[3.5/PF] The wizard is... the cat?

[Kylarra]

Originally Posted by Sstoopidtallkid

I've seen people recommend taking Obtain Familiar to trade out for a second Wizardly ACF. That even seems to work, depending on how the ACFs are worded.

I guess, it's not something I'd try to do in a real game though. Theoretically it's amusing.

[Tiki Snakes]

What benefit are they actually gaining though? Wizards only need their spellbook in the morning, when they prepare, so it's not like it's conceivable to sunder it, or in any way target it to prevent them doing stuff. If the DM has shown himself to be the sort to target the source of a characters entire means of contributing then likely the Wizard will have taken measures to make it pretty much entirely safe outside of jerk-fiat anyway.

Also, looking up Spell Mastery, it doesn't really strike me as...something that's really that good in the first place, really.

Besides, I thought the common opinion was that Wizards only remotely 'weak button' is their HP's, which is to say, they don't have one past a certain level?

[Mark Hall]

Tiki, it sounds like your DM doesn't target spellbooks. However, it's a pretty big target, so a lot of DMs do.

Have it stolen. You rolled a 1 on a saving throw? I'm afraid your backpack has burned through; your spellbook is on the ground... that means its an unattended object, and it looks like the wyrm is taking a deep breath. Whoops, that dunking in the lake got into your spellbook... needs to make a saving throw v. waterlogging.

While the general opinion on these boards is that attacking people's equipment is unfair, the fact is that a wizard should put as much... if not more... effort into protecting his spellbook than he does into protecting himself. After all, he can be raised from the dead, but mending doesn't fix a disintegrated spellbook.

[Tiki Snakes]

Originally Posted by Mark Hall

Tiki, it sounds like your DM doesn't target spellbooks. However, it's a pretty big target, so a lot of DMs do.

Have it stolen. You rolled a 1 on a saving throw? I'm afraid your backpack has burned through; your spellbook is on the ground... that means its an unattended object, and it looks like the wyrm is taking a deep breath. Whoops, that dunking in the lake got into your spellbook... needs to make a saving throw v. waterlogging.

While the general opinion on these boards is that attacking people's equipment is unfair, the fact is that a wizard should put as much... if not more... effort into protecting his spellbook than he does into protecting himself. After all, he can be raised from the dead, but mending doesn't fix a disintegrated spellbook.

I've very rarely even HEARD of someone actually targeting the spellbook. It only ever comes up in 'Help me punish my wizard!' threads, far as I've seen.

[Barlen]

If your DM is targeting your spell book, make a backup copy and keep it at the local mages guild (they rent storage don't they?).

A better response is of course, the cat is a sorcerer and doesn't need a spellbook.

I rather like this idea for a villain. Take your stereotypical BBEG with a cat that sits on his lap and he pets while giving orders or devising schemes. Have it turn out that the cat is the actual BBEG and the guy the PCs think is the BBEG is actually dominated, a simulacrum, or even just a henchman. When he dies and the cat runs away, the cat creates a new 'master' and continues his schemes. For added amusement have the cat be friendly to the PCs (rubs their legs affectionately and purrs) so they don't attack or kill it after the 'master' goes down. This would work great with a scheming Xanatos gambit type of BBEG.

edit: I can't spell even with a checker

[Jack_Simth]

Originally Posted by Barlen

edit: I can't spell even with a checker

Eye half a spelling checker two. Eye make no spell ink miss steaks.

And the cat-Psion or Cat-Wilder would work very well, due to the lack of needing to worry about components. A dragon Compendium Tibbit-Psion or Tibbit-Wilder who simply never assumes humanoid form gets most the flavor you're after. Vow of Poverty (book of Exalted Deeds) is useful if you're actually playing it.

[Bhu]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...&postcount=264

You could play a Cat Burglar with the Familiar PrC if he allows Homebrew stuff

[Kylarra]

Originally Posted by Jack_Simth

Eye half a spelling checker two. Eye make no spell ink miss steaks.

Thus we learn about the the impotence of proofreading.

[hiryuu]

You have to fudge a little to get this to work. When I did this, I made a cat hengeyokai and took Improved Familiar for a commoner kid. Hengeyokai don't have an LA in 3.5 (due to no longer being shapeshifters and being humanoids with the (shapeshifter) subtype).

[Mark Hall]

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

I've very rarely even HEARD of someone actually targeting the spellbook. It only ever comes up in 'Help me punish my wizard!' threads, far as I've seen.

