One of my players is a Warlock multiclassing into Wizard. He wanted to know if it is possible to record spells into the Book of Shadows. Given I don't know what is technically in the book, I don't see why he wouldn't be able to.
My only question would be the interaction with summoning a new Book of Shadows if it's been lost, if it is also your Spellbook. Would it still have the Wizard spells in it when you resummon, or would it be a "new" Book of Shadows that only has the applicable Warlock spells in it?
That is a very good point, I think it would be a bit of an easy mode for the Wizard if all his spells could be in the Book of Shadows. Fortunately, that one only record rituals, and it can record any number, so I don't think that's a problem if the wizard can study his rituals (assuming that he does) from the Book of Shadows. But all his other spells cannot be in it, they have to be in a regular spellbook.
Why? It can most certainly record more than just rituals. The “Book of Shadows” has nothing to do with rituals specifically. It’s also a diary and if the PC wants it can be a frickin’ cookbook.
The Book of Ancient Secrets Invocation rules only allow it to record rituals, but that is irrelevant. We can write that invocation right off as not part of the OP’s question.
The Wizard’s Spellbook rules allow a Wizard to recited all spells accept Cantrips. It they multiclass Wizard to Warlock, considering those two use completely different Spellcasting abilities and half of their features won’t work in conjunction with the other half, I say that’s enough of a tax to pay to get the boost of not having to replace a Spellbook by doubling it with the BoS.
Long story short, there is nothing RAW either way, so it will inevitably fall under DM discretion. As you can see, we have already come up with three different interpretations:
I love that the topic ended up causing everyone to discuss the multiple other concerns with the idea that I had without even asking.
One flaw idea I had for it ties back into the players Patron. Said patron is looking to gain as much power as possible and the usual for a BBEG (player doesn't know that their sugar daddy is a bad guy for the overarching story yet). So by the logic of Yes, that means he could record spells to his BoS and his patron would have access to said full spell list through the players efforts. Player gets more powerful spells, and so does their patron through said action.
Spellbooks have a cost (50 gp), and a capacity (100 pages). They are also a vulnerability of the wizard, and they have a cost to create a backup.
Allowing the wizard to have an indestructible spellbook is for me a fairly large advantage. Saying that it concerns only his rituals is already an advantage for me, as these are spells that he will never lose and never need to backup.
Ehh. A Spellbook is already D&D’s greatest moneypit. The interrupted spell progression from a suboptimized multiclass requiring a minimum investment of 3 levels* is a balanced trade off IMHO.
*(Therefore making it impossible to attain the greatest ability in the Wizard class, Spell Mastery.)
That is a very good point, I think it would be a bit of an easy mode for the Wizard if all his spells could be in the Book of Shadows. Fortunately, that one only record rituals, and it can record any number, so I don't think that's a problem if the wizard can study his rituals (assuming that he does) from the Book of Shadows. But all his other spells cannot be in it, they have to be in a regular spellbook.
Why? It can most certainly record more than just rituals. The “Book of Shadows” has nothing to do with rituals specifically. It’s also a diary and if the PC wants it can be a frickin’ cookbook.
Hmmm, it's supposed to be a "grimoire" but apart from this, I don't see that it's written anywhere that it can be used for anything. In particular, "Book of Ancient Secrets" says specifically: "You can now inscribe magical rituals in your Book of Shadows."
As this is written nowhere else, and for no other things, for me it is at least indicative that you do not write things into your book of shadows unless given a special ability to.
It says you can now inscribe magic rituals in your book of shadows. If you have a piece of paper, there's nothing stopping you from drawing on it, even if it's lined paper. If you had tried to write a Magic Ritual in before, you wouldn't be able to use the ritual, it would be like taking a sketch. Pens write on paper, it doesn't matter where the paper is. I think things in the book other than rituals and the three cantrips can't be used by a warlock because there's nothing saying that it has no effect. The Wizard could use their spells in the book, because wizards can prepare spells from their spellbook. It never says that your spellbook can't have something else in it, or that your book of shadows can't have something else in it. The part about rituals is stating that the warlock can use the rituals inscribed in the book, otherwise they couldn't.
The one edge case would be inscribing a ritual into the book for Wizard, but I'd probably rule it where you'd have to write it in twice
An aasimar, except for one who has turned to evil, has a link to an angelic being. That being—usually a deva—provides guidance to the aasimar, though this connection functions only in dreams. As such, the guidance is not a direct command or a simple spoken word. Instead, the aasimar receives visions, prophecies, and feelings.
