Spellbooks as vancian spell casting from an attuned item

[king_steve]

So, inspired by another posts comment in another thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25303872&postcount=34) I was thinking about how giving anyone some basic spell casting is often something people want to do. Magic items offering spells is pretty common (see bard's instruments, spell scrolls, etc.) and I was thinking about how during an adventure, its not uncommon to come across spell books even if no one in the party is a wizard (or kind of like spell casting from nethack, sorta).

But what if any character could attune a Spellbook and learn to cast a few spells from the book as vancian spells casting? After a long rest you could assign spells from the book to the slots available.

Spitballing an item modeled after the spell wrought tattoo:

Universal Spell Tome
When this item is found pick the DM may specify a spell list (or roll for a spell list) and determine the spells known that are recorded in this book.
As part of your long rest, you can spend time studying this Spellbooks. You can pick (limit) spells from this book to prepare as spells. The spells use the specified mod/dc/attack bonus. You can prepare the same spell more than once, up to the spell memorization slots. Once a spell has been cast the memorized slot is consumed.


Spell levels
Rarity
Spellcasting Mod.
Save DC
Attach Bonus
Spells count (cantrips/1st/2nd/etc.)
Memorization Slots


Cantrip
Uncommon
+2
12
+4
1
2


1st
Uncommon
+3
13
+5
1/1
2


2nd
Rare
+3
13
+5
1/2/1
3


3rd
Very Rare
+4
15
+7
1/2/2/1
3


4th
Very Rare
+4
15
+7
1/2/2/2/1
4


5th
Legendary
+5
17
+9
1/2/2/2/1/1
5



If this was an item, does it seem way out of balance with other items?

Compared to say the spell wrought tattoo, this gives you more flexibility because of the varied spells and more than once cast, but is it to much? I did bump the rarity over the spell wrought tattoo by comparison. Additionally, this would stop at 5th level spells and has the drawback of requiring the item's user to pre-determine their spells lots compared to say a staff with power with its charge system.

From a balance perspective, does an item like this push way to far out of what should be possible for a magic item?

[Dualight]

I am not yet experienced enough to comment about balance, but i do have a few questions, as the description isn't entirely clear.

First, would a cantrip also be restricted to, at most, a number of castings/day equal to the memorisation slots? It sounds like it, but I don't know if that is the intended interaction. You mention the spellwrought tattoo as a model, so I do expect that it is intended, but confirmation is needed.
Relatedly, are the cantrips cast as by a 1st level character, or do they scale with the user of the book?

Next, does the Spells Count column refer to the number of spells of each level contained in the book when found?

Finally, is this item supposed to be like spell scrolls and spellwrought tattoos in that the spells contained within cannot be changed, or is it like a wizard's spellbook, and can spells be added to it after it has been found?

It is an interesting idea, especially since it would spread the misery/versatility of preparation casting around to all classes.
Would make good 'training wheels' for people who are intimidated by the bookkeeping of preparation casters.

[Angelalex242]

I do believe such an item should be themed by class.

This item might come in Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock...even Ranger and Paladin.

Warlocks and Paladins probably appreciate this item the most, because now the Warlock has a spell selection, and the Paladin has more smites to burn.

Sorcerers might want to convert those slots to metamagic.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, inspired by another posts comment in another thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25303872&postcount=34) I was thinking about how giving anyone some basic spell casting is often something people want to do. Magic items offering spells is pretty common (see bard's instruments, spell scrolls, etc.) and I was thinking about how during an adventure, its not uncommon to come across spell books even if no one in the party is a wizard
I've got a simpler approach for you.

You find a wizard's spell book and you want to cast a spell from it and you are not that wizard.
You similarly treat it as a scroll, and you have a flat DC of DC 10 + spell level to succeed at casting it.
No bonuses. (Bards of course get jack of all trades).
On a success the spell works and is consumed, the remaining spells are still there, on a failure it explodes doing spell level x d6 damage to you (in this edition, force damage) and destroying the book on a spell level x 10 percent chance. Ex: if you goof up with the 3rd level spell, the 3d6 damage happens and there's a 30% chance the book is destroyed).

