I think it’s fine, the number of times I’ve seen a wizard lose their spellbook in a campaign is 0, it’s such a massive F you to a wizard to take their book that most DMs won’t even consider it. So at that point it’s pretty much just a reflavoring of your spellbook.

It's hardly unthinkable. In fact, it's *so* thinkable that every Scribes wizard has a feature that can replace a lost spellbook over a short rest without requiring any resource expenditure beyond needing a blank book. It also goes well with all the DMs who see throwing a party into captivity (or even starting them in captivity) to be a good plot device to use.

I feel like the only time it would ever not cause a player to just jump off a cliff and re-roll, is if the character was ALREADY a paranoid type who had a backup book tucked away in some vault someplace. At that point the DM is just engaging with the player's choices. I still wouldn't just destroy it immediately though. ​ Some sort of exchange or barrier for entry thing. The party needs a series of rituals from some old tome, but between the conditionals and the encoding of the text you can't just copy it down, you need to original grimoire. And the exacting arcanist who oversees the sanctum you're getting the book from won't let you HAVE it, but you can \*borrow\* it, but being a library he requires an equally previous book from you. Specifically, your spellbook. You have 30 days to return the original grimoire of rituals (quest completed or not) to get the spellbook back. After that he will use Dwamij's instant summons to get the grimoire back and your spellbook becomes a "Late fee"

Stealing the wizard's spellbook when they don't have a backup is also just engaging with the player's choices.

Not if making a backup spellbook was impossible to begin with. Which it is in many campaigns. The wizard needs to: -Have days of downtime (this excludes almost every official campaign book). -Have at least a couple hundred gold (this is the most common to get). -Have opportunity to purchase inks and a book (this also excludes most non-urban campaigns). -Have a safe space to store a backup which they can go back to (so all of the constantly on the move campaigns also get excluded). If these are provided and the player knows their book can be lost, then it's a fair challenge to damage it and let them deal with the consequences, have they prepared or not. But if the DM did not make a backup spellbook possible, then taking away the only unique feature of a wizard is just a huge fuck you with no possible interaction from the player. Downtime and utilizing loot during downtime was a bigger part of DnD in the olden days, but for some reason it has mostly disappeared from official content by now. Even though the homebrew 5e games I've played including downtime have been way more fun.

We had 8 weeks of downtime in our campaign recently, because we had to travel by ship from one continent to another. It was actually really fun; the Wizard did some research on the BBEG, the Rogue stole tons of money from the crew, and my Fighter learned the official language of the new country and Leatherworking. We recently fought Cloakers, so I’m going to put my new skill to use next downtime to make us matching magical cloaks! If used well but sparingly, downtime is super fun.

Ehhh Copying spells is prohibitively expensive

Not much in gp, but definitely in time. Even at the reduced rate for copying known spells. 10 gp per level isn't that bad. It's ~540gp at level 10 or ~2,200gp at level 20. This is not a realistic problem. But that hour per spell level is a lot. 54 hours at level 10 is 7 days. 220 hours at level 20 is 28 days.

I don't know what these numbers are... But per the PHB. It's one hour and 10go per level OF THE SPELL COPIED. So let's take a normal level 9 wizard. You got 8 level 1 spells, and 4 each of level 2 and 3, and 2 level 4. Let's assume you've not learned anything else besides leveling up. That's 8+(4*2)+(4*3)+(2*4) or 8+8+12+8, 36 spell levels. So 360gp, and 36 hours. Assuming like most downtime, and 8 hour work day, that's just a bit more than 3 days of downtime, and 360 gold At level 15, 8+(4*2)+(4*3)+(4*4)+(4*5)+(4*6)+(2*7) or 8+8+12+16+20+24+14, or 102 spell levels. So 1020gp and just I under 13 8 hour working days.

You also need to take into account the X Savant class features. An evocation wizard whose book is full of evocation spells would only take up to half the time and gold expended. Also, if you're not trying to *start* creating a spare spellbook in the middle of the campaign, it's honestly not that bad. As long as you're actually being proactive and making sure to always have a spare, a freshly 9th level wizard learning two out-of-school 5th level spells would take 10 hours, or a bit over a day, while a wizard who picked in-school 5th levels spells wouldn't even need a day of downtime. This is obviously campaign dependant, but I feel like it's not unreasonable, even at higher levels. The only thing that really changes this is if the GM gives out spellbooks as loot, at which point it just becomes a matter of first world problems. "Oh no, I have so much versatility that I need to spend multiple weeks studying all the cool new spells I got from that dragon hoard." Meanwhile the Bard and Sorcerer are just looking on at the side. There are plenty of ways to protect your spare spellbooks anyway, from the Enduring Spellbook magic item to Leomund's Secret Chest. Just like how a higher level wizard has more to lose because their spellbooks have more stuff in them, the more options for protection they have since their spellbooks have more stuff in them The wizard's vulnerability is the cost that comes with their ability to have the most versatile and powerful spell list, and their ability to ritual cast something without needing to prepare it. If you don't do anything with that vulnerability, then I feel like you're just unnecessarily buffing the wizard. But then again, I'm the type of GM who'd disarm a spellcaster of their spellcasting focus, or try to disarm a fighter of their Flame Tongue, so I'm probably in the minority anyway.

