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
That's a different scenario, though. That's a craftsman actually taking the time to craft an item. It's not the same as a powerful magical being calling it back into existence through the use of their near-divine power.
That's a different scenario, though. That's a craftsman actually taking the time to craft an item. It's not the same as a powerful magical being calling it back into existence through the use of their near-divine power.
Fair enough-Do you think that near-divine being would take the time to figure out what all you did to the book so it can recreate your version...or just give you another copy of what it gave you the first time and move on to real problems?
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
At no point in my post did I say that there wouldn't necessarily be RP or story consequences for doing this; my argument was made more from a "no" by DM fiat (as in, telling them you just can't do it), which I save more for requests and homebrew that affect the game mechanically. I stated my mechanical rulings for this situation in Post #20, which I find in keeping with RAW and RAI. This is the rules forum though, and RP considerations are more apt to be discussed in other forums.
That's a different scenario, though. That's a craftsman actually taking the time to craft an item. It's not the same as a powerful magical being calling it back into existence through the use of their near-divine power.
Fair enough-Do you think that near-divine being would take the time to figure out what all you did to the book so it can recreate your version...or just give you another copy of what it gave you the first time and move on to real problems?
That's a different scenario, though. That's a craftsman actually taking the time to craft an item. It's not the same as a powerful magical being calling it back into existence through the use of their near-divine power.
Fair enough-Do you think that near-divine being would take the time to figure out what all you did to the book so it can recreate your version...or just give you another copy of what it gave you the first time and move on to real problems?
Now that’s a fair ruling.
I think that's a question you'd have to answer in the frame of reference of the specific Patron, rather than at-large for all. There's an argument to be made either way, and it would all rest on motive. I'd find it significantly less likely, for example, for a GOO patron to care what you've done to the book. But a Fiend or Fey looking to increase it's magical knowledge might. A Patron recruiting warriors for some sort of battle it's quietly waging with another like itself would for sure want to keep any additions in the book the Character had made.
That's a different scenario, though. That's a craftsman actually taking the time to craft an item. It's not the same as a powerful magical being calling it back into existence through the use of their near-divine power.
Fair enough-Do you think that near-divine being would take the time to figure out what all you did to the book so it can recreate your version...or just give you another copy of what it gave you the first time and move on to real problems?
Now that’s a fair ruling.
I think that's a question you'd have to answer in the frame of reference of the specific Patron, rather than at-large for all. There's an argument to be made either way, and it would all rest on motive. I'd find it significantly less likely, for example, for a GOO patron to care what you've done to the book. But a Fiend or Fey looking to increase it's magical knowledge might. A Patron recruiting warriors for some sort of battle it's quietly waging with another like itself would for sure want to keep any additions in the book the Character had made.
And a Celestial patron might even actively try to help you out if it can.
The only real arguments for RAW are either it has to be the RAW spellbook item, or that the term spellbook covers a broader scope than the specific item called spellbook.
The rest seems to be RP, which is important, but as iconarising said, not exactly important to the Rules & Game Mechanics forum. RAF would probably agree that spellbook can mean a lot of different things including the Warlock tome, and so would I.
The only real arguments for RAW are either it has to be the RAW spellbook item, or that the term spellbook covers a broader scope than the specific item called spellbook.
The rest seems to be RP, which is important, but as iconarising said, not exactly important to the Rules & Game Mechanics forum. RAF would probably agree that spellbook can mean a lot of different things including the Warlock tome, and so would I.
The wizard sidebar says:
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.
There's nothing in here that says it needs to be the spellbook item
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
At no point in my post did I say that there wouldn't necessarily be RP or story consequences for doing this; my argument was made more from a "no" by DM fiat (as in, telling them you just can't do it), which I save more for requests and homebrew that affect the game mechanically. I stated my mechanical rulings for this situation in Post #20, which I find in keeping with RAW and RAI. This is the rules forum though, and RP considerations are more apt to be discussed in other forums.
Did you even read what you wrote?
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.
You are indeed the one who said saying no is bad for RP - but okay. You are the one who brought RP up as a reason to not have a "hard ruling" aka you don't want a RAW or RAI because that "limits RP"
This is as you said a rules forum but then go on to say you'd more aptly lean on player RP than the hardline rule.
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.
There's nothing in here that says it needs to be the spellbook item
I would think this would settle the question of, "Can a wizard use his Book of Shadows as a spellbook." If a DM wants to be a stickler, he can make the player pay 50gp for that collection of scraps of paper that he uses as a "spellbook." But it would still work. And if you're GIVEN a literal magical tome with spells already inscribed, I just seems like unnecessary strictness to disallow also using the tome as a general spellbook.
That said, if the player lost their Book of Shadows, and asked their patron for a new one, as a DM I'd rule that it would come WITHOUT his wizard spells, as those were never part of the original pact. The player would have to record whatever spells he had prepared (read: remembered,) and then start collecting new spells as normal. So it still makes sense, in my mind, to have an additional spellbook at least as a backup.