As I said, most players regard it as mean or "getting the wizard". I view it as a good tactics on the part of the bad guys. Sure, if you disintegrate the wizard's spell book, he isn't any less powerful at that instant... but every spell he spends is now GONE, unless he has a backup spell book. If you know that a wizard is coming after you, isn't it worth a few gold to have a thief break into his room and steal it, so you can personally chuck it in a fire? It's analogous to sundering (or shattering) the fighter's sword because it poses a threat to you.

Wizards should take care of their spell books. Their players should tell the DM what steps they are taking to preserve their spell books. We'd make slipcases for them out of dragonhide, with metal frames and plates to protect against weapon blows. We'd keep them inside waterproof bags made from an animal's stomach. Our spell books were usually under our pillows, if not actually our nightly pillow. Why? We'd seldom need our book in a hurry, but we needed to know it was safe.

[Roderick_BR]

Like Arguskos said (2nd post), but use your leadership to get a strong cohort like a figther or warblade, or even a swordsage. A lot of people will be in for a surprise.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Originally Posted by Mark Hall

As I said, most players regard it as mean or "getting the wizard". I view it as a good tactics on the part of the bad guys. Sure, if you disintegrate the wizard's spell book, he isn't any less powerful at that instant... but every spell he spends is now GONE, unless he has a backup spell book. If you know that a wizard is coming after you, isn't it worth a few gold to have a thief break into his room and steal it, so you can personally chuck it in a fire? It's analogous to sundering (or shattering) the fighter's sword because it poses a threat to you.

Wizards should take care of their spell books. Their players should tell the DM what steps they are taking to preserve their spell books. We'd make slipcases for them out of dragonhide, with metal frames and plates to protect against weapon blows. We'd keep them inside waterproof bags made from an animal's stomach. Our spell books were usually under our pillows, if not actually our nightly pillow. Why? We'd seldom need our book in a hurry, but we needed to know it was safe.

3 issues: Metagame, eliminating a spellbook is worse that just killing the character. Don't do that.
IC, destroying a spellbook is wasting something worth tens of thousands of gold for no immediate tactical advantage. Stealing it makes more sense, but also is harder.
Game-based, a caster can render their book more immortal than they are fairly easily. Any DM actually going to go after it, I'd have a book surrounded by wards, chained to my belt, in an iron cover, that I use as a pillow. Each page is covered in Explosive Runes. I may or may not mention that to the DM beforehand. The real one is in a Secret Chest, the focus for which is surgically implanted in my hand.

[Optimystik]

Originally Posted by Mark Hall

Tiki, it sounds like your DM doesn't target spellbooks. However, it's a pretty big target, so a lot of DMs do.

Have it stolen. You rolled a 1 on a saving throw? I'm afraid your backpack has burned through; your spellbook is on the ground... that means its an unattended object, and it looks like the wyrm is taking a deep breath. Whoops, that dunking in the lake got into your spellbook... needs to make a saving throw v. waterlogging.

While the general opinion on these boards is that attacking people's equipment is unfair, the fact is that a wizard should put as much... if not more... effort into protecting his spellbook than he does into protecting himself. After all, he can be raised from the dead, but mending doesn't fix a disintegrated spellbook.

It seems to me that DMs that do that might as well just say "I hate wizards" and force everyone at their table to play spontaneous casters instead.

[The Big Dice]

I can think of good in game rather than metagame reasons to steal a Wizard's spellbook. Particularly if the BBEG is a Wizard himself. After all, the PCs would do it to the NPCs, and if they can do it, then it's fair game for the BBEG to use the same methods.

But that said, nothing ruins a Wizard's day more than getting hit by a splash weapon filled with treacle. Or molasses for those readers who might not be familiar with treacle. Not only would it ruin spellbooks and scrolls, but try digging out carefully sorted spell ingredients when your fingers are covered in thick sticky goop.

And if you're in feline form at the time, wow is that going to be one kitty taking all day to clean itself

[Mark Hall]

Originally Posted by Sstoopidtallkid

3 issues: Metagame, eliminating a spellbook is worse that just killing the character. Don't do that.

I disagree. A dead wizard is dead... bringing him back to life costs him a level, and, in any case, he's still dead. A spellbook, even a highly valuable one, is a possession which can be replaced... expensively, but it can be replaced. A wizard without a spell book is one with MOTIVATION, and with a need for a fair bit of caution (read Joel Rosenberg's The Sleeping Dragon).

IC, destroying a spellbook is wasting something worth tens of thousands of gold for no immediate tactical advantage. Stealing it makes more sense, but also is harder.

There may be no immediate tactical advantage, but there's a massive strategic advantage. Unless they have a spare, they're at a severe strategic disadvantage. Even if they've got the money to immediately replace it, they're tied down doing so.