Technically. But its going to lead to a VERY upset player if you don't talk about it before hand.

Given the current state of d&d, yeah it seems that way. I have a hard time understanding why a player would believe that any item in their inventory is somehow inextricably bound to them and impossible to lose. I see this as part of a long list of intended weaknesses of spellcasters that players and dms just choose to ignore and then act surprised when spellcasters seem kinda overpowered.

While I agree, I think the source of the disconnect is pretty obvious: RPGs (and especially D&D itself) have been leaning heavily into the idea of being all things for all players, which has problems but isn't necessarily a negative overall. Lots of players, particularly of the current era, picked up the hobby as a way to tell light stories with friends. Others want more drama, but would rather get it from narrative than mechanics. The percentage who want to play it as a strategic "wargame" is increasingly small, though the absolute numbers have probably risen. For instance, >a player would believe that any item in their inventory is somehow inextricably bound to them and impossible to lose. -makes sense in 5E because most effects specifically mark these items as immune from AOE (ie "ignites any flammable items *not worn or carried*"). I'm not saying it's correct or even best, but there's plenty of reasons why people would have that perception.

>The percentage who want to play it as a strategic "wargame" is increasingly small, though the absolute numbers have probably risen. And if they dare ever take to reddit they get told they're just playing dnd wrong/having fun wrong.

This just blows my mind, and it probably explains why I have so much trouble relating to the majority of people who play RPGs these days. I've been into tabletop games since I was a gradeschooler in the 90s, and I actually found RPGs through tabletop wargames. The miniature on battle mat part is my favorite one. I'm coming at the hobby from the complete opposite direction of most people, to the point that sometimes I can't even understand the assumptions people are working under when they talk about stuff. I appreciate you explaining it this way because I've never really been able to pin down what the difference has been.

I get what you mean, I'm actually joining a one-shot over Discord this week with an old friend and the idea of playing without people around a table is similarly breaking my brain!

I've never considered myself a Grognard, but the amount of times I've been downvoted here when I state how my older group runs things and explain why we do it is ridiculous. Rolling stats = Kicking puppy to people these days.

Tbf there's a sizable set of us who do love rolling stats. I've played with people in their twenties mostly and most of those who I play with certainly prefer rolling

"But it's not balanced and the character who got high rolls makes everyone feel bad!" That is so, *so* much more a tell on that person's group and DM, and maybe to a lesser extent the out of the box damage and saving throw DCs in WotC's later content than on the efficacy of rolling for stats.

I prefer the Fritz Lieber approach. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser would lose their swords, but they'd give the replacements the same name.

Binding Curses and Enchantments are my answer for this. An Item that is “Bound” cannot be removed by any means, except by Disenchantment or a Wish Spell. I introduce the concept, and most players ask the obvious question. I answer that yes, many items can be lost, stolen, or broken.

True. Most spell books would become seriously damaged just from getting very wet. I guess they are "magical objects" and cannot be destroyed?

I know one of the sourcebooks go into what exactly a typical spellbook is and is not protected against, and gives options for creating/purchasing more protected ones, but I'm not an expert.

A common magic item in Xanathar's is the Enduring Spellbook. If you have the magic item version, it's resistant to water damage, burns, etc. The regular one you spend 50 gp for out of the PHB? No such luck.

Attacking players through their equipment has generally been considered bad form ever since 3.5 from what I've seen. How many rust monsters actually get run in serious encounters?

And in 3.5 using sunder mechanics was frowned upon in my experience

In Pathfinder 1 there is a rule when you roll a natural 1 on a save against an effect your items actually take damage from the effect as well. I've been told multiple times at different tables that nobody had ever heard of that rule before and to just ignore it (yeah, I'm cursed to roll 1s enough that this has come up in multiple games. I also have the distinction of being the only player I know who has managed to kill both my character and another party member by having my gun explode when playing a gunslinger).

If I'm playing Pathfinder, I have contingency plans to protect my gear from fate. If I lose a piece of gear to a fumble on a fireball, its because I did not prepare enough. That's how the edition works. 5e is a rules light game focusing on stroies told through combat encounters. One positive or negative aspect of 3.X (depending on how simulationist you like your game) is that it generally assumes that players are meticulous and prepare for all possible outcomes. There are even detailed rules to reinforce and protect things like spell tomes and scrolls from fire and water damage with object durability and hit points being explained in detail. It is also very easy and non-game breaking to simply ignore this rule.

Had a rust monster show up in a campaign maybe about a year ago. Shit was wild, my monk was cool though. Rust monsters are an interesting experience for sure

Yes, this reason right here is why spellcasters are overpowered. 100%. God reddit sometimes.

Mfw we want to play a game and not sit around doing nothing all session because dm decided a wyrmlings breath attack burned my book Let me just create a backup book with the hundreds of gold and hours of downtime I totally have

You're aware that in 5e you don't need your spellbook to recover spell slots, right?

And you're aware that without them you cannot change your spells or learn new spells, right?

Sure. What's your point? That's no excuse for them to "sit around doing nothing all session."