EDIT: To add to this, if the player also had Book of Ancient Secrets, I WOULD allow the new book to keep the ORIGINAL two ritual spells that came with the book... but just like with a spellbook, they'd have to collect new rituals all over again. That would also include wizard rituals spells. That said, I'm not sure there's an actual RAW rule against a new BoS containing all of your collected BoAS rituals; if a DM allows that, then it would make sense that any ritual spells in a dual-use Book of Secrets (one also used as a wizard's spellbook) should be kept.
Again, why should there be blank pages in the book of shadows ? And what makes you think that, even if you can scribble in there, when the book is destroyed and recreated (which is the core of the power, here, let's face it), your scribbling will be in the recreated book ?
You don't really need blank pages. If scribblings count, then you could use the margins, the inside cover, write in-between lines, etc. Saying there are blank pages is just flavor. (Again, flavor that's definitely worth at least 50gp if the DM is a stickler.)
And personally, I wouldn't let the user regain his wizard spells if he got a new copy from his patron (which I actually mentioned.)
It's not a simple tome,
*shrug* It could be.
it's not a blank book,
Agreed.
it's the gift from your patron and a vessel of his power given to you so that you can cast the spells he has gifted to you.
Yup.
It's not a scratchpad,
*shrug* Doesn't mean it can't be used like one though. Ever seen a well-worn Bible from a minister who wasn't afraid to go to town with his notes, markings, etc.?
and there is no reason for it to have loads of empty pages for you to fill,
That depends. Particularly, if you also get the Book of Ancient Secrets invocation when getting the tome, then I'd argue it makes perfect sense for it to have blank pages ready for you to fill.
and neither is there reason for the changes that you would make to be recreated when the book is replaced by the patron.
And I personally agree with that. I'd think recording other spells in it should be mainly a convenience thing, not a foolproof "never-losing-my-spellbook" hack.
"Are there blank pages in the Book of Shadows as given by the patron?" As well as the subsidiary one "and can the warlock even write on them, if there are any?"
I have answered that at least 3 times, but here it is again for you just in case:
💥There are no rules governing this either way so therefore it falls to each DM to make that decision for themselves for their own particular table. There is no “one-answer-fits-all ruling” because there are no gorram rules either way.💥
Books are, by default, not empty. Again, from webster (I've left out all the definitions that are completely irrelevant to a "grimoire"):
Definition of book
(Entry 1 of 3)
1a: a set of written sheets of skin or paper or tablets of wood or ivory
b: a set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together between a front and back coveran address book
c: a long written or printed literary compositionreading a good bookreference bookshardcover and paperback books
So your opinion is that it's not defined, my opinion is that, when using the word of the definition in RAW, it clearly spells out that this is a book therefore already written (contrary to a spellbook, which has its own definition of 100 blank pages).
Let's leave it at that, shall we ?
Undone by your own definition.
Not to mention that a Spellshard can count as a Spellbook, and it has no pages whatsoever.
Stop telling the rest of us we D&D wrong because we don’t conform to your hyperlimited robotic thinking.
You stopped debating rules an entire page ago. Now you are just trying to bully the rest of us into doing it your way. I will not be bullied.
You have explained it. Then you accuse people of not answering your questions while badgering people to agree with you. If you just explained your opinions that would be one thing. That take one or two posts. Maybe a small handful. You go on for pages challenge anyone and everyone who disagrees with you in the most condescending language possible.
And I agreed to be civil in a different thread.
So go on, keep insisting that the only valid interpretation is yours until you piss people off bad enough that the mods have to lock up yet another thread because of you. That’ll be, what, 5, 6 this week?
Once again I see the same folks posting on a heated rules discussion.
Once again, a moderator has had to come in.
Last warning folks. (To those who are calmly expressing their opinion and debating in a peaceful discussion, thank you).
It's okay to explain how a rule is written and how it should apply - but please stop demeaning each other and turning on each other in order to get your point across.
That's a different scenario, though. That's a craftsman actually taking the time to craft an item. It's not the same as a powerful magical being calling it back into existence through the use of their near-divine power.
Fair enough-Do you think that near-divine being would take the time to figure out what all you did to the book so it can recreate your version...or just give you another copy of what it gave you the first time and move on to real problems?
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
At no point in my post did I say that there wouldn't necessarily be RP or story consequences for doing this; my argument was made more from a "no" by DM fiat (as in, telling them you just can't do it), which I save more for requests and homebrew that affect the game mechanically. I stated my mechanical rulings for this situation in Post #20, which I find in keeping with RAW and RAI. This is the rules forum though, and RP considerations are more apt to be discussed in other forums.