Vancian magic, which you mention, is Dangerous and powerful.
If you get the spell wrong it can kill you, or teleport you to the other side of the world. (Ask Cugel about that, among others).

You want risk/reward? You want a balance between power and danger? The above will provide that for you.

Messing with magic that isn't yours is dangerous.

Full Disclosure: I did not make this idea up. We had a DM in the 80's in AD&D who ran it like that: but, he used the spells/staves table saving throw (not the DC I tossed up there to accommodate this edition).

High risk, high reward, and in the case of high level spells, a lethal consequence for failure.

[king_steve]

First, would a cantrip also be restricted to, at most, a number of castings/day equal to the memorisation slots? It sounds like it, but I don't know if that is the intended interaction. You mention the spellwrought tattoo as a model, so I do expect that it is intended, but confirmation is needed.
Relatedly, are the cantrips cast as by a 1st level character, or do they scale with the user of the book?


Cantrips would also require memorization. I think it would be fine to specify they're cast as a 1st level character, I don't want them to be to powerful.



Next, does the Spells Count column refer to the number of spells of each level contained in the book when found?


Yes, that's the number of spells in the book.



Finally, is this item supposed to be like spell scrolls and spellwrought tattoos in that the spells contained within cannot be changed, or is it like a wizard's spellbook, and can spells be added to it after it has been found?


I think it would be interesting if they're the same but maybe offer letting a character of the class change them. E.g. if the book is a wizards Spellbooks then a wizard could write over a spell in the book. That would give users some flexibility.


I do believe such an item should be themed by class.

This item might come in Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock...even Ranger and Paladin.

I think it makes sense to keep these to the primary spell casters lists. I picked wizards because their Spellbooks are more common but I could see a tome of cleric spells or even say a wild magic essence shard for a sorcerer spell list.

On the half casters, I'm not sure if I'd use their spell lists for this. I'd have to think about that, they tend to have more unique spells that aren't always on other characters spell lists.


I've got a simpler approach for you.

You find a wizard's spell book and you want to cast a spell from it and you are not that wizard.
You similarly treat it as a scroll, and you have a flat DC of DC 10 + spell level to succeed at casting it.
No bonuses. (Bards of course get jack of all trades).
On a success the spell works and is consumed, the remaining spells are still there, on a failure it explodes doing spell level x d6 damage to you (in this edition, force damage) and destroying the book on a spell level x 10 percent chance. Ex: if you goof up with the 3rd level spell, the 3d6 damage happens and there's a 30% chance the book is destroyed).

Vancian magic, which you mention, is Dangerous and powerful.
If you get the spell wrong it can kill you, or teleport you to the other side of the world. (Ask Cugel about that, among others).

You want risk/reward? You want a balance between power and danger? The above will provide that for you.

Messing with magic that isn't yours is dangerous.

Full Disclosure: I did not make this idea up. We had a DM in the 80's in AD&D who ran it like that: but, he used the spells/staves table saving throw (not the DC I tossed up there to accommodate this edition).

High risk, high reward, and in the case of high level spells, a lethal consequence for failure.

I've seen DM's house rule that you can use a spell scroll from a different spell list if you find one using an arcana check like that. I was thinking of something like that when I made this item, the idea being its more re-usable but also more limited by the need to pre-determine the slots. I think the one problem with a consumable item is many people will collect them and forget about them. Making it re-usable was to encourage people to come up with uses for spells. I didn't want it going past 5th level spells because I don't want it to be to powerful at a high level of play but having a 15~ level Fighter with a rare tome giving them 3 spells they could memorize seems like it could be workable.

[Greywander]

I think I can propose a simpler way of doing this as well.

The party finds a spellbook. Each party member can prepare a limited number of spells from the spellbook (e.g. prof. bonus), each of which gets a single casting (so true Vancian casting). As a short rest, you can swap one of your prepared spells out for a different one. You can also use the spellbook to cast rituals.

If you have a wizard in the party, they can copy spells into the spellbook (including non-wizard spells). Mostly this just allows you to copy spells from scrolls, but you could also create copies of the spellbook in case you split the party. Otherwise, without a wizard you're probably carrying multiple spellbooks that you've bought or found, each of which has different spells in them.

