like could a tattoo of a spell on my arm count? cause lf my main spellbook gets lost/dammaged ect,and l have a backup in a pocket plane,but the spell needed to get into the plane is in the book,that would be bad,so could l have some spells tattooed onto my arm so l can have them at all times?
also if l imprint a magic spell to my flesh,and then made a clone,would the clone have the spell still tattooed or...?
ps l want to know if this is RAW,cause obviously the dm can rule that the above is true if its not RAW.
Really, the RAW is that it’s up to your DM. The only thing the PHB says about the form the spellbook takes is:
The Book’s Appearance. Your spellbook is a unique compilation of spells, with its own decorative flourishes and margin notes. It might be a plain, functional leather volume that you received as a gift from your master, a finely bound gilt-edged tome you found in an ancient library, or even a loose collection of notes scrounged together after you lost your previous spellbook in a mishap.
This clearly assumes it’s a literal book, but it never actually says it has to be. The DM is the ultimate arbiter.
Generally assumed to be a sort of collection of notes either bound or collected for you to study when switching spells out. Only problem with tattooing is how much space do spells take up and how do you prepare a spell that is tattooed to your back. I've seen special ways of recording spells but it usually involves talking to the DM.
I think older editions also had a rule that spell books had limited pages and spells took up a number of pages equal to their level. Which is probably why wizards never tattooed spells on their body (not enough skin). 5e doesn't have any such rules though. Still an ask DM situation.
As for tattoos and clone. It doesn't say. Considering how real life clones work, I would guess they wouldn't have your tats, but magic, so ask DM.
I could see your DM allowing you to effectively create a lesser Dragonmark for the purposes of summoning a copy of your spellbook from a Pocket Plane, or other remote isolated location you have copies available. But I'd assume that would take a lot of magical ingredients, a LOT of downtime experimenting with how to do it, and generally speaking a huge whack of gold to do it. And you'd probably need someone else of a spellcasting class, with the spell in question, actually doing the application of the final product.
But that would depend on your DM, your level, how hard/easy encounters are going for the party, etc. Factors that only your DM would know and how something like this would affect the dynamics between.
Okay but losing your spellbook is something that a DM should never ever ever do to a wizard, unless they plan it to be a temporary plot device. Wizards are already subjected to a special handicap, that they need to invest gp into their class features which will probably slow down their accumulation of wealth/magic items compared to the rest of the party. To then actually take the step to deprive them of that book, and possibly ~1-20 levels of wealth and class features, is a dick move that is going to result in a new character being rolled. Yes, the PHB says "blah blah that's why NPC wizards that don't have to worry about this crap always have two copies of their spellbooks!", but party members aren't handed blank checks with limitless downtime, gold, and strongholds with plot armor to justify doing that... so really when you take a wizard's spellbook, you're telling them "okay roll a new character."
Don't do it.
So if we're all in agreement that actually taking the book away is off the table... there's really not much reason why they need to be paying to write spells in a book instead of paying to write spells on their person. Either way, magic ink, lots of time, etc etc.... sounds good to me.
It isn't RAW. RAW it is a book or similar collection of pages. If you want it to look like something else for roleplay reasons, then that should be fine; but it should be equally recognisable as a spell book, and equally easy to take off you when you are thrown in wizard-prison for committing your Wizard-crimes.
Wizards are already subjected to a special handicap, that they need to invest gp into their class features which will probably slow down their accumulation of wealth/magic items compared to the rest of the party.
OK I agree with the rest of your post, but this seems backwards. Wizards don't have a *handicap* - they have a huge *benefit* in that they're the only class that gets to learn spells by fining them. If they literally never do this they're on par with their expected power curve, and any spells they find are a bonus on top of that, not a requirement/handicap.
Let’s say you have a 1st level wizard with 16 intelligence. He has six spells in his spellbook on creation. Due to his high intelligence, he can prepare four of them.
The DM starts the adventure by throwing the party on prison, and the party comes together by breaking free. Unfortunately they escape without their possessions...