Now that’s a fair ruling.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think that's a question you'd have to answer in the frame of reference of the specific Patron, rather than at-large for all. There's an argument to be made either way, and it would all rest on motive. I'd find it significantly less likely, for example, for a GOO patron to care what you've done to the book. But a Fiend or Fey looking to increase it's magical knowledge might. A Patron recruiting warriors for some sort of battle it's quietly waging with another like itself would for sure want to keep any additions in the book the Character had made.
And a Celestial patron might even actively try to help you out if it can.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Okay, so at this point we’ve come up with 5 perfectly reasonable interpretations:
See what I mean about not enough RAW to go on and it’s entirely up to the DM?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The only real arguments for RAW are either it has to be the RAW spellbook item, or that the term spellbook covers a broader scope than the specific item called spellbook.
The rest seems to be RP, which is important, but as iconarising said, not exactly important to the Rules & Game Mechanics forum. RAF would probably agree that spellbook can mean a lot of different things including the Warlock tome, and so would I.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
The wizard sidebar says:
There's nothing in here that says it needs to be the spellbook item
Did you even read what you wrote?
You are indeed the one who said saying no is bad for RP - but okay. You are the one who brought RP up as a reason to not have a "hard ruling" aka you don't want a RAW or RAI because that "limits RP"
This is as you said a rules forum but then go on to say you'd more aptly lean on player RP than the hardline rule.
I would think this would settle the question of, "Can a wizard use his Book of Shadows as a spellbook." If a DM wants to be a stickler, he can make the player pay 50gp for that collection of scraps of paper that he uses as a "spellbook." But it would still work. And if you're GIVEN a literal magical tome with spells already inscribed, I just seems like unnecessary strictness to disallow also using the tome as a general spellbook.
That said, if the player lost their Book of Shadows, and asked their patron for a new one, as a DM I'd rule that it would come WITHOUT his wizard spells, as those were never part of the original pact. The player would have to record whatever spells he had prepared (read: remembered,) and then start collecting new spells as normal. So it still makes sense, in my mind, to have an additional spellbook at least as a backup.
EDIT: To add to this, if the player also had Book of Ancient Secrets, I WOULD allow the new book to keep the ORIGINAL two ritual spells that came with the book... but just like with a spellbook, they'd have to collect new rituals all over again. That would also include wizard rituals spells. That said, I'm not sure there's an actual RAW rule against a new BoS containing all of your collected BoAS rituals; if a DM allows that, then it would make sense that any ritual spells in a dual-use Book of Secrets (one also used as a wizard's spellbook) should be kept.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
You don't really need blank pages. If scribblings count, then you could use the margins, the inside cover, write in-between lines, etc. Saying there are blank pages is just flavor. (Again, flavor that's definitely worth at least 50gp if the DM is a stickler.)
And personally, I wouldn't let the user regain his wizard spells if he got a new copy from his patron (which I actually mentioned.)
*shrug* It could be.
Agreed.
Yup.
*shrug* Doesn't mean it can't be used like one though. Ever seen a well-worn Bible from a minister who wasn't afraid to go to town with his notes, markings, etc.?
That depends. Particularly, if you also get the Book of Ancient Secrets invocation when getting the tome, then I'd argue it makes perfect sense for it to have blank pages ready for you to fill.
And I personally agree with that. I'd think recording other spells in it should be mainly a convenience thing, not a foolproof "never-losing-my-spellbook" hack.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
I have answered that at least 3 times, but here it is again for you just in case:
💥There are no rules governing this either way so therefore it falls to each DM to make that decision for themselves for their own particular table. There is no “one-answer-fits-all ruling” because there are no gorram rules either way.💥
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Welcome to the next multi page, meaningless argument thread over something answered on the first page (we’ve had a lot of these recently)
Undone by your own definition.
Not to mention that a Spellshard can count as a Spellbook, and it has no pages whatsoever.
Stop telling the rest of us we D&D wrong because we don’t conform to your hyperlimited robotic thinking.
You stopped debating rules an entire page ago. Now you are just trying to bully the rest of us into doing it your way. I will not be bullied.
My fun is not wrong.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
We have, haven’t we. And they all seem to have a common thread.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You have explained it. Then you accuse people of not answering your questions while badgering people to agree with you. If you just explained your opinions that would be one thing. That take one or two posts. Maybe a small handful. You go on for pages challenge anyone and everyone who disagrees with you in the most condescending language possible.
And I agreed to be civil in a different thread.
So go on, keep insisting that the only valid interpretation is yours until you piss people off bad enough that the mods have to lock up yet another thread because of you. That’ll be, what, 5, 6 this week?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Once again I see the same folks posting on a heated rules discussion.
Once again, a moderator has had to come in.
Last warning folks. (To those who are calmly expressing their opinion and debating in a peaceful discussion, thank you).
It's okay to explain how a rule is written and how it should apply - but please stop demeaning each other and turning on each other in order to get your point across.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of