No, it's ok. I quoted that within my helpful correspondence
OK so you are deliberately taking that one sentence out of context like I thought
No, they’re saying that it takes a lot of scrolls to equate to the value of a magic item such as a Flametongue. They’re not taking anything out of context. To the contrary, they composed a handy list to aid your understanding that getting scrolls that a wizard can copy into their spellbook should not be as rare as getting a magic item because scrolls have a much smaller relative value. To keep things fair between the hypothetical wizard and fighter, their treasure might include one magic sword and a handful of scrolls that total the value of the sword rather than a single sword and a single scroll.
Most characters can only attune three magic items. They might also have a small number of magic items that don’t require attunement; maybe a total of a dozen or fifteen items at best. Surely it is not your contention that a wizard should only ever have access to a dozen or fifteen scrolls to add to their spell book over the course of their career?
For example: take a +1 weapon as a part of a treasure, the L2 spell enchanted weapon will make a mundane weapon into a +1 weapon for 1 hour, so to get 24 hours of +1 weapon you need 24 scrolls of one L2 spell to equal the effect for 1 day unless you are allowing them to scribe the spell into their spellbook and prep it so they can use it more or less as needed. So in this case it’s not 1 to 1, it’s 24(+) scrolls = 1 +1 weapon.
Most characters can only attune three magic items. They might also have a small number of magic items that don’t require attunement; maybe a total of a dozen or fifteen items at best. Surely it is not your contention that a wizard should only ever have access to a dozen or fifteen scrolls to add to their spell book over the course of their career?
That would be a fairly low level but not too bad if the wizard is also getting magic items but the wizard wants magic items just as much as the fighter. Given the choice of an arcane grimoire or 5 spell scolls any wizard would choose the grimoire (given they choose the spells they most want on level up)
Most characters can only attune three magic items. They might also have a small number of magic items that don’t require attunement; maybe a total of a dozen or fifteen items at best. Surely it is not your contention that a wizard should only ever have access to a dozen or fifteen scrolls to add to their spell book over the course of their career?
That would be a fairly low level but not too bad if the wizard is also getting magic items but the wizard wants magic items just as much as the fighter. Given the choice of an arcane grimoire or 5 spell scolls any wizard would choose the grimoire (given they choose the spells they most want on level up)
Though a lot here may obviously depend on how many spells were in the arcane grimoire and whether the wizard already possesses copies of these spells. (I'm not saying you implied differently but am just stating the obvious).
Grimoires, though, have an advantage over scrolls in that their content may not so easily be destroyed.
"A wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied just as spells in spellbooks can be copied. When a spell is copied from a spell scroll, the copier must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the spell’s level. If the check succeeds, the spell is successfully copied. Whether the check succeeds or fails, the spell scroll is destroyed."
It may also be important to note, just finding a spellbook doesn't mean that the wizard can directly use the spells.
.... Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
[vers 1?] Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, thendeciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. [vers 2?] You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells. ...
There's still a cost "For each level of the spell, ... [of] 2 hours and ... 50 gp".
Finding a spellbook RAW would facilitate options for gaining spells but still at significant expense. The scrolls examples (sane prices) can be modified to show the financial costs of copying the spells into repeatedly usable form as follows.
The second cost would RAW still be incurred if the wizard accessed a spellbook (though all these costs could be halved if the spell was from a specialist school of the wizard) and, with this taken into account, the scroll values may indicate an equivalent spell book value to a wizard.
No, it's ok. I quoted that within my helpful correspondence
OK so you are deliberately taking that one sentence out of context like I thought
No, they’re saying that it takes a lot of scrolls to equate to the value of a magic item such as a Flametongue. They’re not taking anything out of context. To the contrary, they composed a handy list to aid your understanding that getting scrolls that a wizard can copy into their spellbook should not be as rare as getting a magic item because scrolls have a much smaller relative value. To keep things fair between the hypothetical wizard and fighter, their treasure might include one magic sword and a handful of scrolls that total the value of the sword rather than a single sword and a single scroll.