Congrats, you’re free! A level 1 wizard that now knows only FOUR spells, your DMs plot device has cost you 1/3 of your spellcasting feature. To start digging out of this hole, level 1 wizard turns to a life of crime, because a spellbook costs 50 gp, a not insignificant sum for a destitute fugitive. One side quest later, spellbook in hand, ready to start fresh... oh sorry, each of those four spells you have left will cost ANOTHER 50 gp to write down. And you better do it too, because if you ever change your prepared spells without having done so, they’ll be as gone as the other two, no preparing only part of your list and you can only prepare from what’s written!
So probably several encounters and 4 long rests later (because each 8 hour long rest he only has time to copy one 2-hour spell), our lowly wizard has accumulated time and resources to spend 250 gp to be back at square 1... or rather, to be 2/3 as good as he was on creation. He may have even leveled during that time, but he hasn’t gotten to use his new spells of course, because if he dared to prepare a new spell list the other four would vanish. But hey the DM took pity on him, he found a couple of scrolls containing the spells he lost... which again, are going to cost him one night and 50 gp each to recover. ASSUMING, that is, that the party is somewhere with a store that sells magical ink and paper, and not living rough in the wilds as the party runs from the DMs urgent plot device... Of course the party also found a cool +1 sword, a magic ring, and some potions... but the rest of the group gets those, cuz the wizard “already got his scrolls, and plus he keeps spending more than his share of the money!”
A DM needs to be very VERY careful not to put wizards into this position. If magical tattoos means the DM can never accidentally back you into a plot corner that destroys your spell book, then that’s one house rule that helps BOTH player and DM be happier.
My Wizard carries a large scroll as his spellbook, with a few spare scraps of paper stapled to it at weird angles.
I think having the spellbook as a physical object that can be lost or stolen is part of the design of the character, but I also like the idea of the tattoo-based spellbook concept.
If I was DMing, I would rule that a character could tattoo a limited number of spells on their person. So you couldn't have your full spellbook prepped and ready on your own body. But at an increased cost I would rule that it would be fair (and interesting) to allow a player to transcribe a few spells directly on their body. I'd say, though, that you would need to find a unique, well-trained tattoo artist and provide them with the rare inks required for spell transcription. That or your character would need to have the tattooing ability themselves... either learned in game, or you would need some kind of homebrew background that grants proficiency with tattoos.
I’d allow the tattoo thing. Probably limited number of spells, taking damage risks losing or corrupting them (wild magic table?), maybe aging as well. Perhaps there are some long term side effects that depend on the specific spells. That’d be a hoot. Lots of interesting hooks.
Does not matter. If it adds flavor or fun to the game go for it. Several of the guys in my campaign keep them on cell phones thanks to the magic of dndb
It isn't RAW. RAW it is a book or similar collection of pages. If you want it to look like something else for roleplay reasons, then that should be fine; but it should be equally recognisable as a spell book, and equally easy to take off you when you are thrown in wizard-prison for committing your Wizard-crimes.
RAW...it doesn't have to be a book or a collection of pages. see page 58 of XGE:
"Or you might display some flair, as many wizards do, by carrying a spellbook of an unusual sort. If you don't own such an item already, one of your goals might be to find a spellbook that sets you a part by its appearance or its means of manufacture."
There's two spellbooks there that don't look like a book at all, nor have pages....one is leather straps wrapped around a staff...the other is a bag of inscribed pebbles.
I'd complicate the tattoo thing if I allowed it though...ever seen a tattoo after you get a scar, get fat, or grow old? they change....like taking a book and re-arranging letters, it just wouldn't work anymore.....imo. Say maybe every time you get hit, you have an x% chance of permanently altering one of your tattoos, making it useless....or something....part of the design of the wizard and the fact that it can stock-pile powerful spells is that they're at risk of loss. Your version of tattoos gets around that intended balance /character cornerstone. If you don't want to loose spells, be a sorcerer.
or easier--I'd make one tattoo spell take up WAY more space than a page in a book...you can sharpen a quill and make a small legible letter on a paper...not so much tiny little letters in your skin...think about how big the letters are on tattoos you've seen...like maybe one spell per arm/leg.
