) so should therefore fall outside the scope of items that can be drawn from a pouch.

[hamishspence]

My view is that only items "possible to purchase, at negligible price" qualify as the kind of components that all such pouches come with, by default.


artifacts specifically can't be purchased (i.e. have no cost, specified or otherwise) so should therefore fall outside the scope of items that can be drawn from a pouch.

The Epic Handbook provides detailed reasoning behind this:

page 150:


Behind The Curtain: Pricing Artifacts

Since epic items have market prices and prerequisites for creation, why don't artifacts have these same characteristics?

For most artifacts, this is a game balance issue. Because an item's market price sets its creation cost, pricing an artifact would lead to setting its cost to create. If a character had the ability to create books of exalted deeds or spheres of annihilation, the campaign (and indeed the entire world) could be thrown out of whack. The presence of such items must lie solely in the hands of the DM, who can decide whether or not he wants a deck of many things in his game. If these items had prices, then characters could create them as desired, taking this element of control away from the DM.

Still, some artifacts (minor or major) can be reproduced using the epic magic item creation rules. For instance, the mace of St Cuthbert is essentially a +5 holy lawful mace of disruption (effectively a +11 weapon) with a special power (searing light at 20th level at will). According to the epic magic item creation rules, this item would have a market price of approximately 2,500,000 gp. A character who wished to wield a replica of the mace of St Cuthbert could have such an item created. It wouldn't be the actual Mace, but it would be essentially identical in function.

[Florian]

Don't bother; they're not listening.

Why should someone listen to that BS?

Components and foci have a price and they are commonly available and for sale. The price is just so irrelevant that it gets hand-waved for convenience.

Artifacts can´t be created and are not traded or sold. No market, no price.

Edit: Had to correct my auto-correct.

[hamishspence]

Another good example of material components that have no listed price, but are not commonly found in pouches - body parts.

It is safe to say that you will not find nails, hair, etc from specific individuals unless you specifically collect them (or arrange for someone else to do so). Finding them in a randomly bought spell component pouch, is out of the question.

[Andezzar]

Why should someone listen to that BS?

Components and foci have a price and they are commonly available and for sale. The price is just so irrelevant that it gets hand-waved for convenience.

Artifacts can´t be created and are not traded or sold. No market, no price.You confuse price with cost. the spell component rules only talk about cost, not price or being traded. The rules do not even specify that the cost must be monetary, just that it has to be specified to not be in a spell component pouch.


Another good example of material components that have no listed price, but are not commonly found in pouches - body parts.

It is safe to say that you will not find nails, hair, etc from specific individuals unless you specifically collect them (or arrange for someone else to do so). Finding them in a randomly bought spell component pouch, is out of the question.Come on we all no that this is not how it is supposed to be, but that does not change that it is what is written in the books.

[hamishspence]

we all no that this is not how it is supposed to be, but that does not change that it is what is written in the books.


What's written in the books is that any spell with an M or F next to it in the spell index, contains components that are not commonly found in a pouch.

For Plane Shift, it's un-priced metal rods.
For Clone, it's a chunk of flesh (and lab supplies)
For Simulcrum, it's a body part (and ruby dust)

And so on.

Apocalypse from the Sky, being 3.0, predates this principle of marking the spells in the index. But it's safe to say that, had the book been updated to 3.5 then (depending on whether the updater was using the FAQ or not) it would have had an M or an F next to it in the index.

[Aquillion]

Happens when you have the Fireball page open. Sure, when you have the Wish or Miracle page open... go nuts.It is actually impossible to ever get Fireball from the Book of Infinite Spells:


Determine the exact spell by using the tables for determining major scroll spells.

That table is here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm). The minimum level spell it can produce is 4th, and Fireball is 3rd, so you will never find Fireball in the Book of Infinite Spells. You're overwhelmingly likely to get 5th level spells - they show up almost half the time.

(Even if you did, it would be at minimum caster level, making it pretty weak.)

Perhaps you had Delayed Blast Fireball instead? That would have a much more respectable minimum caster level of 13.

