Spellbook questions

[Telémakhos]

That analogy is not even close to right. A fighter loses his armor... and either spends 45gp to replace it at the next town or takes armor off the next guy he kills. He can still use all his powers without the armor too. Don't forget that if he had a Shield and a decent Dex (which he likely would even with scale mail if he used a light or heavy blade) his AC would not be horrible, just sub-optimal.

Even if you took a fighter's armor, shield, AND weapons, he is STILL better off than a wizard with no spellbook. The fighter wakes up in a prison with no equipment. He picks up a bench in the jail cell and uses it as a 2H improviized weapon and brute strikes the guard to death for 3d8+STR damage. Then he takes the guards' armor, weapon, & shield for the next fight. His wizard companion, however, who assisted by mage-handing the keys and magic missiling every round for fear of losing his now even more precious encounter & daily powers is still up a certain creek without a certain impliment. Until he finds a spellbook with HIS encounter & daily spells in it-- he is screwed-- and the DM who did it to him deserves a nasty paper cut with lemon-juice on it for doing it.

I think you can argue it either way. Does it say in the rules, the wizard cannot re-write his spells in a new book if he loses the old.

If it doesn't say that, then in your example above, the wizard would spend 5 more gold than the fighter for a new spellbook and then spend a couple more days filling in his spells (assuming that the DM and player agreed on it taking a few days to fill in).

In my 'stuck in the middle of a dungeon' scenario, assuming the monster's are balanced for the group level and size, (and for argument's purposes why wouldn't it be?) neither the Wizard nor the Fighter/Paladin would fulfill their roles. Would the wizard fail less? Possibly, but the fighter I have made up is a two-hander with a low Dex. Is this a poor design choice? No, he uses a maul and emphasizes other attributes. He is now a sub-par striker, able to dish outdecent damage, able to attract enemies with the inability to suck up all the hits that will come his way.

However, I happy to agree to disagree on this.

As for the assumption that the DM is a poor excuse of a human being for depriving the wizard of his spellbook, he may be. However, why assume it isn't narratively powerful, in a group where player and DM trust each other and where there are situations presented by the DM specifically designed for the wizard to emphasize other abilities or skills.

My point being, we are both right. It might be a lame move by a power-hungry DM.

On the other hand, it might be a great moment in the overall campaign story-arch that will be talked about in the years to come.

I consider myself lucky enough to be in a campaign where the latter is much more likely to be the case. However, I have no reason to assume it is any more likely than the poor DM scenario. In fact, I have no reason to assume anything without context. That's all I am saying. It is not innately right or wrong.

 

[Seeker_of_Truth]

That analogy is not even close to right. A fighter loses his armor... and either spends 45gp to replace it at the next town or takes armor off the next guy he kills. He can still use all his powers without the armor too. Don't forget that if he had a Shield and a decent Dex (which he likely would even with scale mail if he used a light or heavy blade) his AC would not be horrible, just sub-optimal.

Even if you took a fighter's armor, shield, AND weapons, he is STILL better off than a wizard with no spellbook. The fighter wakes up in a prison with no equipment. He picks up a bench in the jail cell and uses it as a 2H improviized weapon and brute strikes the guard to death for 3d8+STR damage. Then he takes the guards' armor, weapon, & shield for the next fight. His wizard companion, however, who assisted by mage-handing the keys and magic missiling every round for fear of losing his now even more precious encounter & daily powers is still up a certain creek without a certain impliment. Until he finds a spellbook with HIS encounter & daily spells in it-- he is screwed-- and the DM who did it to him deserves a nasty paper cut with lemon-juice on it for doing it.

I actually think a fighter losing his armor is worse than a wizard losing his spellbook. A rogue losing access to any rogue weapon is even worse. At level 1 45gp is pretty expensive, and at every level after that his armor will cost considerably more than 45gp. His AC will likely drop enough that he can no longer effectively perform his role (assuming he is a heavy armor wearer).

A rogue that doesn't have access to a rogue weapon has almost no powers he can use at all, and after level 1 the weapon costs more than the spellbook (not including rituals).

A wizard still is still fully capable of fulfilling his role. At level 1 he loses the option of memorizing a different daily power. His encounter and at-will powers are unaffected. If the lost spellbook is never recovered it's still not a permanent power loss as he can retrain when he levels up.

It's never a 'nice' thing to take away a characters powers, but losing a spellbook isn't all that bad.

 

[Telémakhos]

Even if you took a fighter's armor, shield, AND weapons, he is STILL better off than a wizard with no spellbook. The fighter wakes up in a prison with no equipment. He picks up a bench in the jail cell and uses it as a 2H improviized weapon and brute strikes the guard to death for 3d8+STR damage. Then he takes the guards' armor, weapon, & shield for the next fight.

I re-read this and wanted to comment specifically on this. In your scenario you are absolutely right.

However, I can make plenty of other scenarios where the wizard has an equal shot due to the specfic circumstances the PCs are in.

Perhaps the wizard is more screwed but I doubt the fighter/paladin is having much more fun (unless of course the DM put in a bench specifcally for the fighter to use, which might also mean that there are physically resistent monsters ahead vulnerable to force spells just so the wizard can have some face time in this trying scenario.

Am I making sense about how most of this is all about context?

 

[Jhaelen]

So you'd say that you need your spellbook to change what powers you have prepared, but not to re-prepare them every day. Sounds reasonable, and is consistent with multiclassers not getting or needing a spellbook, since they never get to change what powers are prepared. But does that mean the wizard is permanently stuck with those dailies? I'd be inclined to let him create a new spell book without too much effort.

Considering that when you swap a spell it simply disappears and is replaced by the new one, I'd say it's no problem at all. Just buy an empty spell book and all of your spells magically appear. The only thing you can actually lose is your rituals. It's not a big deal really.

I think the advantage to have twice or even thrice the number of daily attack and utility powers available more than make up for the potential loss of the spell book.

IIRC, the rules don't even mention anywhere that you actually need the spell book at all when you're selecting your dailies...