It isn't RAW. RAW it is a book or similar collection of pages. If you want it to look like something else for roleplay reasons, then that should be fine; but it should be equally recognisable as a spell book, and equally easy to take off you when you are thrown in wizard-prison for committing your Wizard-crimes.
RAW...it doesn't have to be a book or a collection of pages. see page 58 of XGE:
"Or you might display some flair, as many wizards do, by carrying a spellbook of an unusual sort..."
RAW it used to be a book or similar. RAW including Eberron and XGE it can be another object/objects which can hold writing. All these objects share some common features though: are an object, have a cost, have writing which can be read, will be revealed as a collection of spells when quickly examined by someone with cursory Arcane knowledge, can be removed from your possession and replaced.
Anything which is a different object but which matches those common features could be considered as not Anti-RAW, but tattoos on your body are a very different concept. If you want to imagine that your character gets a tattoo for each spell then that is fine, but a Wizard must still carry an object called a Spellbook in order to scribe and prepare spells. If that object is lost then no amount of tattoos can replace it. There is no RAW to support tattoos as spellbook - that is all homebrew territory.
RAW it used to be a book or similar. RAW including Eberron and XGE it can be another object/objects which can hold writing. All these objects share some common features though: are an object, have a cost, have writing which can be read, will be revealed as a collection of spells when quickly examined by someone with cursory Arcane knowledge, can be removed from your possession and replaced.
Anything which is a different object but which matches those common features could be considered as not Anti-RAW, but tattoos on your body are a very different concept. If you want to imagine that your character gets a tattoo for each spell then that is fine, but a Wizard must still carry an object called a Spellbook in order to scribe and prepare spells. If that object is lost then no amount of tattoos can replace it. There is no RAW to support tattoos as spellbook - that is all homebrew territory.
not that i agree with tattoos as a spellbook (although as I said, I'd probably accept it in some limited form because the goal of the game is to have fun) but i believe your limits are your interpretation of RAI, not RAW
'a collection of spells' just doesn't work as it means spellbooks couldn't exist...because they couldn't be blank (therefore you couldn't make a spellbook...because the creation of the spellbook has to come before the inscription of any spells within the book...it'd have to be conjured out of thin air with spells already in it...you're stuck in a chicken/egg scenario), nor could they have only one spell. Look at the PHB's definition of a spellbook...it specifically says the pages are blank...therefore a spellbook is NOT a collection of spells.
also, i don't see that writing on live animal skin vs dead animal skin is a 'very different concept'....i'd call it more like a 'different process but the same concept''. I'd wildly guess that most people would agree that leather tomes can be made from all sorts of animals, including humanoids. If you can write a spell on a dead humanoid...why not a live humanoid?
If you're a minotaur wizard, that means your spellbook could be the remnants of your long-lost cow-cousin...if you can write on him, why not on yourself?
Also, Eberron doesn't just allow for objects which can hold writing...it allows you to totally substitute your spellbook. Spellshard is an item that has no writing at all.
I used tattos as a spell book once long ago; 2nd ed I think. I haven't repeated that since. I have used Crystals, cave walls, mage tower inner walls, a library of loose spell books pages. etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
The most common consensus I'm seeing on here is that a lot of DMs would allow a wizard to tattoo some spells onto their own body, with the caveat being that their body has very limited space and the tattoos have to be somewhere on their own body where they'd be able to read them. But in general the idea of a spell tattooed onto living flesh seems to be valid.
Anyway, what this immediately brought to mind for me was a sort of "Crazy Cat Lady" wizard whose "spellbook" is a bunch of tattooed, hairless cats she keeps close at all times.
The most common consensus I'm seeing on here is that a lot of DMs would allow a wizard to tattoo some spells onto their own body, with the caveat being that their body has very limited space and the tattoos have to be somewhere on their own body where they'd be able to read them. But in general the idea of a spell tattooed onto living flesh seems to be valid.