The spellbook might also have cantrips in it, in which case you don't need to prep cantrips but you do need to hold the spellbook to cast the cantrip.

The only really complicated part is working out how many spells you can prepare, and which levels. We obviously don't want everyone preparing six copies of Wish. I'm thinking something simple like (a) up to two spells each for 1st and 2nd level, (b) one spell each for 3rd, 4th, and 5th level, and (c) only one spell of 6th+ level. You might also want to change how wizards learn spells, or remove wizard as a class entirely (moving the spellbook copying to a different class that doesn't add new spells to the spellbook as they level up). Perhaps any caster can copy spells on their list into a spellbook.

I actually really like the idea of having a spellbook as a party resource that the entire party can draw from. Everyone gets excited when you find a new spellbook.

Edit: Maybe number of prepped spells could be equal to INT mod? This would make INT a much more valuable stat, when it's currently considered a universal dump stat.

[Bjarkmundur]

I like this idea! A book with a certain amount of spells, but you have to choose which spells you'll be able to cast that day. I like that.
Can't comment too much about the implementation, though, but the idea is sound.

[Pex]

I've got a simpler approach for you.

You find a wizard's spell book and you want to cast a spell from it and you are not that wizard.
You similarly treat it as a scroll, and you have a flat DC of DC 10 + spell level to succeed at casting it.
No bonuses. (Bards of course get jack of all trades).
On a success the spell works and is consumed, the remaining spells are still there, on a failure it explodes doing spell level x d6 damage to you (in this edition, force damage) and destroying the book on a spell level x 10 percent chance. Ex: if you goof up with the 3rd level spell, the 3d6 damage happens and there's a 30% chance the book is destroyed).

Vancian magic, which you mention, is Dangerous and powerful.
If you get the spell wrong it can kill you, or teleport you to the other side of the world. (Ask Cugel about that, among others).

You want risk/reward? You want a balance between power and danger? The above will provide that for you.

Messing with magic that isn't yours is dangerous.

Full Disclosure: I did not make this idea up. We had a DM in the 80's in AD&D who ran it like that: but, he used the spells/staves table saving throw (not the DC I tossed up there to accommodate this edition).

High risk, high reward, and in the case of high level spells, a lethal consequence for failure.

I hate items like these. It's punishing the player in magic item form. If you don't want non-magic users to cast spells, fine, just play the game as normal. If you're going to allow it, then allow it without metaphorically smacking the player upside the head for the audacity of using a magic item you said he could use. It's fine that it doesn't always work, i. e. need to roll for it, but not outright killing or almost killing the character because of it.

As for the original idea there already exists the spell storing ring which allows anyone to cast the spell within. The proposed magic item is more powerful than that. If warriors are having issues, throwing spells at them to cast is not the way to solve them. Warriors do not need to cast spells, Players playing them didn't want to. If they did they'd choose the sublcass that has it, the warrior main class that already has it, or multiclass.

Of course, you don't need my permission to do this. :smallyuk: For a simpler way to explain how the concept works, get it to work, and ease any concerns about balance, have these be mini-spellbooks that mimic the various feats that give spells. You can have some that provide the benefit of a feat word for word or be more generic just using the feats as a model where instead of the listed spell in the feat where such feats have a listed spell you as DM choose another spell by fiat in having the magic item exist. If the feat would let the player choose the spells you as DM predetermine the spell by fiat in having the magic item exist.

[Angelalex242]

Oh, I dunno. I could see Paladins really loving a version of this item that just has...copies of all the smite spells in it. From Wrathful and searing at level 1 all the way to banishing at level 5. Then they can use the spell smite, convert it to a divine smite, or otherwise smite smite smite to their heart's content.

Sir Smitey the Smiter can now smite more things instead of saving it all for the 'boss' of the dungeon.

[king_steve]

I think I can propose a simpler way of doing this as well.

The party finds a spellbook. Each party member can prepare a limited number of spells from the spellbook (e.g. prof. bonus), each of which gets a single casting (so true Vancian casting). As a short rest, you can swap one of your prepared spells out for a different one.