Game-based, a caster can render their book more immortal than they are fairly easily. Any DM actually going to go after it, I'd have a book surrounded by wards, chained to my belt, in an iron cover, that I use as a pillow. Each page is covered in Explosive Runes. I may or may not mention that to the DM beforehand. The real one is in a Secret Chest, the focus for which is surgically implanted in my hand.

If you don't mention it to the DM, it doesn't happen. "Oh, didn't I tell you that I had an iron cover and every page covered in explosive runes?" "No, that's why I didn't tell you that it would've weighed 30 more pounds and had half the capacity, since you filled every page up with non-spell writing." Unless you can manage something like this, telling the GM after the fact is about as effective as saying "NUH-UH! 'Cause I was surrounded by a forcefield!"

[Tiki Snakes]

I think the point is, that if the DM is the type to be that much of a jerk as to destroy spellbooks on any kind of regular basis, the wizard will take sufficient steps that it's not going to be realistically possible anyway.

Which leaves us with DM Fiat attacks, "oh, your bag has come undone, and oh look, you're spellbook has fallen out. The Hobgoblin stops what he's doing and full attacks your spellbook!"

If the DM really wants to remove a wizard from being able to contribute he might as well just tell the spellbook-less variant that he's developed a brain tumour and can't recall any spells right now, it's about as fair and as reasonable.

[Mark Hall]

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

I think the point is, that if the DM is the type to be that much of a jerk as to destroy spellbooks on any kind of regular basis, the wizard will take sufficient steps that it's not going to be realistically possible anyway.

See, I disagree. If the wizard isn't explicitly taking the steps, then he's not taking the steps. And if the enemies choose to take advantage of this vulnerability... well... it would be like them agreeing to stab the fighter because he didn't bother to put on armor. If a character is taking steps to protect their spell book, that's one thing; but if they're not bothering to take any steps to protect it, why should the DM assume that they are?

Which leaves us with DM Fiat attacks, "oh, your bag has come undone, and oh look, you're spellbook has fallen out. The Hobgoblin stops what he's doing and full attacks your spellbook!"

Which are quite a bit different. Those are DM fiat, rather than being driven by the characters in the story. Is it "DM being evil" if the character rolls a 1 on a saving throw v. fireball, and their backpack disintegrates in the flames? Is the DM being evil if a second fireball (what the bad guys would have done anyway) then damages the unattended item?

If the DM really wants to remove a wizard from being able to contribute he might as well just tell the spellbook-less variant that he's developed a brain tumour and can't recall any spells right now, it's about as fair and as reasonable.

Which is again different from "The Bad Guy commissioned someone to steal your spell book." If the bad guy is a Cancer mage, is it unreasonable for members of the party to contract cancer as a result of his powers?

It's not a matter of "trying to get the wizard out of the game." It's about giving challenges to the players. Losing a spell book is a BIG challenge. The question becomes do they rise to meet it, or do they fall before it, not if the DM is being mean.

[Xenogears]

Originally Posted by Barlen

I rather like this idea for a villain. Take your stereotypical BBEG with a cat that sits on his lap and he pets while giving orders or devising schemes. Have it turn out that the cat is the actual BBEG and the guy the PCs think is the BBEG is actually dominated, a simulacrum, or even just a henchman. When he dies and the cat runs away, the cat creates a new 'master' and continues his schemes. For added amusement have the cat be friendly to the PCs (rubs their legs affectionately and purrs) so they don't attack or kill it after the 'master' goes down. This would work great with a scheming Xanatos gambit type of BBEG.

If you go with the Tibbit idea you could always have the cat transform into a beautiful princess and tell the heroes how they removed her "curse" by killing the BBEG.Then she asks them to take her to her fathers palace across the continent. Then of course when they arrive at the palace it is filled with her cat-themed minions and she starts hurling powers at them. Plus now she has an IC reason to know the parties tactics.

[Optimystik]

Originally Posted by Mark Hall

If you don't mention it to the DM, it doesn't happen. "Oh, didn't I tell you that I had an iron cover and every page covered in explosive runes?" "No, that's why I didn't tell you that it would've weighed 30 more pounds and had half the capacity, since you filled every page up with non-spell writing." Unless you can manage something like this, telling the GM after the fact is about as effective as saying "NUH-UH! 'Cause I was surrounded by a forcefield!"

It doesn't have to be explicit. Let's say I write something down on a piece of paper when I sit at the table and put it face down. Later, my DM pulls one of the whole "oops, your spellbook's ruined!" tricks. I turn the paper over to show that my real spellbook is in a force chest. It's clearly something I did in advance, so it doesn't count as a "Nuh-uh!" move. It's just something I was keeping secret.