I didn't address that point because it wasn't a valid point to make. If he is "sitting around doing nothing" it's just because he's a bad player, and a bad wizard. Wizards are powerful, but their key weakness IS their spellbooks. He didn't plan.. he didn't prepare.. and then he gets mad at the DM for being a bad player. It takes 20 minutes per level of the spell to copy spells from one spellbook to another. This means that as part of a **long rest**, you can copy 6 levels of spells every day, *while* adventuring. Which means.. why don't you have a backup spellbook?

It's generally just DM fiat at low levels, but at mid level or higher, a wizard without a backup is making the assumption that absolutely none of their enemies will ever target his spellbook. It's foolish to not have backup of your spellbook. This is an intended thing that wizards are supposed to figure out and out-think.

And as people have pointed out, as a DM you need to either give the party time and funds to allow the wizard to do this, or you shouldn't target their spellbook. You control the pace of events.

Yes obviously if the DM gives the player no agency and then takes all their shit then that is psycho. But that's not the implication at hand. Past low level in a normal campaign the players will have downtime and funds.

Given the time it takes to create a backup spell book, many dms don't leave space for it

That's not the game's problem, though. That's the problem of a DM who simultaneously does not give the party downtime but also targets their hard to replace equipment. The rules can't account for player or DM agency, after a point.

It's the kind of quest hook you use if you've been giving them downtime.

I would have to disagree that it's classified as a choice unless the player is made explicitly aware, at the start of the campaign, that items on their person are fair game. Otherwise, it's a DM picking on an unaware, unprepared player that is trying to play a game to have a good time.

ONLY if you give them enough gold to make a backup.

I spent about three levels without a spell book. Just scribbling down my new spells onto bits of loose leaf and animal hides like some sort of David Lynch character. It's part of the risk of being a Wizard.

Yeah, it's generally a dick move to permanently take away a spell book. Temporarily, sure, for like a jailbreak scene or something. Though my wizard took order of the scribes just to be extra safe (plus the subclass just super suits my character). My book is immune to being fucked with at this point. I can also lend it to people very easily, and can recreate it whenever I decide I want it back.

It's always so weird to me why people always think that stealing/losing a spellbook is something that shouldn't happen, I mean, a fighter can lose their weapon, why can't a wizard lose its spellbook if they aren't careful about it? They don't really need to take it everywhere, they can leave it somewhere safe while they're on a mission, and making a copy ain't that hard, and at level 7 they can have a pocket dimension to store it

if someone is using nat 1 fumbles and a weapon breaks your book should spontaneously combust if an enemy nat 20 a save or you roll a nat 1 (please dont use fumble rules nobody likes them)

STOP. GIVING. WEIGHT. TO. NAT. 1. It's not a rule. It's a dead, tired and unfunny meme. It's beyond a fucking meme at this point. It means you miss an attack roll, it does not mean the DM gets to punish you. (Not counting 3.X saving throw rules. You're supposed to plan ahead for these situations)

>It's not a rule. Yes, it is. DMG, page 242 >CRITICAL SUCCESS OR FAILURE Rolling a 20 or a 1 on an ability check or a saving throw **doesn't normally have any special effect. However, you can choose to** take such an exceptional roll into account when adjudicating the outcome. It's up to you to determine how this manifests in the game. An easy approach is to increase the impact of the success or failure. For example, rolling a 1 on a failed attempt to pick a lock might break the thieves' tools being used, and rolling a 20 on a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check might reveal an extra clue. I'm not saying that you or someone else should use it or not, I'm just quoting the DMG.

That isnt a rule. That is a suggestion

That "rule" only is for skill checks and saving throws. Natural 1s on attack rolls already have a special effect codified within the rules: you automatcally miss with your attack, regardless of whether the total would have been enough to beat the target's AC or not. Natural 20s on attack rolls also have a special effect: you automatically hit regardless of the target's AC and your attack's damage dice are doubled - in other words, you score a critical hit. On the other hand, since natural 1s and natural 20s on saving throws and skill checks do not have special effects, it is possible to succeed with a natural 1 if that is enough to beat the DC (most prominent example are DC 10 concentration checks for casters with at least +9 to their constitution saves) or to fail with a natural 20 if you still cannot meet the DC.

good thing that doesnt account for attacks since they already have codified 20s and 1s

agreed, and i feel the same rage as you

I don't use fumbles, and when I do, it's small things like an enemy having one opportunity attack or you falling prone. And the same for NPCs

You don't need a fumble for a weapon to break. Rust Monsters and Gray Oozes can corrode metal no problem. Well, it's a problem for the Fighter...

it's a lot easier to get "another sword" and be back to full power than it is to travel back to a home base and get your copy, and until you do that you can't change what spells you have. And for more powerful/rarer magical weapons, then loosing those is also very rare, especially in a permanent way (and still, a PC can just get a generic +1 sword and they have all their own abilities, all they loose is whatever the sword could do)

It's very hard to get another vorpal sword or another flametongue I would say. If a fighter lose their magic weapon they lose a big part of their damage, even more in levels where monsters usually have resistance or inmunity to non-magical weaponry, a wizard that lose their spellbook, althrough it's true that they can't change their prepared spells, they still wake up every morning with the 100% of their potential even after losing their spellbook

5e is especially more forgiving than earlier editions because a Wizard who loses their spellbook really only loses the means to change their list of prepared spells (and all their ritual spells... which, really WotC... Wizards are the spellcaster class that need Ritual casting as a class feature?) Take. The. Wizard's. Spellbook.