...also, I just discovered another way in which the book is less than infinite, although I suppose people are unlikely to complain about that. Well... I guess if there were infinite spells of each level, reducing the number of levels wouldn't make it any less infinite? And if there are finite spells of each level, then it doesn't make a difference because it was already finite. But it's more limited than people might expect, at least, in terms of what it can contain.

[Andezzar]

What's written in the books is that any spell with an M or F next to it in the spell index, contains components that are not commonly found in a pouch.

For Plane Shift, it's un-priced metal rods.
For Clone, it's a chunk of flesh (and lab supplies)
For Simulcrum, it's a body part (and ruby dust)

And so on.

Apocalypse from the Sky, being 3.0, predates this principle of marking the spells in the index. But it's safe to say that, had the book been updated to 3.5 then (depending on whether the updater was using the FAQ or not) it would have had an M or an F next to it in the index.Specific trumping general. Not having an M or F next to the name and/or predating this convention does not imply that it would require a component not found in the pouch. There is no implication at all.

As I said we all know the intention of the rule, but we also know the written rules. They differ.

[hamishspence]

Interesting. I´ve just compared the 3.5E version with the PF version. The difference is in the details and quite surprising: The PF version actually lets you recast the spell on the actual page over and over again, with a minimum of 10% per casting that the page will turn.

They seem the same to me:


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/artifacts/minor-artifacts/book-of-infinite-spells/

Once per day, the owner of the book can cast the spell to which the book is opened. If that spell happens to be one that is on the character’s class spell list, she can cast it up to four times per day. The pages cannot be ripped out without destroying the book. Similarly, the spells cannot be cast as if from a scroll, nor can they be copied into a spellbook—their magic is bound permanently within the book itself.

The owner of the book need not have the book in her possession in order to use its power. The book can be stored elsewhere and still allow its owner to cast spells by means of its power, so long as no other creature attempts to make use of the book, in so doing becoming its owner.

Each time a spell is cast, there is a chance that the energy connected with its use causes the page to magically turn despite all precautions.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/artifacts.htm


Once per day the owner of the book can cast the spell to which the book is opened. If that spell happens to be one that is on the character’s class spell list, she can cast it up to four times per day. The pages cannot be ripped out without destroying the book. Similarly, the spells cannot be cast as scroll spells, nor can they be copied into a spellbook—their magic is bound up permanently within the book itself.

The owner of the book need not have the book on her person in order to use its power. The book can be stored in a place of safety while the owner is adventuring and still allow its owner to cast spells by means of its power.

Each time a spell is cast, there is a chance that the energy connected with its use causes the page to magically turn despite all precautions.


That is an impressive lack of rules knowledge from the FAQ author.

It's safe to say Monte Cook didn't do much proofreading - which is why some of the statements he made in the book contradicted the rules as actually written - necessitating an FAQ.

[SangoProduction]

It's also one of the more easily destroyed artifacts I've read about:

Saying that pages can't be ripped out without destroying it doesn't also say "ripping pages will destroy this book". If anything, you can't even rip out the pages until you've already destroyed it.

[Aquillion]

I like how weirdly specific that prohibition is, though. It's always amusing when powers and artifacts and spells have these oddly specific edge-cases for things that the writer just happened to think of (or which someone tried in playtesting.)

It also makes whatever wizard or god or whatever created this artifact look weirdly petty. Like, why were they so concerned with ensuring that the pages turned no matter what? Why did they care about ensuring that the spells absolutely could not be written into a spellbook? It's like every wizard or deity that creates an artifact suddenly gains a weird obsession with preventing rules-lawyering.

"So how does it work?"

"You ABSOLUTELY CANNOT tear out a page. Or write the contents down in any way, shape, or form."

"...yes, but... what's the caster level of the spells? Do they require components? Do..."

"I don't know all that stuff, it's... you know, like a scroll or something, you figure it out. Also, NO FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE can cause the pages from turning."

[ericgrau]

Saying that pages can't be ripped out without destroying it doesn't also say "ripping pages will destroy this book". If anything, you can't even rip out the pages until you've already destroyed it.
It doesn't say that ripping the pages out doesn't destroy the book. And being able to rip out pages seems like the much more likely interpretation than not being able to rip out the pages.