The angelic being is far from omniscient. Its guidance is based on its understanding of the tenets of law and good, and it might have insight into combating especially powerful evils that it knows about.
As part of fleshing out an aasimar character, consider the nature of that character’s angelic guide. The Angelic Guide tables offer names and natures that you can use to flesh out your character’s guide.
Gothic Trinkets 33-34 A little black book that records your dreams, and yours alone, when you sleep
Your patron gives you a grimoire called a Book of Shadows. When you gain this feature, choose three cantrips from any class’s spell list (the three needn’t be from the same list). While the book is on your person, you can cast those cantrips at will. They don’t count against your number of cantrips known. If they don’t appear on the warlock spell list, they are nonetheless warlock spells for you.
If you lose your Book of Shadows, you can perform a 1-hour ceremony to receive a replacement from your patron. This ceremony can be performed during a short or long rest, and it destroys the previous book. The book turns to ash when you die.
i guess it all depends on how you define the idea of 'replacement'...replace the object that was originally given to the character....or replace the then-modified object?
if your character goes and gets a wagon from, say, the Harpers as a rank perk and the Harpers say 'if you loose this wagon, i shall replace it for free'....and then the character goes and fills it with magic items and loot and accidentally leaves the parking brake off on the cliff face, thereby allowing the cart to plummet into a raging river leading into the abyss...would a faction agent replace just the wagon or the wagon and all loot inside the wagon?
however you answer that is your answer imo since its all interpretation
Exactly. There’s nothing either RAW or RAI either way. It all falls under the direct purview of each individual DM to make that call for their personal campaigns.
Exactly. There’s nothing either RAW or RAI either way. It all falls under the direct purview of each individual DM to make that call for their personal campaigns.
Frankly an argument can be made since there is an invocation that permits ritual spells to be written in it, that the BoS its self is not meant to will nilly accept spell formulas into it. But since they don't say no in the text of BoS, although they wouldn't say what you can't do with something because WoTC prefers to say what something can do Vs what it can't, so one can better argue RAI says no spells but the three cantrips until you take the invocation that then permits it.
Exactly. There’s nothing either RAW or RAI either way. It all falls under the direct purview of each individual DM to make that call for their personal campaigns.
Frankly an argument can be made since there is an invocation that permits ritual spells to be written in it, that the BoS its self is not meant to will nilly accept spell formulas into it. But since they don't say no in the text of BoS, although they wouldn't say what you can't do with something because WoTC prefers to say what something can do Vs what it can't, so one can better argue RAI says no spells but the three cantrips until you take the invocation that then permits it.
Exactly, one could argue it either way. With so little to go on it basically boils down to “Ya-hu!” vs. “Nuh-uh!” Back and forth. So why argue it at all. In the end it’s up to the DM no matter what.
I see no reason why a Wizlock couldn't use the Book of Shadows as a spellbook. From the flavor text for the Wizard, the spellbook is not inherently magical, and really is just a repository of the spellcasters notes on the spells they have learned; hell I could have my spellbook be a series of napkin sketches if I wanted and that is perfectly RAW and RAI. The Book of Shadows is a grimoire (which is defined as simply "a book of magic spells and invocations" from a quick google search) with cantrips (and possibly rituals with the right invocation) so I see no reason why it cannot be added onto in non-magical ways, especially since there is an invocation that allows just that. Based on the invocations and rules surrounding each I would rule as follows:
Wizlock can inscribe spells into the Book of Shadows
Wizlock who loses book can resummon the book with only the original cantrips using the warlock ability, and can recopy the wizard spells using the replacement rules from the wizard class (10gp + 1 hour per spell level)
Wizlock with Book of Ancient Secrets Invocation who loses book can resummon the book with the original cantrips and any ritual spell inscribed (since the copying requirements are the same for each class I see no issue here), and can recopy non-ritual wizard spells using the replacement rules from the wizard class
I see no reason why a Wizlock who wants to should be denied the roleplay of being able to use the book of shadows for a spellbook, and I believe the above is a fair interpretation of the rules regarding the replacement of the book should it be lost or resummoned.
It says you can now inscribe magic rituals in your book of shadows. If you have a piece of paper, there's nothing stopping you from drawing on it, even if it's lined paper.
It never says that:
The book of shadows is made of paper that you can write on
For me, a grimoire is filled with knowledge already, it's not a blank book. Also, it comes from french, so I should know (:p) French, from Old French, alteration of gramaire grammar, grammar book, learned work, book of witchcraft
If you had tried to write a Magic Ritual in before, you wouldn't be able to use the ritual, it would be like taking a sketch. Pens write on paper, it doesn't matter where the paper is.