[Starbuck_II]

Originally Posted by Optimystik

It doesn't have to be explicit. Let's say I write something down on a piece of paper when I sit at the table and put it face down. Later, my DM pulls one of the whole "oops, your spellbook's ruined!" tricks. I turn the paper over to show that my real spellbook is in a force chest. It's clearly something I did in advance, so it doesn't count as a "Nuh-uh!" move. It's just something I was keeping secret.

Like putting it in a sealed envelope and not opening it till proof is needed?

[Mark Hall]

Originally Posted by Optimystik

It doesn't have to be explicit. Let's say I write something down on a piece of paper when I sit at the table and put it face down. Later, my DM pulls one of the whole "oops, your spellbook's ruined!" tricks. I turn the paper over to show that my real spellbook is in a force chest. It's clearly something I did in advance, so it doesn't count as a "Nuh-uh!" move. It's just something I was keeping secret.

You mean like the thing I specifically linked to in the post?

[rezplz]

Originally Posted by Optimystik

It doesn't have to be explicit. Let's say I write something down on a piece of paper when I sit at the table and put it face down. Later, my DM pulls one of the whole "oops, your spellbook's ruined!" tricks. I turn the paper over to show that my real spellbook is in a force chest. It's clearly something I did in advance, so it doesn't count as a "Nuh-uh!" move. It's just something I was keeping secret.

Sure, that would work as long as your DM didn't mind you keeping stuff secret from him, written down or not. I know that as a DM, if I didn't know about it beforehand it didn't happen, no matter how long ago you wrote it down. Keeping something secret from other players is one thing, but you don't keep secrets from the DM.

Just my two cents.

[Optimystik]

Originally Posted by Mark Hall

You mean like the thing I specifically linked to in the post?

I wouldn't know, your link didn't work for me.

Originally Posted by rezplz

Sure, that would work as long as your DM didn't mind you keeping stuff secret from him, written down or not. I know that as a DM, if I didn't know about it beforehand it didn't happen, no matter how long ago you wrote it down. Keeping something secret from other players is one thing, but you don't keep secrets from the DM.

Just my two cents.

Well if my DM started going after my spellbook/component pouch to that degree even after I talked to him about it, I'd either resort to such measures or start rolling Psions.

[taltamir]

Originally Posted by Optimystik

It seems to me that DMs that do that might as well just say "I hate wizards" and force everyone at their table to play spontaneous casters instead.

that... If a DM did that my character will immediately retire... to be replaced by a sorcerer with eschew materials (and maybe still and silent). Problem solved.

[Tiki Snakes]

Originally Posted by Mark Hall

Which are quite a bit different. Those are DM fiat, rather than being driven by the characters in the story. Is it "DM being evil" if the character rolls a 1 on a saving throw v. fireball, and their backpack disintegrates in the flames? Is the DM being evil if a second fireball (what the bad guys would have done anyway) then damages the unattended item?

Well, frankly, yes. Because in the example, the DM has clearly decided that he will destroy the Spellbook first and justified it flimsily second.

Ie; The attended backpack is disintergrated by a fireball, despite no other fireball ever destroying a backpack. The Spellbook just happens to end up on the floor, and oh, they just happen to follow up with a spell that also hits the spellbook.

It's just DM fiat.

SO; We are left with a couple of situations - Either the Wizard is not allowed to ever have an unassailable spellbook without sinking in a significant portion of their wealth into doing so, or a Wizard is allowed to make their spellbook safe in a reasonable way so as to negate such 'accidents'.

So either simply charge the Spellbook-less wizard the extra wealth to maintain his pseudo-mystic memory-charms, (via the periodic consumption of certain herbs, or snorting ground up gems. Go hog-wild), or there's just no problem anyway, because he's gained nothing.

I suppose there is the third possibility, though; 'Wizards, no matter the preperation, aren't allowed to make their spellbooks actually safe, under any circumstances'.
If the DM is firmly taking this latter route, consider yourself for-warned, best stick to druids or something.

[Mark Hall]

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

Ie; The attended backpack is disintergrated by a fireball, despite no other fireball ever destroying a backpack. The Spellbook just happens to end up on the floor, and oh, they just happen to follow up with a spell that also hits the spellbook.