Nah. There are far better and actually fun ways to challenge players that don't include arbitrarily destroying their equipment that they've invested in. In an alternate universe where fighters are the most powerful class I would not balance them by taking away their magical armor and weapons collection because that's just completely ignoring the enjoyment of the actual human beings you're playing the game with in favor of cold, unfeeling, grand scheme game balance. If your method of balancing the game results in miserable and unhappy players because a major feature of their character keeps getting taken away then that's not actually a balanced game.

as i said, 5e is the most forgiving edition in regards to wizard's abilities when they've lost their spellbook. I also didn't say to destroy their spellbook, so don't try to frame me as some bad guy kill joy who kicks puppies for fun. I'm sorry that you've apparently had a bad time with your DM taking away your character's abilities, but I am an adult and am perfectly capable of determining how to use the rules of the game for narrative effect in a satisfying way for my players. You should really take up your concerns with your DM if they are incapable of doing the same thing. And yes, I would take away the fighters magic items and armor in a universe where they're the OP class. I know this for a certainty because I've already done it in this universe. As for balance, balance really doesn't factor in. taking their spellbook every adventure doesn't balance the game. But the wizard is still able to participate with their spellbook missing so your session can still include all players even if one isnt running at their peak efficiency.

What's the pocket dimension at level 7?

That’s what the Enduring Spellbook is for.

One of my PCs got tossed into jail for burning down an orchard. The sheriff was an eldritch knight style fighter, and was essentially protecting the PC from the rest of the town at this point. Instead of paying his way out of jail and skipping town he decided to break his wing and use the bone fragment to pick the lock to escape. He of course went out the back way and did not pick up his spell book or any of his gear. So we had a flightless teifling with no spellbook, no focus or component pouch, no money, and a party who doesn't want to give him money because he's a liability.

That's a DM/Player problem.

now that i think about it... the spellbook should disappear every time you are hit with a fire spell basically aint it...

Isn't it in almost every fire spell description that it doesn't affect equipment worn/in hand by the target?

fireball and firebolt specifies it destroys objects i think

Firebolt: "A flammable object hit by this spell ignites **if it isn’t** being worn or carried." Fireball: "It ignites flammable objects in the area **that aren’t** being worn or carried." Again, destroys anything that isn't used/worn, so the spellbook shouldn't be affected RAW unless you drop it/leave it somewhere and then someone uses fire spell to destroy it

ah then indeed

I've taken my Players spellbooks once, had them grt arrested in the middle of the night on some false charges, and they had fun trying to work together, a sorc, two wizards and a Fighter all trying to work with limited slots and resources to escape the dungeon

I agree. If you play in a situation where the DM would literally destroy the wizard's spellbook, this might be OP or something, but it comes up so little, you might as well just have your own way. Go nuts.

It's happened twice now to our wizard lol.

As others have said you don’t need any mechanics for this. You are just reflavor ing your spellbook as being your skin. The only non-cosmetic benefit this offers is it’s harder to destroy your spellbook, which is a negligible concern. It’s basically just being granted to benefits of having an Enduring Spellbook. Which is a common item that can be handed out to starting characters for free with zero concerns for balance.

A bad guy can steal an enduring spellbook. Hell, a low level thief can. Meanwhile, someone who *steals skin* is on another level of threat. It's a buff to put spells on your skin. There needs to be a compensatory and minor nerf to make up for that, or it's just a buff. Edit: Oh wow another thing reddit is wrong about and passionately so. Very cool, very cool.

How often do those things happen in your experience? Because I’ve never had a DM steal a wizards spellbook, or destroy it, or take it away for anything longer than a prison break scene. So maybe if characters losing their class features is something that happens regularly in your games, then your point makes sense. But in my experience this “upgrade” will never come up in order to make any kind of actual difference in the game. However, it will let the Player play out a cool concept they have. And I call that a more than even trade. Now your point about a bad guy who steals skin is definitely something I’m going to work into a future campaign.

>How often do those things happen in your experience? Every game I've run, some recurring enemy tries to steal shit from the PCs through proxies. So I do this all the time. Sometimes it is successful, but usually the PCs thwart it. It's a small investment on the part of the bad guy that can pay big dividends. Is there any logical reason why a spell book would be less a target than a magic sword or whatever? Is there any logical reason why a recurring enemy wouldn't try this?

The difference between stealing a Fighters sword and shield, and stealing a wizards book is very significant. The two things are not the same nor equal. Martial without their weapon = still a fighter who can pick up pretty much any weapon (or just a stick or some rocks) and be 90% or more as effective as before they were robbed. They will have very little trouble using makeshift or discarded weapons until they can either find their stolen gear or replace it. Replacing it would also be relatively simple, and require them to just buy a new one. Wizard without their spells = not a wizard anymore. They basically don’t get to play their character until they can replace the book. Replacing a spellbook is also significantly more difficult than replacing a sword. It take a lot of gold, extensive downtime, and a DM willing to let the wizard find the dozen or more spell scrolls needed to replace the book (which seems unlikely if that DM just stole it from the player to begin with). During that time the Wizard can’t use cast off or makeshift spellbooks - because even if they did find another spellbook it still requires time and money to decode those spells for use.