If it's made of paper and if the paper is blank. Spellbooks are specifically sold empty, but books and in particular grimoires are not. For me, the Book of Shadows comes with arcane knowledge passed on by the Warlock's Patron, it's not a scratchpad, be a little respectful ! :p
A grimoire is a fictional object with multiple definitions (see the one I found in my above post). Honestly a hardline reading here really removes ability for roleplay; you can certainly go that route, but at least with most players I've played with they would be disappointed with the lack of compromise on what is essentially a roleplay request with limited if any mechanical impact to the game.
Exactly. There’s nothing either RAW or RAI either way. It all falls under the direct purview of each individual DM to make that call for their personal campaigns.
Frankly an argument can be made since there is an invocation that permits ritual spells to be written in it, that the BoS its self is not meant to will nilly accept spell formulas into it. But since they don't say no in the text of BoS, although they wouldn't say what you can't do with something because WoTC prefers to say what something can do Vs what it can't, so one can better argue RAI says no spells but the three cantrips until you take the invocation that then permits it.
Exactly, one could argue it either way. With so little to go on it basically boils down to “Ya-hu!” vs. “Nuh-uh!” Back and forth. So why argue it at all. In the end it’s up to the DM no matter what.
Because the "It can be used" has nothing to draw from other than lack of rules. Where the "No it can't" as I stated has plenty of previous RAI and also things from the rules that line up to make a ruling. you even said it earlier, if you use the BoS as a spell book you are basically making the Book of the Ancients invocation invalid, which again gives more support to the. it cannot be used that way argument.
Last time I checked this is in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum, so giving a well thought out verdict is better than saying "No rule to no argument"
Ah the age old "Saying no limits roleplay." That is not always true, some requests that are "only RP" can still be too much. I'm not saying personally as a DM in this situation I would say No outright, but definitely would be looking at it from the whole warlock/patron relationship. Some patrons might not want this grimorie they beseeched to you to be "ruined" by having random journal entries or unnecessary spells written in it in their mind. How is that RP bad? See you saying yes cut out a great RP from a world stand point.
Sure that above RP is possibly not the better RP but it is still an RP moment that can be played out. Heck even if I said yes, I still might have, depending on the patron, them popping up and making comments on what the person is doing to their BoS. Remember, it is a magical pact item meaning that the BoS's knowledge will return to the patron, they might not want cooking recipes in the book meant to have their spells in it :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of my players is a Warlock multiclassing into Wizard. He wanted to know if it is possible to record spells into the Book of Shadows. Given I don't know what is technically in the book, I don't see why he wouldn't be able to.
There is no reason that their Book of Shadows cannot also be their Spellbook that I am aware of.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My only question would be the interaction with summoning a new Book of Shadows if it's been lost, if it is also your Spellbook. Would it still have the Wizard spells in it when you resummon, or would it be a "new" Book of Shadows that only has the applicable Warlock spells in it?
That would be up to the DM. There is no RAW answer for that. I would allow it, others may not.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Why? It can most certainly record more than just rituals. The “Book of Shadows” has nothing to do with rituals specifically. It’s also a diary and if the PC wants it can be a frickin’ cookbook.
The Book of Ancient Secrets Invocation rules only allow it to record rituals, but that is irrelevant. We can write that invocation right off as not part of the OP’s question.
The Wizard’s Spellbook rules allow a Wizard to recited all spells accept Cantrips. It they multiclass Wizard to Warlock, considering those two use completely different Spellcasting abilities and half of their features won’t work in conjunction with the other half, I say that’s enough of a tax to pay to get the boost of not having to replace a Spellbook by doubling it with the BoS.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Long story short, there is nothing RAW either way, so it will inevitably fall under DM discretion. As you can see, we have already come up with three different interpretations:
And everyone of them is perfectly legitimate.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I love that the topic ended up causing everyone to discuss the multiple other concerns with the idea that I had without even asking.
One flaw idea I had for it ties back into the players Patron. Said patron is looking to gain as much power as possible and the usual for a BBEG (player doesn't know that their sugar daddy is a bad guy for the overarching story yet). So by the logic of Yes, that means he could record spells to his BoS and his patron would have access to said full spell list through the players efforts. Player gets more powerful spells, and so does their patron through said action.
Would this work as a story point?
Ehh. A Spellbook is already D&D’s greatest moneypit. The interrupted spell progression from a suboptimized multiclass requiring a minimum investment of 3 levels* is a balanced trade off IMHO.