Most characters can only attune three magic items. They might also have a small number of magic items that don’t require attunement; maybe a total of a dozen or fifteen items at best. Surely it is not your contention that a wizard should only ever have access to a dozen or fifteen scrolls to add to their spell book over the course of their career?
But as I said before the flametongue was just a random item if you wanna compare a first level scroll to something you can easily compare it to twopotions of healing
No, it's ok. I quoted that within my helpful correspondence
OK so you are deliberately taking that one sentence out of context like I thought
No, they’re saying that it takes a lot of scrolls to equate to the value of a magic item such as a Flametongue. They’re not taking anything out of context. To the contrary, they composed a handy list to aid your understanding that getting scrolls that a wizard can copy into their spellbook should not be as rare as getting a magic item because scrolls have a much smaller relative value. To keep things fair between the hypothetical wizard and fighter, their treasure might include one magic sword and a handful of scrolls that total the value of the sword rather than a single sword and a single scroll.
Most characters can only attune three magic items. They might also have a small number of magic items that don’t require attunement; maybe a total of a dozen or fifteen items at best. Surely it is not your contention that a wizard should only ever have access to a dozen or fifteen scrolls to add to their spell book over the course of their career?
But as I said before the flametongue was just a random item if you wanna compare a first level scroll to something you can easily compare it to twopotions of healing
If you want to compare scrolls to magic items, you really need to decide what rarity of magic item. Yes a scroll of magic missile should be as common as two potions of healing because potions of healing are common items of minimal value. They are a very good equivalent to scrolls of a low level spell—common items of minimal value. A Flametongue, OTOH, is a rare item of great value (2d10 x 1000gp) and is not a good equivalent to a scroll of magic missile. It would be a good comparison to a single scroll of a level 8 or 9 spell, or some combination of scrolls of lower level spells equaling the value of the Flametongue, as GergKyae kindly illustrated for you.
The specific magic item is immaterial but its value is of utmost consideration when comparing it to the relative value of a scroll. Please stop pretending all spell scrolls are of equal value in order to move goal posts and accuse your detractors of obstinance.
A Flametongue, OTOH, is a rare item of great value (2d10 x 1000gp) and is not a good equivalent to a scroll of magic missile. It would be a good comparison to a single scroll of a level 8 or 9 spell, or some combination of scrolls of lower level spells equaling the value of the Flametongue, as GergKyae kindly illustrated for you.
1.) I based my entire argument on the gaining of spells, not scrolls, and spells can be gained in various ways including spellbooks which would contain several spells
2) I don't believe I ever argued that gaining a flametongue would be worth the equivalent of a single spell
A Flametongue, OTOH, is a rare item of great value (2d10 x 1000gp) and is not a good equivalent to a scroll of magic missile. It would be a good comparison to a single scroll of a level 8 or 9 spell, or some combination of scrolls of lower level spells equaling the value of the Flametongue, as GergKyae kindly illustrated for you.
1.) I based my entire argument on the gaining of spells, not scrolls, and spells can be gained in various ways including spellbooks which would contain several spells
2) I don't believe I ever argued that gaining a flametongue would be worth the equivalent of a single spell
FFS, your entire premise is that getting a new spell should be equivalent to getting a magic item. I asked if it was your contention that a wizard should get a dozen to fifteen spells over the course of their entire career—to match the dozen to fifteen magic items most characters will accrue over twenty levels—and you declined to respond. YOU brought up the Flametongue but all you’ve done is cry about how people have used YOUR example item. I’m just gonna go bash my head against the wall instead of wasting any more time here.
A Flametongue, OTOH, is a rare item of great value (2d10 x 1000gp) and is not a good equivalent to a scroll of magic missile. It would be a good comparison to a single scroll of a level 8 or 9 spell, or some combination of scrolls of lower level spells equaling the value of the Flametongue, as GergKyae kindly illustrated for you.