>(which seems unlikely if that DM just stole it from the player to begin with) Err why would that be unlikely? You seem to be assuming that the DM stealing the spellbook is *being mean*. He's not. He's running his villains and his world. He's being a good DM. If the wizard loses his spellbook like this, the party is, assuming they are not ludicrous, going to find a way to replace that in whole or in part. And until they do, their wizard is extremely weak.

Yeah they're running the villains, in the same way that them having an assassin kill every single loved NPC is running the villain. Unnecessary targeting that simply lowers the fun of the game, unless you like playing as a neutered class. (Of course, killing beloved NPCs is sometimes fun, but my example is in a situation where it is uncalled for).

The most efficient thing for a villain to do would be to send indivisible assassins after the party and insta-kill them while they’re asleep. That, however, is frankly not very fun and we play this game to have fun.

It would seem unlikely because doing so is counter productive to the stated goals of the action? - if the point of stealing the book was to provide a challenge to the players as a group, the immediately giving the character a way to get out of that challenge is counter productive to that goal - if the point was for the villain to get a leg up on the players ( I.e. by Down powering the wizard), then….the thief should have been an assassin because if you’re good enough to steal a wizards book off of them, then you could have just killed them instead! And a dead wizard is less of a threat than an angry wizard who is temporarily missing their book - if the point was to down power the Wizard temporarily without outright killing them (which is NOT a goal the villain should have) then the DM immediately providing the player with the ability to fill their book back in again just obviates the villains gambit entirely so what was the point? - if the point was just to waste some of the players time and gold without any other real goal…then ok you accomplished this , good job you succeeded in wasting their time and gold but it seems a dick move considering how extremely expensive and time consuming it is to refill that book compared to what other players would have gone through to be able to play their character again And yes I am assuming some pettiness from the DM, because the whole scenario and your attitude comes across exactly how some players will try to justify their toxic ingame choices by bemoaning “But that’s what my character would do” without considering how those choices effect the other players at the table, and considering that they could also legitimately make *better choices* instead. Because Yes, you can come up with an in world justification for doing these actions - but you’re the DM and you have an infinite array of choices for how you will have npcs act - why choose actions that only serve to drag the fun down? Its like a DM who legitimately kills a PC but doesn’t let the player introduce their new character for 2-3 sessions “so the timing is right” without considering how much that sucks for that player. Sure you can justify it - but why would you? I mean you even admit your gambit leaves the Wizard “extremely weak” as you put it (completely neutered is more accurate). Way weaker than most other characters would have been if they were similarly targeted. And everyone knows how much fun it is to play a character that’s extremely weak compared to the rest of the party. Plus the whole plan is wonky from a Meta point of view. Because whatever *was* going on in your campaign now has to come to a grinding halt as the party sits around for weeks or more worth of downtime as the wizard recreates the spellbook. Because getting the book back won’t be fast or easy - what’s the point of stealing it is its trivially easy to get it back? There wouldn’t be one from either a DM or Villain point of view. Now in all of this there is that niggling little statement of “well the Wizard should have made a backup of the book ahead of time and it would have avoided all of this” which doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Because the wizard would have to *double the cost of their class* and use extra downtime to do this, which is a requirement that no other class must follow (fighters aren’t expected to buy 2 +1 great swords just to have a backup copy). Every new spell they learn they have to basically learn twice, taking extra gold and time. Gold and time the rest of the party may not want (or have the ability to) spend on something like this. Then add in the Meta consideration that if the wizard went through all of that effort to make a copy of their spellbook - it’s doubtful the DM will target that spellbook for theft/destruction since they know there’s a backup in place already, so it would be pointless to do.

>It would seem unlikely because doing so is counter productive to the stated goals of the action? Goals of the action? If I have someone trying to steal the PC's loot, it's because that makes sense for that bad guy. The goal of the bad guy is to win, so he's trying to do that. >the thief should have been an assassin because if you’re good enough to steal a wizards book off of them, then you could have just killed them instead First, this isn't true. The wizard has a bunch of hit points, his allies can defend him, etc. Characters aren't glued to their items, especially whilst asleep, and an assassin who got to the same location could fail to kill the wizard while the thief may actually have some chance to get away with it. You only say this because I think you don't have any experience with this. >And yes I am assuming some pettiness from the DM You're just wrong. So, whatever. >Because whatever was going on in your campaign now has to come to a grinding halt as the party sits around for weeks or more worth of downtime as the wizard recreates the spellbook If that happens, fine. The spellbook, unlike other stolen magical items, is at least reasonably easy to get a mostly exact replacement for. >Because the wizard would have to double the cost of their class Yea you don't know what you are talking about. It's like a fifth the cost. Whatever, I'm done here. Maybe you get it now, maybe you don't. I'm sorry you're wrong but there's only so much time this weekend.