*(Therefore making it impossible to attain the greatest ability in the Wizard class, Spell Mastery.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It says you can now inscribe magic rituals in your book of shadows. If you have a piece of paper, there's nothing stopping you from drawing on it, even if it's lined paper. If you had tried to write a Magic Ritual in before, you wouldn't be able to use the ritual, it would be like taking a sketch. Pens write on paper, it doesn't matter where the paper is. I think things in the book other than rituals and the three cantrips can't be used by a warlock because there's nothing saying that it has no effect. The Wizard could use their spells in the book, because wizards can prepare spells from their spellbook. It never says that your spellbook can't have something else in it, or that your book of shadows can't have something else in it. The part about rituals is stating that the warlock can use the rituals inscribed in the book, otherwise they couldn't.
The one edge case would be inscribing a ritual into the book for Wizard, but I'd probably rule it where you'd have to write it in twice
I once made an Aasimar Celestial Warlock and combined all three of these into one:
Nothing said it was against the rules. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
and nothing says that is RAW or RAI either. 🤷♂️
i guess it all depends on how you define the idea of 'replacement'...replace the object that was originally given to the character....or replace the then-modified object?
if your character goes and gets a wagon from, say, the Harpers as a rank perk and the Harpers say 'if you loose this wagon, i shall replace it for free'....and then the character goes and fills it with magic items and loot and accidentally leaves the parking brake off on the cliff face, thereby allowing the cart to plummet into a raging river leading into the abyss...would a faction agent replace just the wagon or the wagon and all loot inside the wagon?
however you answer that is your answer imo since its all interpretation
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Exactly. There’s nothing either RAW or RAI either way. It all falls under the direct purview of each individual DM to make that call for their personal campaigns.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Frankly an argument can be made since there is an invocation that permits ritual spells to be written in it, that the BoS its self is not meant to will nilly accept spell formulas into it. But since they don't say no in the text of BoS, although they wouldn't say what you can't do with something because WoTC prefers to say what something can do Vs what it can't, so one can better argue RAI says no spells but the three cantrips until you take the invocation that then permits it.
Exactly, one could argue it either way. With so little to go on it basically boils down to “Ya-hu!” vs. “Nuh-uh!” Back and forth. So why argue it at all. In the end it’s up to the DM no matter what.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I see no reason why a Wizlock couldn't use the Book of Shadows as a spellbook. From the flavor text for the Wizard, the spellbook is not inherently magical, and really is just a repository of the spellcasters notes on the spells they have learned; hell I could have my spellbook be a series of napkin sketches if I wanted and that is perfectly RAW and RAI. The Book of Shadows is a grimoire (which is defined as simply "a book of magic spells and invocations" from a quick google search) with cantrips (and possibly rituals with the right invocation) so I see no reason why it cannot be added onto in non-magical ways, especially since there is an invocation that allows just that. Based on the invocations and rules surrounding each I would rule as follows:
I see no reason why a Wizlock who wants to should be denied the roleplay of being able to use the book of shadows for a spellbook, and I believe the above is a fair interpretation of the rules regarding the replacement of the book should it be lost or resummoned.
A grimoire is a fictional object with multiple definitions (see the one I found in my above post). Honestly a hardline reading here really removes ability for roleplay; you can certainly go that route, but at least with most players I've played with they would be disappointed with the lack of compromise on what is essentially a roleplay request with limited if any mechanical impact to the game.
Because the "It can be used" has nothing to draw from other than lack of rules. Where the "No it can't" as I stated has plenty of previous RAI and also things from the rules that line up to make a ruling. you even said it earlier, if you use the BoS as a spell book you are basically making the Book of the Ancients invocation invalid, which again gives more support to the. it cannot be used that way argument.
Last time I checked this is in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum, so giving a well thought out verdict is better than saying "No rule to no argument"
that's like saying leather armor is fictional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimoire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Shadows
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Ah the age old "Saying no limits roleplay." That is not always true, some requests that are "only RP" can still be too much. I'm not saying personally as a DM in this situation I would say No outright, but definitely would be looking at it from the whole warlock/patron relationship. Some patrons might not want this grimorie they beseeched to you to be "ruined" by having random journal entries or unnecessary spells written in it in their mind. How is that RP bad? See you saying yes cut out a great RP from a world stand point.
Sure that above RP is possibly not the better RP but it is still an RP moment that can be played out. Heck even if I said yes, I still might have, depending on the patron, them popping up and making comments on what the person is doing to their BoS. Remember, it is a magical pact item meaning that the BoS's knowledge will return to the patron, they might not want cooking recipes in the book meant to have their spells in it :P