I considered making it prof based, there is something to it being prof based but I think it gets tricky because then the item changes value over time. I settled on a set amount based on rarity instead of proficiency bonus but I could see it going that way too.

I don't know if I'd want swapping on a short rest. I think that might be a bit to much given the number of spells in in a Spellbooks.



You can also use the spellbook to cast rituals.


So, my personal preference is to not use this for ritual casting. I think that takes away from ritual casting features and feats.



If you have a wizard in the party, they can copy spells into the spellbook (including non-wizard spells). Mostly this just allows you to copy spells from scrolls, but you could also create copies of the spellbook in case you split the party. Otherwise, without a wizard you're probably carrying multiple spellbooks that you've bought or found, each of which has different spells in them.


Yea, for a wizard, this would mean they could copy the spells into their spell book and not worry about the vancian casting, instead choosing to use their standard casting. They might still keep an extra spell book from a defeated foe as a bonus, since I think this should require attunement.



The spellbook might also have cantrips in it, in which case you don't need to prep cantrips but you do need to hold the spellbook to cast the cantrip.


I'm not sure about giving that much access to cantrips, I think I would still require them to be prepared ahead of time.



The only really complicated part is working out how many spells you can prepare, and which levels. We obviously don't want everyone preparing six copies of Wish. I'm thinking something simple like (a) up to two spells each for 1st and 2nd level, (b) one spell each for 3rd, 4th, and 5th level, and (c) only one spell of 6th+ level. You might also want to change how wizards learn spells, or remove wizard as a class entirely (moving the spellbook copying to a different class that doesn't add new spells to the spellbook as they level up). Perhaps any caster can copy spells on their list into a spellbook.

I actually really like the idea of having a spellbook as a party resource that the entire party can draw from. Everyone gets excited when you find a new spellbook.

Edit: Maybe number of prepped spells could be equal to INT mod? This would make INT a much more valuable stat, when it's currently considered a universal dump stat.

I considered this, either using INT mod as the level limit the level or the number of memorized spells, but I WANTED this to be usable and competitive for an attunement slot by a high level fighter. If this would only let them use 1 or maybe 2nd level spells then it seemed to limited. I decided to use rarity to determine this as well, since I felt this would take away from my goal of letting this be useful to a martial.


I like this idea! A book with a certain amount of spells, but you have to choose which spells you'll be able to cast that day. I like that.
Can't comment too much about the implementation, though, but the idea is sound.

Thanks! I'll have to try this out with my group and see if they think this is useful or to much.

[king_steve]

I suppose an alternative might be to use something like spell points to let the user memorize based off a pool. Then the tome/book/scroll/etc. would have some pool size (maybe based on rarity) and the user pick from the spells in the time. The advantage there is you can prevent someone from memorizing the same max level spells to much. But then they'd could memorize a lot of lower level spells (e.g. shield or absorb elements...) so I dunno, maybe that's not the best idea.

[Greywander]

The more I think about this, the more I really like it. People are always complaining about how much cooler stuff casters get than martials, and utility casting is one of the places where this hits the hardest. A communal spellbook that's shared between the party handily solves that. It also gives me strong vibes of JRPG-ness, or something like a Saturday morning cartoon. Anyway, this makes spellcasting a party ability, rather than being limited to a specific character, though there would still be room for caster classes that have their own spells they can cast without needing the spellbook.


I suppose an alternative might be to use something like spell points to let the user memorize based off a pool.
This would probably work best. IIRC, the spell points that are equivalent to each spell slot are, in order, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, though I might be off on some of those. My initial thought was maybe each character gets a number of spell points equal to prof. bonus + INT mod, but that maxes out at 11, too little to prep a 9th level spell. Maybe two (or more) characters could team up to prep the spell between them, and casting the spell would require one of them to begin casting the spell, and the other would finish it (if they're interrupted, the spell points might be lost, but that might be too harsh). I do like INT mod having about the same weight as prof. bonus, meaning you don't need to put points into INT, but you still get a pretty significant benefit if you do.