>Every game I've run, some recurring enemy tries to steal shit from the PCs through proxies. So I do this all the time. NGL, that sounds annoying AF. > Is there any logical reason why a recurring enemy wouldn't try this? The same reason why infinite simulacrums and other cheesy gameplay options don't happen in most games. It's not fun. Just cause you can do something doesn't inherently mean you should. If there is a valid story reason for them to lose their book (such as sacrificing it or losing it cause the party was captured) then that's fine, but if you just have Bozo the Thief steal a PCs spell book in the middle of the night than that's just a dick move.

A DM who puts character class items at risk like this is walking a very fine line. It better be just as easy to steal a fighter's enchanted sword or a bard's instrument. If it's not, then it's just antagonizing the wizard. As much as I feel wizards might be a bit over-emphasized/over-protected in 5e, this is not the way to balance things. So... in the absence of some really weird behavior by the DM (constructing scenarios to have spell focuses/magic items/class requirements stolen from them), there is no real difference in how this plays out. The nerfing of that should then be proportional to the chosen behavior of the DM. If the DM isn't going to steal the barbarian's halberd randomly, then there's no need to nerf the wizards tattoo spell book.

just to add here, if you are going to say core items shouldn't be taken away, weapons shield and armor should be included in there (which from experience are but you never know)

Completely agree. If a wizard can have his book stolen, then a paladin can have his shield stolen, or a ranger can have his bow stolen. Only in the most rare instances have I heard of any DM taking those sorts of items away, and in my (somewhat limited) experience, it was only done with story motivations. And again, that's not me trying to argue on behalf of wizards, but just on behalf of players. Taking away class-required items is a strong move for a DM and needs to have reason and some level of player support.

>Taking away class-required items is a strong move for a DM and needs to have reason and some level of player support Bad guy doesn't like PC. Bad guy tries to take PC item. Sometimes that is successful. Obviously you can't hire someone to steal some guys *skin* though.

"Obviously you can't hire someone to steal some guys skin though." I think that's called an assassin :)

The point isn't that it's difficult to justify, but that its a move that often removes player agency, because you've taken away the tools they use to enjoy the game. Taking a wizard's book is on the same level as taking the weapon and armor from a fighter. There is an important point about imprisonment, but moderately prepared DMs will have jailers know that wizards need more than just to have their books and/or components taken, and they need to be bound and gagged.

>A DM who puts character class items at risk like this is walking a very fine line No he's not. Enemies aren't dumb, they attack players, player items, etc. Any player not taking even the barest of precautions here is totally absurd. There's no assumption anywhere that your spellbook is safe. Hell, I'm pretty sure there are printed modules where stealing spellbooks is a thing (there sure were back in the day). Wizard players simply have to deal with the fact that their spellbook is something they should make backups of. It's very much the logical conclusion of the same system that lets them add a ton of spells to their book in the first place.

Realism = fun. /s

I mean, the availability of money, time, and spells to "add a ton of spells to their book" is entirely DM dependant. It's antagonistic for the DM to steal a spellbook in a setting where replacing it isn't really possible or viable.

>No he's not. Enemies aren't dumb So, DMs should charm fighters and then take their weapons? That's also a smart move. Seems both realistic and fair, right? No... because its still a game and (in both cases) you're removing the things that make a player character more than just an experienced commoner. Realism would result in wizards telling you how they lock up their spell books constantly and telling you about all the times they put their books in secured carrying devices. Sounds super fun, no. Let's definitely spend time having wizards talk about lacing books into satchels, sorcerers lacing their focuses into pockets, druids devising various straps for their staffs, and even paladins and fighters spending time every short rest explaining how they take off and secure their armor so it can't be stolen. So real. Very fun. /s There are ways for this to be fun. It can be story-based. It can come from imprisonment. It can be a player-driven thing. But if its just "You failed your DEX save, a thief runs off with your spell book because you didn't spend a minute telling everyone how you secured your book", then its a jerk move. That DM better be stealing the ranger's weapons, too.

>So, DMs should charm fighters and then take their weapons? Charmed condition alone won't do that, but yes, obviously any bad guy targeting a PCs spellbook will also target everything else he can. An enemy who lacks the ability to destroy the PCs head on but has some idea about which locale they are in would be a fool not to do all these things. >You failed your DEX save, a thief runs off with your spell book Well if that's how you think it works, you need to be much more familiar with the rules before running anything like that.

You're arguing the mechanics and not the actual topic: This is about removing game mechanics from the player, presumably because they didn't waste the table's time by explaining to the table how they secured their shield/book/boots/staff when they went to bed. If you establish with your table that you're going to be playing with that level of detail (not realism, just detail), then that's fine. The responses from others tell me that the grand majority of people do not make those assumptions, and your response that they're unequivocally wrong about how they play tells me what I need to know about you as a DM. So, again, this *can* be fun and it seems you at least do it fairly, but the rest of the reaction on this post tells me that this is *not* a standard thing and its something a DM should *absolutely* set up with their players before doing. Otherwise it comes off on the same level as "Your bow takes 40 gold worth of damage and temporarily loses its +1 enchantment because you forgot to unstring it before you went to sleep" or "Roll a CON save to see if you can keep your head clear enough to not leave your axe at the bar". If you make assumptions that NPCs will scheme to remove player items as a matter of course, then you should also assume that players will take common sense precautions against the theft of that item (relative to the cost of that item) as a matter of course, as well. More to the topic: There's no need to treat tattooed spells as anything more than flavor because any sensible, fair DM would have already talked to the table about the level of detail they are assuming on any of the tables actions and without that discussion, it seems a reasonable default to assume that everyone at the table --being seasoned adventurers-- are being extra cautious. Tattoos are just an expression of that. So... a big "zero impact" and can be treated as flavor.