Area effect spells will damage attended objects if the attender rolls a 1. That a 1 was rolled was stipulated in the post. Now, backpacks aren't specifically mentioned in that list... but armor and a cloak (which cover clothes, as a backpack does), are both listed before clothing, and armor comes before item in hand. So, while it's DM fiat, it's one that has backing in the rules themselves. It is also mentioned in the post you responded to that the bad guys would have thrown a fireball anyway... this character just had the bad luck to lose their backpack before the second one came.

This is nicer than the rules under which we played paranoia games with our spell books... in 2e (and 1e), items needed to make saving throws when the player failed his. It happened to my brother; his barbarian's (i.e. fighter who called himself a barbarian) plate armor was destroyed in the midst of a fight... the conjurer put an Armor spell on him to let him keep fighting.

I suppose there is the third possibility, though; 'Wizards, no matter the preperation, aren't allowed to make their spellbooks actually safe, under any circumstances'.

You seem to be under the impression that it's a matter of "It's Thursday, looks like it's time to get your spell book stolen." I don't think I ever implied that losing a spell book was anything but a rare and/or unfortunate event. I implied that theft or destruction of a spell book is possible, and that reasonable wizards would take steps to avoid it. You can take steps to make your spell book safer, but if you're going around with a multiple-thousand gold item that is essential to your power, AND you are actively ticking off people while you do so, NOTHING you have is safe... merely "safer" or "as safe as you can make it."
That said, this is not a technique you should use all the time... it would be annoying and frustrating. However, occasionally, it is a technique for adding tension to a game... putting the wizard under stress by removing his spell book. But, just because a DM shouldn't use it all the time, neither should a wizard assume it won't happen, nor fail to protect their spell book because it's only going to happen once in a while.

If the DM is firmly taking this latter route, consider yourself for-warned, best stick to druids or something.

And heavens forfend if the DM ever kills your animal companion or, worse yet, breaks the wand you're holding. Can't have anything bad happen to the characters that's not fixable with a potion of Cure Light Wounds and 20gp.

[Tiki Snakes]

So, let me get this straight; The Spellbook is easy to make relatively safe, and the DM won't target it more than once or twice and only incredibly rarely if ever.

So, really, unless the DM really goes after it, it's never going to be an issue.

So, in what way is not having one over-powered? :)

[Mark Hall]

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

So, let me get this straight; The Spellbook is easy to make relatively safe, and the DM won't target it more than once or twice and only incredibly rarely if ever.

So, really, unless the DM really goes after it, it's never going to be an issue.

So, in what way is not having one over-powered? :)

Because not having one is one less thing that can get lost, stolen, or shot up, especially accidentally.. As they said in Shadowtech, when comparing a cranial cyberdeck to a standard (which was, at the time, about twice the size of an old keyboard), "It's a lot of freedom." I don't know the ACF mentioned, but there may also be a cost savings, which is really big early on. It also avoids the problem of having to adapt to other spell books.

Furthermore, it's at the cost of a familiar, which many regard as a liability.

[Tiki Snakes]

Originally Posted by Mark Hall

Because not having one is one less thing that can get lost, stolen, or shot up, especially accidentally.. As they said in Shadowtech, when comparing a cranial cyberdeck to a standard (which was, at the time, about twice the size of an old keyboard), "It's a lot of freedom." I don't know the ACF mentioned, but there may also be a cost savings, which is really big early on. It also avoids the problem of having to adapt to other spell books.

Furthermore, it's at the cost of a familiar, which many regard as a liability.

But you implied that it was only getting lost, shot up, or stolen on account of it being there, and suffering realistic consequences of such.

And sure, lots of people dislike Familiars, but you can also dodge that 'liability' simply by *not summoning one*. Not to mention there are legitimate uses for Familiars, no matter how generally unpopular they may be.

I believe, though I am infering of course, that the cost of inscribing is shifted to the cost of the specialist incenses required to allow the mage to memorise the new spell properly. Not sure I understand the 'adapt to other spellbooks' thing.

Basically, given that very, very few DM's ever target spellbooks, that most players would be very unhappy if they did, and as you said, it's a pretty rare occurance even under DM's who do, I really do not see a quantifyable difference in power between having or not having to use a spellbook in the morning.

[Optimystik]

Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes

Basically, given that very, very few DM's ever target spellbooks, that most players would be very unhappy if they did, and as you said, it's a pretty rare occurance even under DM's who do, I really do not see a quantifyable difference in power between having or not having to use a spellbook in the morning.

This is close to the way I see it too. Why bother going after spellbooks? It's a nice "gotcha!" to the wizard done once, but it seems like all it will do is drive a rift between the DM and the player going forward. The player will respond by either being paranoid (and unwilling to share his protective measures with the DM, lest they be countered) or simply discouraged from playing prepared casters entirely.