Anyway, what this immediately brought to mind for me was a sort of "Crazy Cat Lady" wizard whose "spellbook" is a bunch of tattooed, hairless cats she keeps close at all times.
ha, ya...and she has a taxidermist minion who goes about preserving the dead cats to keep the spells...so her hovel is full of a mix of live and dead-stuffed, tattooed cats.
hmm, spent hte last couple days pondering the cornerstone of my next adventure...might have just found it :) Mind if I use that crazy-cat-lady-with-a-house-full-of-tattood-cats theme?
The most common consensus I'm seeing on here is that a lot of DMs would allow a wizard to tattoo some spells onto their own body, with the caveat being that their body has very limited space and the tattoos have to be somewhere on their own body where they'd be able to read them. But in general the idea of a spell tattooed onto living flesh seems to be valid.
Anyway, what this immediately brought to mind for me was a sort of "Crazy Cat Lady" wizard whose "spellbook" is a bunch of tattooed, hairless cats she keeps close at all times.
ha, ya...and she has a taxidermist minion who goes about preserving the dead cats to keep the spells...so her hovel is full of a mix of live and dead-stuffed, tattooed cats.
This is definitely sounding like a character I would never want to play as, but would be amazing as an NPC for the party to have to regularly interact with.
like could a tattoo of a spell on my arm count? cause lf my main spellbook gets lost/dammaged ect,and l have a backup in a pocket plane,but the spell needed to get into the plane is in the book,that would be bad,so could l have some spells tattooed onto my arm so l can have them at all times?
also if l imprint a magic spell to my flesh,and then made a clone,would the clone have the spell still tattooed or...?
ps l want to know if this is RAW,cause obviously the dm can rule that the above is true if its not RAW.
Really, the RAW is that it’s up to your DM. The only thing the PHB says about the form the spellbook takes is:
This clearly assumes it’s a literal book, but it never actually says it has to be. The DM is the ultimate arbiter.
Generally assumed to be a sort of collection of notes either bound or collected for you to study when switching spells out. Only problem with tattooing is how much space do spells take up and how do you prepare a spell that is tattooed to your back. I've seen special ways of recording spells but it usually involves talking to the DM.
Your secret is safe with my indifference - Percy
I think older editions also had a rule that spell books had limited pages and spells took up a number of pages equal to their level. Which is probably why wizards never tattooed spells on their body (not enough skin). 5e doesn't have any such rules though. Still an ask DM situation.
As for tattoos and clone. It doesn't say. Considering how real life clones work, I would guess they wouldn't have your tats, but magic, so ask DM.
I could see your DM allowing you to effectively create a lesser Dragonmark for the purposes of summoning a copy of your spellbook from a Pocket Plane, or other remote isolated location you have copies available. But I'd assume that would take a lot of magical ingredients, a LOT of downtime experimenting with how to do it, and generally speaking a huge whack of gold to do it. And you'd probably need someone else of a spellcasting class, with the spell in question, actually doing the application of the final product.
But that would depend on your DM, your level, how hard/easy encounters are going for the party, etc. Factors that only your DM would know and how something like this would affect the dynamics between.
Okay but losing your spellbook is something that a DM should never ever ever do to a wizard, unless they plan it to be a temporary plot device. Wizards are already subjected to a special handicap, that they need to invest gp into their class features which will probably slow down their accumulation of wealth/magic items compared to the rest of the party. To then actually take the step to deprive them of that book, and possibly ~1-20 levels of wealth and class features, is a dick move that is going to result in a new character being rolled. Yes, the PHB says "blah blah that's why NPC wizards that don't have to worry about this crap always have two copies of their spellbooks!", but party members aren't handed blank checks with limitless downtime, gold, and strongholds with plot armor to justify doing that... so really when you take a wizard's spellbook, you're telling them "okay roll a new character."
Don't do it.