Spell points would come back on a long rest, but you could swap out spells on a short rest using however many spell points you have left.


Then the tome/book/scroll/etc. would have some pool size (maybe based on rarity)
You seem to be thinking of spellbooks as individual magic items the party can find and use. That's certainly one way to do it, but what I'm thinking is a singular communal spellbook that is shared by the party. All spellbooks are thus identical, apart from the individual spells found inside them. The only thing the spellbook would determine is which spells you can prepare, whereas your character's stats determine how many spells they can prepare (including which levels).

Anyway, that's what I'm thinking. I guess it would still be a magic item of sorts; you might not start with a spellbook, but would need to find or buy one somewhere, not unlike finding any other magic item. But there might be an understanding that the players will find a spellbook eventually (much like martials are expected to get magic weapons), likely holding spells that the DM deems necessary or at least helpful for their campaign (e.g. this would be a way to give an all-barbarian party access to Plane Shift). This makes me wonder if we can do other things with communal magic items? I suppose any item that doesn't require attunement is in a sense communal, but in practice usually only one person is carrying and using the item anyway.

[KorvinStarmast]

I hate items like these. It's punishing the player in magic item form. No it is not. It is applying the 5e DMG use a scroll scheme method to take a useless magic item and make it possibly useful, but with a risk.

Without a wizard in the party, the magic user's book is useless except to sell. What the OP wants is a way to use it by a non wizard, or by trying the short cut the way to get spells out of that book that are useful: spend the time and effort to copy them into a wizard's book.

And he mentioned Vancian, so I gave him Vancian. :smalltongue:

Not sure if you noticed, but the game still has cursed swords/items. My champion carried his sword of vengeance from level 5 through 14. The rest of the party never grasped why he'd sometimes fail that wis save and go after a monster. DM handled it really well, and I never gave away the secret as the player. And these were experienced D&D players.

There is also an item in Salt Marsh adventure that the party Monk has. You get advantage on your first ability check and the rest of them that day are at disadvantage. She still hasn't figured out what's going on with it ...

I think the one problem with a consumable item is many people will collect them and forget about them. That means that the players are the problem, or rather, their lack of imagination, not the DM nor the item. Consumables are supposed to be, one discovers in the commentary in Xanathar's, about half of the magic items found.
Use them or don't is the player's choice. If they can't figure out when to use them, that's their problem (and they can, if they don't want to use them, maybe trade them for a favor, a similar item, a hostage, and so on ...)

We recently used the beads of force that we'd found in a dragon lair only because I, as a player, forced the issue. I used mine, and the others had an 'aha' moment and have since used most of theirs to very good tactical advantage.

Our Champion has been carrying a horn of valhalla around for ages, never used it. I suggested its use recently to him when we were about to get swarmed ... and he had a real eye opening experience. Yes, they only work once a week, but when they work they are kind of wonderful.

We had a suit of adamantine chain mail that nobody wore. So we traded, finally, at a large walled town after extended negotiations for some diamonds good enough for raise dead spells that a cleric/priestess friend was short of.

And so on.

[Pex]

No it is not. It is applying the 5e DMG use a scroll scheme method to take a useless magic item and make it possibly useful, but with a risk.

Without a wizard in the party, the magic user's book is useless except to sell. What the OP wants is a way to use it by a non wizard, or by trying the short cut the way to get spells out of that book that are useful: spend the time and effort to copy them into a wizard's book.

And he mentioned Vancian, so I gave him Vancian. :smalltongue:

Not sure if you noticed, but the game still has cursed swords/items. My champion carried his sword of vengeance from level 5 through 14. The rest of the party never grasped why he'd sometimes fail that wis save and go after a monster. DM handled it really well, and I never gave away the secret as the player. And these were experienced D&D players.



Just because it's published doesn't mean it's not punishing the player. A cursed item is something a player doesn't want, normally. They can be removed. Outside the box thinking can have some cursed items be useful, but for the most part cursed items are not something players want to have and use. They're not punishing players. They're a danger to overcome. The proposed item in question was not a cursed item. It was meant to be used by players as something players want, but then hurts them for using it. It's yanking the metaphorical chain.