1.) I based my entire argument on the gaining of spells, not scrolls, and spells can be gained in various ways including spellbooks which would contain several spells
2) I don't believe I ever argued that gaining a flametongue would be worth the equivalent of a single spell
FFS, your entire premise is that getting a new spell should be equivalent to getting a magic item. I asked if it was your contention that a wizard should get a dozen to fifteen spells over the course of their entire career—to match the dozen to fifteen magic items most characters will accrue over twenty levels—and you declined to respond. YOU brought up the Flametongue but all you’ve done is cry about how people have used YOUR example item. I’m just gonna go bash my head against the wall instead of wasting any more time here.
I clarified how I was using flametongue and people ignore that clarification
I also said that a scroll of first level could we consider the equivalent of a couple of potions a couple of potions is more than one magic item
why should such an easily made item be just as rare as a flame tongue longsword?
Why shouldn't a new spellbook be just as rare as a flame tongue long sword?
Speaking _strictly_ in terms of balance between classes?
As is evident here I was equating a spellbook to flametongue. Spell books typically have more than one spell in them
As is evident here I wanted to expand issues raised from quantity to quality. I'm not saying that you shouldn't restrict spell access from wizards and I know that I misunderstood thinking you were being more restrictive than is the case. Yes, wizards are unbalanced. However, I'm not sure how much it would contribute to a game to keep a control on the distribution of items.
Personally, I think that a DM can supply items that party members can then divide between themselves. A DM interjected comment or ~two such as about wizards potentially being highly powered may be in order, but the decision can remain with the recipients. Wizards are classic glass cannons. If a party decides to invest magic items, for instance, to make the wizard less glassy, then that can, optionally, be a decision that can be made amongst members of the party.
why should such an easily made item be just as rare as a flame tongue longsword?
Why shouldn't a new spellbook be just as rare as a flame tongue long sword?
Speaking _strictly_ in terms of balance between classes?
As is evident here I was equating a spellbook to flametongue. Spell books typically have more than one spell in them
As is evident here I wanted to expand issues raised from quantity to quality. I'm not saying that you shouldn't restrict spell access from wizards and I know that I misunderstood thinking you were being more restrictive than is the case. Yes, wizards are unbalanced. However, I'm not sure how much it would contribute to a game to keep a control on the distribution of items.
Personally, I think that a DM can supply items that party members can then divide between themselves. A DM interjected comment or ~two such as about wizards potentially being highly powered may be in order, but the decision can remain with the recipients. Wizards are classic glass cannons. If a party decides to invest magic items, for instance, to make the wizard less glassy, then that can, optionally, be a decision that can be made amongst members of the party.
Some magic items, by their very nature, GM can know who's gonna get them before he distributes them to the party. You know ahead of time who's gonna get the spell book you can be pretty sure who's gonna get the magical full plate or the magical thieves tools not all magical items are gonna be left up to the party to distribute
I think thrikreen’s point wasn’t that you might have a pretty good idea where most of the items will go, but that it’s upto the party to divide up the loot as they see fit not have the DM assigning the found magic items etc. your right that plate mail is going to a martial, and the scrolls to casters but what about a cloak of displacement or bracers of defense? If you have a barbarian/monk/ etc as well as a mage who gets?
I think thrikreen’s point wasn’t that you might have a pretty good idea where most of the items will go, but that it’s upto the party to divide up the loot as they see fit not have the DM assigning the found magic items etc. your right that plate mail is going to a martial, and the scrolls to casters but what about a cloak of displacement or bracers of defense? If you have a barbarian/monk/ etc as well as a mage who gets?
OK I agree with that mostly. The one place I might disagree is a PC who finds magic items and doesn't share them with the party. This can quickly lead to a situation where the party is very unbalanced.
Yes it can and then it’s really the party’s job (and the player’s) to solve the problem not the DM’s. BTDT including doing a detect magic on party members and IDing the hoarder then stripping him of everything and turning him out to survive with nothing. ( done with the player’s agreement).