So if we're all in agreement that actually taking the book away is off the table... there's really not much reason why they need to be paying to write spells in a book instead of paying to write spells on their person. Either way, magic ink, lots of time, etc etc.... sounds good to me.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It isn't RAW. RAW it is a book or similar collection of pages. If you want it to look like something else for roleplay reasons, then that should be fine; but it should be equally recognisable as a spell book, and equally easy to take off you when you are thrown in wizard-prison for committing your Wizard-crimes.
OK I agree with the rest of your post, but this seems backwards. Wizards don't have a *handicap* - they have a huge *benefit* in that they're the only class that gets to learn spells by fining them. If they literally never do this they're on par with their expected power curve, and any spells they find are a bonus on top of that, not a requirement/handicap.
Let’s say you have a 1st level wizard with 16 intelligence. He has six spells in his spellbook on creation. Due to his high intelligence, he can prepare four of them.
The DM starts the adventure by throwing the party on prison, and the party comes together by breaking free. Unfortunately they escape without their possessions...
Congrats, you’re free! A level 1 wizard that now knows only FOUR spells, your DMs plot device has cost you 1/3 of your spellcasting feature. To start digging out of this hole, level 1 wizard turns to a life of crime, because a spellbook costs 50 gp, a not insignificant sum for a destitute fugitive. One side quest later, spellbook in hand, ready to start fresh... oh sorry, each of those four spells you have left will cost ANOTHER 50 gp to write down. And you better do it too, because if you ever change your prepared spells without having done so, they’ll be as gone as the other two, no preparing only part of your list and you can only prepare from what’s written!
So probably several encounters and 4 long rests later (because each 8 hour long rest he only has time to copy one 2-hour spell), our lowly wizard has accumulated time and resources to spend 250 gp to be back at square 1... or rather, to be 2/3 as good as he was on creation. He may have even leveled during that time, but he hasn’t gotten to use his new spells of course, because if he dared to prepare a new spell list the other four would vanish. But hey the DM took pity on him, he found a couple of scrolls containing the spells he lost... which again, are going to cost him one night and 50 gp each to recover. ASSUMING, that is, that the party is somewhere with a store that sells magical ink and paper, and not living rough in the wilds as the party runs from the DMs urgent plot device... Of course the party also found a cool +1 sword, a magic ring, and some potions... but the rest of the group gets those, cuz the wizard “already got his scrolls, and plus he keeps spending more than his share of the money!”
A DM needs to be very VERY careful not to put wizards into this position. If magical tattoos means the DM can never accidentally back you into a plot corner that destroys your spell book, then that’s one house rule that helps BOTH player and DM be happier.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
My Wizard carries a large scroll as his spellbook, with a few spare scraps of paper stapled to it at weird angles.
I think having the spellbook as a physical object that can be lost or stolen is part of the design of the character, but I also like the idea of the tattoo-based spellbook concept.
If I was DMing, I would rule that a character could tattoo a limited number of spells on their person. So you couldn't have your full spellbook prepped and ready on your own body. But at an increased cost I would rule that it would be fair (and interesting) to allow a player to transcribe a few spells directly on their body. I'd say, though, that you would need to find a unique, well-trained tattoo artist and provide them with the rare inks required for spell transcription. That or your character would need to have the tattooing ability themselves... either learned in game, or you would need some kind of homebrew background that grants proficiency with tattoos.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I’d allow the tattoo thing. Probably limited number of spells, taking damage risks losing or corrupting them (wild magic table?), maybe aging as well. Perhaps there are some long term side effects that depend on the specific spells. That’d be a hoot. Lots of interesting hooks.
Does not matter. If it adds flavor or fun to the game go for it. Several of the guys in my campaign keep them on cell phones thanks to the magic of dndb
RAW...it doesn't have to be a book or a collection of pages. see page 58 of XGE:
"Or you might display some flair, as many wizards do, by carrying a spellbook of an unusual sort. If you don't own such an item already, one of your goals might be to find a spellbook that sets you a part by its appearance or its means of manufacture."