[KorvinStarmast]

It was meant to be used by players as something players want, but then hurts them for using it. It's yanking the metaphorical chain. Not in agreement with you.
Not everything a party finds is going to be usable, or even desirable, by you if there are 12 classes, and usually 4 or 5 PCs per party, and some things are class specific.
The numbers just mitigate against that.

Most things are more or less universal (healing potion, cloak of protection) but some things are not. A wizard's spell book is one such thing. What the OP wants ignores that piece of this edition's structure.

I have a perfect example to hand, which is my current party (me DM) in my brother's world.
They don't have a wizard, but now and again they beat (I run them on mostly published adventures with a bit of my own stuff tossed in) a wizard and get his books. (Latest was the mage from Yellow Crest Manor).
None of them can use the books but they are not whingers about it.
They hang onto them and when they get to a place where those books are valuable, they try to trade them for something that they value: gems, healing pots, gold, horses, one time a few scrolls, another time for a tattoo. (Tasha's tattoo).

That's because they treat the game world as place and don't treat it as a video game. If we wanted to play video games together we'd do that instead of play D&D. (Various members of the group have played WoW, and that Sword Coast game based on 5e (Sword Coast Legends) and NWN together).

[Pex]

Not in agreement with you.
Not everything a party finds is going to be usable, or even desirable, by you if there are 12 classes, and usually 4 or 5 PCs per party, and some things are class specific.
The numbers just mitigate against that.

Most things are more or less universal (healing potion, cloak of protection) but some things are not. A wizard's spell book is one such thing. What the OP wants ignores that piece of this edition's structure.

I have a perfect example to hand, which is my current party (me DM) in my brother's world.
They don't have a wizard, but now and again they beat (I run them on mostly published adventures with a bit of my own stuff tossed in) a wizard and get his books. (Latest was the mage from Yellow Crest Manor).
None of them can use the books but they are not whingers about it.
They hang onto them and when they get to a place where those books are valuable, they try to trade them for something that they value: gems, healing pots, gold, horses, one time a few scrolls, another time for a tattoo. (Tasha's tattoo).

That's because they treat the game world as place and don't treat it as a video game. If we wanted to play video games together we'd do that instead of play D&D. (Various members of the group have played WoW, and that Sword Coast game based on 5e (Sword Coast Legends) and NWN together).

That has nothing to do with the subject matter. The party acquires a +1 dagger. If no one wants it the party can sell it or trade it as a commodity a few adventures later in parley with NPCs. If a player does use the item, he attacks with +1 to hit and +1 damage to his normal dagger attack and damage. He doesn't suddenly lose hit points upon missing his opponent. Your DM's proposed item is precisely meant for the players to use then ream them a new one when it doesn't work. Sure, they can always trade it away, but that wasn't the point of having it. It was meant to be used, but there's a gotcha. The DM gives you the power that causes you harm if you use it. It's Grod's Law taken to extreme, and I'm only bothered he coined the term before I did even though I've been debating against the idea before he did.

[Greywander]

The DM gives you the power that causes you harm if you use it.
There are ways this can be done right, though there's a lot more ways to screw it up. Wild magic is one example of a mechanic that works like this. I have my own wild magic system that I wrote up (based loosely on Warhammer Fantasy's magic system) that I think works as a better example: you get unlimited spellcasting, but each casting carries both a risk of failing and a risk of causing a wild magic surge. You can increase your odds of successfully casting the spell, but doing so also increases your odds of triggering a surge, and of triggering a more severe surge. I think this works because (a) the player knows what they're getting into instead of getting blindsided, and (b) the player has some control over the risks involved. "Power that causes you harm if you use it" is also how most blood magic systems work, usually in a literal way.

I think the major pitfalls to avoid with something like this are (a) blindsiding the player by not telling them about the risk until after they've used the item or ability, and (b) making the risk so severe that the item or ability isn't worth using. What you really want to avoid is a trap option. Perhaps the most ideal ability in this form would be one that provides a benefit no matter what, but may or may not incur a cost, and that cost is severe enough that incurring it more than a few times will force you to reconsider using the ability again (until you can recover), but not so severe that you'd never use the ability.