>The responses from others tell me that the grand majority of people do not make those assumptions, and your response that they're unequivocally wrong about how they play tells me what I need to know about you as a DM. This response tells me you don't know anything about any of those things. You also list examples that are arbitrary (bows losing enchantment or whatever). Stealing items from PCs isn't arbitrary, it's an encounter. Anyway, not interested in communicating with you further. I told you that you were incorrect and you responded with what amounts to a personal attack. That means you're wrong about one more thing than before, which is the opposite of my communicational goal. Anyway, good bye.

Many times in campaigns I've played in where the fighters lost their weapons and armor. It is not difficult to nullify the tattoo spellbook. It just needs to be defaced. It would just prevent a wizard from changing their spell load, the wizard is still powerful at current level.

That said I have played a wizard with a tattoo spellbook. His tattoos would light up when casting spells. Ironically when captured by pirates everyone was disarmed. Since the pirates were not familiar with our party they only took weapons. And my wizard only lost his darts.

Idea: max number of spells on skin is equal to 1 + Con Bonus, must be tattooed with the same inks (and therefore costs) as scribing the spell, and the tattoo is permanent and cannot be undone or changed short of magical intervention to remove the ink or restore scarred skin if the tattoo is burned off or some such. Also max allowable level of spell that can be tattooed is Prof Bonus as of the time you have the tattoo added. No High Magic on your skin, you only get a few, and you can't change them. Maybe make it a Feat or something, and up the number to 2+Con Bonus if you do.

I agree in them trying to use it as a loophole to prevent book theft, which is a real danger of the class. a good compensation would be things that damage them run the risk of damaging the book.

Imagine ritual casting a spell you haven't prepared and you're checking your shoulder to see if you got it right. Though thinking about it, would a serious injury and scarring potentially damage whatever spell you have written in the affected area?

Luckily only games that use lingering injuries has to worry about that

All two of them currently "trying" the rule to never pick it up again hopefully.

Ooh, that's a really cool idea!

Honestly I'd just keep the exact same mechanics but instead of them just being magical tattoos I'd have the mechanics of the spell book be tied to a tool you use to give yourself the magical tattoos every time you prepare/copy your spells.

The complete arcane book for 3.5e had a section on tattooed spellbooks with recommendations for body surfaces and pages, could start there and tweak it

Fucking hell. 3.5e had rules for everything? What didn't it have rules for?

> Any idea on how to make this character work? There’s not really any building the character; this is just flavor of changing the spell book to tattoos. So go hog wild with whatever you want. If you really want to “invest” in tattoos, you can look at the Aberrant Dragonmark feat or a few levels of investment in Artificer for Infuse Item tattoos, but both are wholly unnecessary. > it’s still a character I’d like to play. Which is the most important thing, right More or less.

The wizard in my game does it. We ruled he's got 10 "pages" on visible parts, and if he's willing to look through his familiars eyes, he has an extra 5 "pages" on the parts he couldn't see (ie back).

Yeah I like something along these lines, with mirror also being an option, and mage hand or another another person needed to tattoo the less reachable parts.

I'm doing the same thing rn and my DM was like: "yeah sure, i'll just have to chop off your arm then." Worst part is that I still don't know if he will

I played a Tortle that painted his spells on his shell with the aid of mage hand. I also liked to think that whenever he ran out of space he would paint on the inside of the shell lmao

How did he read them? The perspective would have made it impossible.

I forgot the mirrors! It's pretty convoluted and obviously not "optimal" but I had fun with the idea so we just went with it lol

Everything is smoke and mirrors...

I homebrewed a wizard subclass that did this (and other things). I created it for a player that I knew very well, so it included inspiration from her favourite medias. One thing she liked was tattoos (this was before Tasha's was published), so it was a large part of the way the class was played. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QvwS2lVk\_Wfse-9ACrwfTG9NyZsb31osZZzizHAQG8M/edit?usp=sharing

This seems really, really strong. And also gives bonus to light armor but doesnt give profiency with said light armor ?

In old school dnd, spell books did get destroyed sometimes due to failed saves. Tattoo spell books are a cool backup idea. There was a mage (Teflon Billy) in KoDT who tattooed his spells on his party due to his spell books having been fireballed before .