Yes it can and then it’s really the party’s job (and the player’s) to solve the problem not the DM’s. BTDT including doing a detect magic on party members and IDing the hoarder then stripping him of everything and turning him out to survive with nothing. ( done with the player’s agreement).
Not necessarily. If the players play only once a month for example it may not be reasonable two expect a player to keep track of every other PC's magic items.
Who does? But it is fair to expect the party to divvy up stuff after they get it in a fair way. Over my 40 years of play that has typically meant assigning the obvious items where they are needed and then drawing lots and selecting things in order from what is left until it’s gone.
Who does? But it is fair to expect the party to divvy up stuff after they get it in a fair way. Over my 40 years of play that has typically meant assigning the obvious items where they are needed and then drawing lots and selecting things in order from what is left until it’s gone.
To that extent I agree with you, Note, though, that it has nothing to do with our original discussion.
OK so you are deliberately taking that one sentence out of context like I thought
No, they’re saying that it takes a lot of scrolls to equate to the value of a magic item such as a Flametongue. They’re not taking anything out of context. To the contrary, they composed a handy list to aid your understanding that getting scrolls that a wizard can copy into their spellbook should not be as rare as getting a magic item because scrolls have a much smaller relative value. To keep things fair between the hypothetical wizard and fighter, their treasure might include one magic sword and a handful of scrolls that total the value of the sword rather than a single sword and a single scroll.
Most characters can only attune three magic items. They might also have a small number of magic items that don’t require attunement; maybe a total of a dozen or fifteen items at best. Surely it is not your contention that a wizard should only ever have access to a dozen or fifteen scrolls to add to their spell book over the course of their career?
For example: take a +1 weapon as a part of a treasure, the L2 spell enchanted weapon will make a mundane weapon into a +1 weapon for 1 hour, so to get 24 hours of +1 weapon you need 24 scrolls of one L2 spell to equal the effect for 1 day unless you are allowing them to scribe the spell into their spellbook and prep it so they can use it more or less as needed. So in this case it’s not 1 to 1, it’s 24(+) scrolls = 1 +1 weapon.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
That would be a fairly low level but not too bad if the wizard is also getting magic items but the wizard wants magic items just as much as the fighter. Given the choice of an arcane grimoire or 5 spell scolls any wizard would choose the grimoire (given they choose the spells they most want on level up)
Though a lot here may obviously depend on how many spells were in the arcane grimoire and whether the wizard already possesses copies of these spells. (I'm not saying you implied differently but am just stating the obvious).
Grimoires, though, have an advantage over scrolls in that their content may not so easily be destroyed.
The RAW on spell scrolls say:
"A wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied just as spells in spellbooks can be copied. When a spell is copied from a spell scroll, the copier must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the spell’s level. If the check succeeds, the spell is successfully copied. Whether the check succeeds or fails, the spell scroll is destroyed."
It may also be important to note, just finding a spellbook doesn't mean that the wizard can directly use the spells.
There's still a cost "For each level of the spell, ... [of] 2 hours and ... 50 gp".
Finding a spellbook RAW would facilitate options for gaining spells but still at significant expense. The scrolls examples (sane prices) can be modified to show the financial costs of copying the spells into repeatedly usable form as follows.
Spell Scroll Level 1 60gp + 50gp
Spell Scroll Level 2 120gp + 100gp
Spell Scroll Level 3 200gp + 150gp
Spell Scroll Level 4 320gp + 200 gp
Spell Scroll Level 5 640gp + 250 gp
Spell Scroll Level 6 1280gp + 300 gp
Spell Scroll Level 7 2560gp + 350 gp
Spell Scroll Level 8 5120gp + 400 gp
Spell Scroll Level 9 10240gp + 450 gp
The second cost would RAW still be incurred if the wizard accessed a spellbook (though all these costs could be halved if the spell was from a specialist school of the wizard) and, with this taken into account, the scroll values may indicate an equivalent spell book value to a wizard.