For reference, I believe this is what you two are discussing? (Reminder that quotes link back to the original post, if you need the full context.)

On a success the spell works and is consumed, the remaining spells are still there, on a failure it explodes doing spell level x d6 damage to you (in this edition, force damage) and destroying the book on a spell level x 10 percent chance. Ex: if you goof up with the 3rd level spell, the 3d6 damage happens and there's a 30% chance the book is destroyed).
TBH, this does sound a bit too hardcore, I don't think a lot of players would enjoy a mechanic like this. This sounds like something you'd get rid of, or only use in a desperate situation. Even spell scrolls simply consume the scroll without doing anything if you fail the check. I wouldn't make a spellbook any more difficult to use than a spell scroll. (Though I may have to take into considering the cost of copying into a spellbook vs. the cost of scribing a scroll.)

[KorvinStarmast]

That has nothing to do with the subject matter. The party acquires a +1 dagger. If no one wants it the party can sell it or trade it as a commodity a few adventures later in parley with NPCs. If a player does use the item, he attacks with +1 to hit and +1 damage to his normal dagger attack and damage. He doesn't suddenly lose hit points upon missing his opponent. Your DM's proposed item is precisely meant for the players to use then ream them a new one when it doesn't work.
Wrong approach to my point and my post.
1. The dagger is universal, wizard's spell books are not. I guess I need to repeat that again.
2. The risk goes up as the power of the magic goes up. The DMG offers you failure and a waste of the scroll if you miss your DC and it's above your level. Are you going to cry out "DM screws me" in that case too?
3. My approach is to offer a chance to use something you can't use (like a Fighter trying to use staff of power) if you are willing to accept a little risk
4. If I am not a bard the bardic instrument does psychic damage to me if I try to use it. You gonna scream "DM screws me" on that too? It's in the item descriptions for all of them.

Nothing I am proposing is foreign to this edition.

He asked for Vancian, and that is what I offered. Real Vancian, and within the bounds of what the DMG offers for some other non universal interactions.

He's free to use it or not; it was a suggestion.

TBH, this does sound a bit too hardcore, Really? Take a look at the glyph of warding that goes off when you open a book in the Sunless Citadel adventure, D&D 5e (Tales From the Yawning Portal) which is 5d8 cold damage in a 30 foot radius. A potential TPK for simply opening a book on a level 2 party, likely to kill a few in a level 3 party given where it is found.

That adventure is for levels 1-3. Do the numbers.

For a lower level spell, that the OP wants to bend a basic game rule ~ to have non qualified people use a wizard's spell book ~ the chance for a mishap is super low and the damage incidental. At higher levels, magic increases risk and side effects. As it should. Powerful magic is both powerful and dangerous. That's a fundamental principle of Magic a la Jack Vance.

Or, as my players, do. trade it for something you can use, or sell it, and so on.

Wizard Spell books are a limited use item in this game, in this edition ~ they are not universal like a healing pot or a cloak of protection.

[Pex]

He's free to use it or not; it was a suggestion.


Of course. It was a suggestion I didn't care for. It's the internet. Everyone has an opinion. :smalltongue:

[Greywander]

Really? Take a look at the glyph of warding that goes off when you open a book in the Sunless Citadel adventure, D&D 5e (Tales From the Yawning Portal) which is 5d8 cold damage in a 30 foot radius. A potential TPK for simply opening a book on a level 2 party, likely to kill a few in a level 3 party given where it is found.

That adventure is for levels 1-3. Do the numbers.
You present the players with an item that, if investigated, simply ends the campaign (due to TPK). Doesn't sound like good design to me. But I'm not familiar with that module, so I'm sure there's important context that's missing. It also depends on the tone and expected difficulty of the campaign. Tomb of Horrors carries different expectations from a "babby's first RPG" introductory session.

[Pex]

Really? Take a look at the glyph of warding that goes off when you open a book in the Sunless Citadel adventure, D&D 5e (Tales From the Yawning Portal) which is 5d8 cold damage in a 30 foot radius. A potential TPK for simply opening a book on a level 2 party, likely to kill a few in a level 3 party given where it is found.