There's two spellbooks there that don't look like a book at all, nor have pages....one is leather straps wrapped around a staff...the other is a bag of inscribed pebbles.
I'd complicate the tattoo thing if I allowed it though...ever seen a tattoo after you get a scar, get fat, or grow old? they change....like taking a book and re-arranging letters, it just wouldn't work anymore.....imo. Say maybe every time you get hit, you have an x% chance of permanently altering one of your tattoos, making it useless....or something....part of the design of the wizard and the fact that it can stock-pile powerful spells is that they're at risk of loss. Your version of tattoos gets around that intended balance /character cornerstone. If you don't want to loose spells, be a sorcerer.
or easier--I'd make one tattoo spell take up WAY more space than a page in a book...you can sharpen a quill and make a small legible letter on a paper...not so much tiny little letters in your skin...think about how big the letters are on tattoos you've seen...like maybe one spell per arm/leg.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
In Eberron (Eberron Magic Items) you can use a Spell Shard as you spell book. A Spellshard is a magic crystal that you can read mentally.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
RAW it used to be a book or similar. RAW including Eberron and XGE it can be another object/objects which can hold writing. All these objects share some common features though: are an object, have a cost, have writing which can be read, will be revealed as a collection of spells when quickly examined by someone with cursory Arcane knowledge, can be removed from your possession and replaced.
Anything which is a different object but which matches those common features could be considered as not Anti-RAW, but tattoos on your body are a very different concept. If you want to imagine that your character gets a tattoo for each spell then that is fine, but a Wizard must still carry an object called a Spellbook in order to scribe and prepare spells. If that object is lost then no amount of tattoos can replace it. There is no RAW to support tattoos as spellbook - that is all homebrew territory.
not that i agree with tattoos as a spellbook (although as I said, I'd probably accept it in some limited form because the goal of the game is to have fun) but i believe your limits are your interpretation of RAI, not RAW
'a collection of spells' just doesn't work as it means spellbooks couldn't exist...because they couldn't be blank (therefore you couldn't make a spellbook...because the creation of the spellbook has to come before the inscription of any spells within the book...it'd have to be conjured out of thin air with spells already in it...you're stuck in a chicken/egg scenario), nor could they have only one spell. Look at the PHB's definition of a spellbook...it specifically says the pages are blank...therefore a spellbook is NOT a collection of spells.
also, i don't see that writing on live animal skin vs dead animal skin is a 'very different concept'....i'd call it more like a 'different process but the same concept''. I'd wildly guess that most people would agree that leather tomes can be made from all sorts of animals, including humanoids. If you can write a spell on a dead humanoid...why not a live humanoid?
If you're a minotaur wizard, that means your spellbook could be the remnants of your long-lost cow-cousin...if you can write on him, why not on yourself?
Also, Eberron doesn't just allow for objects which can hold writing...it allows you to totally substitute your spellbook. Spellshard is an item that has no writing at all.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I used tattos as a spell book once long ago; 2nd ed I think. I haven't repeated that since. I have used Crystals, cave walls, mage tower inner walls, a library of loose spell books pages. etc.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
The most common consensus I'm seeing on here is that a lot of DMs would allow a wizard to tattoo some spells onto their own body, with the caveat being that their body has very limited space and the tattoos have to be somewhere on their own body where they'd be able to read them. But in general the idea of a spell tattooed onto living flesh seems to be valid.
Anyway, what this immediately brought to mind for me was a sort of "Crazy Cat Lady" wizard whose "spellbook" is a bunch of tattooed, hairless cats she keeps close at all times.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
ha, ya...and she has a taxidermist minion who goes about preserving the dead cats to keep the spells...so her hovel is full of a mix of live and dead-stuffed, tattooed cats.
hmm, spent hte last couple days pondering the cornerstone of my next adventure...might have just found it :) Mind if I use that crazy-cat-lady-with-a-house-full-of-tattood-cats theme?
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
This is definitely sounding like a character I would never want to play as, but would be amazing as an NPC for the party to have to regularly interact with.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium