NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9364213" data-attributes="member: 8461">I always saw the issue with spellbooks as more of a cautionary tale that the player was supposed to understand than anything else. That is to say, the player was meant to be aware ahead of time that their spellbook could be treated as a weakness for them, and so they'd better be proactive in devoting some of their resources (i.e. time and money) to shoring it up.That could include backups/traveling spellbooks, fortifying their primary spellbook with both magical and mundane reinforcements, putting traps (also mundane and/or magical) on their spellbook such as sepia snake sigil, creating spell scrolls as additional redundancies, taking the Spell Mastery feat (in 3.X), investing in a boccob's blessed book, etc.Somewhere along the line, though, the idea that having someone target a spellbook was "going too far" became commonplace. Objections were raised regarding the feasibility of NPCs doing that (as opposed to just killing the mage) and presumed vindictiveness on the part of the GM (i.e. it was like the wizard version of making a paladin violate their oath). Eventually, it reached the point of thinking that class abilities shouldn't ever be abrogated.Now, I want to stress that I'm absolutely in favor of keeping in mind that the point of playing an RPG is to have fun. But I'm also a proponent of the idea that setbacks, losses, and failures are part of the fun, not necessarily in the moment but overall. So the idea of "script immunity" to things like losing a spellbook doesn't sit well with me.</blockquote>

Verification