That adventure is for levels 1-3. Do the numbers.



I will add that furthers the point that just because it's published doesn't mean it's a good idea. There are a number of things in 5E that don't pass my don't punish the players test. Overchannel, Haste, Wild Magic, Wish. Overchannel was okish when it used to allow free max Cantrip damage, but they got rid of it. Get rid of Overchannel and replace with the ability to change the damage type of spells. Get rid of the lose a turn of Haste. Spell just ends. Wild Magic Sorcerer should go away. I never liked the concept since 2E. I know my opinion is not the One True Way. Those who like it like it. I'm just stating my point of view of it. The listed things provided in the Wish spell should be safe wishes in addition to duplicating a spell. The damage type resistance should have a 24 hour duration. Also, any harmful effect that says Wish can remove it is also a safe use of Wish when used for that purpose.

On a technicality the -5/+10 aspects of great weapon master and sharpshooter would count as punishment because of the penalty to hit factor. However, the effect on the character is temporary and minor enough I can get over it when I witness party members using it. That technicality is enough for me that I haven't been tempted to take the feats myself for a character. When I played a barbarian I went with Shield Master.

In any case, I stand by my position. Never give a player an ability that punishes him for using it.

[JackPhoenix]

Just because it's published doesn't mean it's not punishing the player. A cursed item is something a player doesn't want, normally. They can be removed. Outside the box thinking can have some cursed items be useful, but for the most part cursed items are not something players want to have and use. They're not punishing players. They're a danger to overcome. The proposed item in question was not a cursed item. It was meant to be used by players as something players want, but then hurts them for using it. It's yanking the metaphorical chain.

A power having a price or drawback or a risk in its use is not "punishing the player", especially if the players know the risk and there are ways to mitigate it. Nothing forces the players to use the option, and it's up to them to decide if the power is worth the price.

IMO, the game should have MORE options like that. Not stuff baked in the classes and subclasses, but magic items, even spells? Definitely. Free power is boring.

[Pex]

A power having a price or drawback or a risk in its use is not "punishing the player", especially if the players know the risk and there are ways to mitigate it. Nothing forces the players to use the option, and it's up to them to decide if the power is worth the price.

IMO, the game should have MORE options like that. Not stuff baked in the classes and subclasses, but magic items, even spells? Definitely. Free power is boring.

That the price is known to the players is not a saving grace. When the price is so high the players don't use it, it wasn't worth to present the ability in the first place. An ability is useless when it never gets used.

[Greywander]

I do think "power with a price/drawback" has a lot of potential, but it's also easy to screw up. Either the price is too low such that there's no reason not to use it, or the price is so high that you never use it. Finding the right balance can be tricky.

I think it could be really interesting to have some kind of a system where using your abilities inflicts some kind of drawback on you (and this would apply to enemies as well). These would need to be things that tend to be more niche or minor, things that normally just inconvenience you. But a creative player (or enemy) might be able to exploit those drawbacks in order to get an advantage over their opponent. You do actually see some shades of this in 5e, such as with rogues being able to take a BA to get advantage on an attack, but at the cost of not being able to move. Something like that would work better in a system designed around having off-turn movement, so sacrificing your movement on your turn to gain an advantage might come back to bite you later if you needed some off-turn movement. 5e doesn't really do anything with that, so there's very little cost in using that BA if you didn't plan to move on your turn anyway.

An example of something like this might be a Haste-like effect that works by making your body lighter... which has the unfortunate side effect that forced movement effects (shoves, etc.) move you twice as far. A minor debuff in exchange for a benefit. Most of the time, this would be advantageous to use, but it could be exploited under the right circumstances. Maybe you could grease yourself up to get advantage on DEX saves, but if you take any fire damage then you catch on fire and take 1d4 fire damage at the start of every turn until you spend an action to put yourself out. If the entire system was built from the ground up to work this way, where your abilities give you minor/niche penalties, you could get a pretty interesting tactical game based around exploiting those penalties in your opponents.