But as I said before the flametongue was just a random item if you wanna compare a first level scroll to something you can easily compare it to twopotions of healing
If you want to compare scrolls to magic items, you really need to decide what rarity of magic item. Yes a scroll of magic missile should be as common as two potions of healing because potions of healing are common items of minimal value. They are a very good equivalent to scrolls of a low level spell—common items of minimal value. A Flametongue, OTOH, is a rare item of great value (2d10 x 1000gp) and is not a good equivalent to a scroll of magic missile. It would be a good comparison to a single scroll of a level 8 or 9 spell, or some combination of scrolls of lower level spells equaling the value of the Flametongue, as GergKyae kindly illustrated for you.
The specific magic item is immaterial but its value is of utmost consideration when comparing it to the relative value of a scroll. Please stop pretending all spell scrolls are of equal value in order to move goal posts and accuse your detractors of obstinance.
1.) I based my entire argument on the gaining of spells, not scrolls, and spells can be gained in various ways including spellbooks which would contain several spells
2) I don't believe I ever argued that gaining a flametongue would be worth the equivalent of a single spell
FFS, your entire premise is that getting a new spell should be equivalent to getting a magic item. I asked if it was your contention that a wizard should get a dozen to fifteen spells over the course of their entire career—to match the dozen to fifteen magic items most characters will accrue over twenty levels—and you declined to respond. YOU brought up the Flametongue but all you’ve done is cry about how people have used YOUR example item. I’m just gonna go bash my head against the wall instead of wasting any more time here.
I clarified how I was using flametongue and people ignore that clarification
I also said that a scroll of first level could we consider the equivalent of a couple of potions a couple of potions is more than one magic item
As is evident here I was equating a spellbook to flametongue. Spell books typically have more than one spell in them
As is evident here I wanted to expand issues raised from quantity to quality. I'm not saying that you shouldn't restrict spell access from wizards and I know that I misunderstood thinking you were being more restrictive than is the case. Yes, wizards are unbalanced. However, I'm not sure how much it would contribute to a game to keep a control on the distribution of items.
Personally, I think that a DM can supply items that party members can then divide between themselves. A DM interjected comment or ~two such as about wizards potentially being highly powered may be in order, but the decision can remain with the recipients. Wizards are classic glass cannons. If a party decides to invest magic items, for instance, to make the wizard less glassy, then that can, optionally, be a decision that can be made amongst members of the party.
Some magic items, by their very nature, GM can know who's gonna get them before he distributes them to the party. You know ahead of time who's gonna get the spell book you can be pretty sure who's gonna get the magical full plate or the magical thieves tools not all magical items are gonna be left up to the party to distribute
I think thrikreen’s point wasn’t that you might have a pretty good idea where most of the items will go, but that it’s upto the party to divide up the loot as they see fit not have the DM assigning the found magic items etc. your right that plate mail is going to a martial, and the scrolls to casters but what about a cloak of displacement or bracers of defense? If you have a barbarian/monk/ etc as well as a mage who gets?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
OK I agree with that mostly. The one place I might disagree is a PC who finds magic items and doesn't share them with the party. This can quickly lead to a situation where the party is very unbalanced.
Yes it can and then it’s really the party’s job (and the player’s) to solve the problem not the DM’s. BTDT including doing a detect magic on party members and IDing the hoarder then stripping him of everything and turning him out to survive with nothing. ( done with the player’s agreement).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Not necessarily. If the players play only once a month for example it may not be reasonable two expect a player to keep track of every other PC's magic items.
Who does? But it is fair to expect the party to divvy up stuff after they get it in a fair way. Over my 40 years of play that has typically meant assigning the obvious items where they are needed and then drawing lots and selecting things in order from what is left until it’s gone.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To that extent I agree with you, Note, though, that it has nothing to do with our original discussion.
Noted
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.