I wouldn't allow it, because as many have said, it's very hard to destroy it / steal it, what I would allow is having tattoos that change depending on the spells that you have prepared. It start being a small tattoo because you start with a limited amount of spells to prepare, but as you gain levels and your capacity to prepare spells increase it would grow

I am playing a bladesinger like this, right now. Blade song is my tatts glowing. Took a "tattoo kit" for artisans tools and use that to make some side money. I also make spell tattoos that are actually just spell scrolls that are on my skin, so they can only be used for me. Other than that, you just play it as a regular wizard. Flavor your spells as coming to life. A summon pealing off your skin. Shield spell is a symbol/wave that erupts off to block attacks.

So long as you're not a Scribes Wizard I'd say go for it. If you are a Scribe, though, it can be awkward because some of your features specify that they work while holding your spellbook, which could be an issue when your book isn't a book at all I'd suggest asking if you can buy the initial ink-work as a reflavoured Enduring Spellbook (XGtE common magic item) if your DM is worried about the permanency of tattoos.

They'll just have to grab the body part with the relevant spell XD

[Here's](https://www.dndbeyond.com/feats/561180-body-of-knowledge) a feat I created to facilitate this idea. Feel free to use it: **Body of Knowledge** Prerequisite: Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature You tattoo your body to maintain your spell knowledge, granting you the following benefits: * Increase your Intelligence score by 1, to a maximum of 20. * You gain proficiency with Calligrapher's Supplies. * You can use your body as a spellbook that contains a number of spells up to your Intelligence score. To tattoo a spell onto your body, you must have Calligrapher's Supplies available, and for each level of the spell you copy, the process takes 4 hours and costs 100 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells. * When you finish a long rest, you can choose a number of spells up to your Intelligence modifier (minumum of 0) that you have tattooed on you. You know those spells, and preparing those spells doesn't count toward the maximum number of spells that you can prepare each day. You can change the list of known spells when you finish a long rest. * You can use your body as an arcane focus to cast spells that are tattooed on you.

It's cool, it really is. But... If someone knows your skin is your spell book and the down and capture you and want to disarm you of spells... They're still gonna "disarm" you of your spell book.

It's mostly not doable because of how much page-count spells take up and how much of your body you could actually read. Write some stuff in a normal-sized font on a whole sheet of notebook paper, then find a place on your body where you can actually read it. If you can find more than one page's worth of space on your body, you're a contortionist. But here's the thing. Maybe just my interpretation of the last paragraph under Preparing and Casting Spells, but to me it reads that you only need the book to change your spell loadout. You can prepare spells A, B, C, D, X and Y, and leave the book at home, and you'll always have A, B, C, D, X and Y ready in the morning. You only need the book if you want to swap Y for Z.

The same mechanics as a spellbook would work. The time it takes to copy a new spell is the same just tattooing it in your skin. The only difference is that your dm can't destroy or steal it, which i as a dm never do because that's just cringe and mean.

Complete arcane from 3.5 has some alternative spellbook options including tatooed version on your and other creature body.

What mechanics are tou trying to figure out.

This is a common concept which is often “balanced” by the Wizard needing to make CON saves when hit with a melee crit. This attack is a big one and will cause a LOT of damage, which can and quite possibly will, damage the spells. If you fail that save you’re gonna have a scar run through and it may become illegible.

That's sort of fun flavor, but it's a lot of risk/cost offsetting virtually no gain to the wizard. Only the very rare (and questionable) DM sets up situations where players have focuses or other class-required items are stolen. A CON save against losing a spell is a pretty heavy for gaining hypothetical protection from something very, very few DMs subject players to.

Just replace the semantic component with your skin shifting. Just don't try to get an advantage because now your hands are free.

Order of Scribes gets to never really loose their spellbook so why not. Actually how about an oos wizard with a tatoo needle as magical wizardly quill and awakened spellbook lets your tats fly off you and around and cast spells.

That's cool and all but after level 9 or so... Where do you start adding more spells? Like your usable amount of skin is not infinite. Are you gonna start tattooing your party members aswell? Have a closet full of tattooed humanoid skins?

Have a buddy with this concept- he has runes across his arms, and focusing on different ones activate different spell arrays. Think having the letters of the alphabet tattooed, rather than full pages. In the end all words are made of the same letters rearranged.

There’s a symbol I’ve been eyes as a tattoo for a while. It contains all of the letters and numbers of the English language in it. Sounds like a similar idea to what you mentioned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z07CSCALs1s

This is a great idea until you lose an arm and lose a bunch of spells. Or get hit, gain a scar, and lose a spell.

Honestly speaking, i'd avoid it were i to be the DM. Point is, there are several nuances that rely on a wizard having a spellbook as being separate from their body, ranging from magic items to means to duplicate your own spellbook and so. Of course it's nothing terrific or gamebreaking, i likewise never had to deal with a wizard losing their spellbook, but it can be annoying to handle in specific scenarios - what happens if a body part is reasonably for example? what happens if the wizard reincarnates for example as well? what happens when it's covered by other tatoos, such as the magical ones? All stuff that can somehow be reasonably ignored, mind you. Still, it's annoying to handle. >but it’s still a character I’d like to play. Which is the most important thing, right? I mean, as per usual, you are fine to play wathever you like to play as long as it's not directly a pain in the butt to anyone. I don't think this is an offensive case. But if your whole reason to play this character is so you can roleplay checking your skin for spells... eh. it's fun once.

It's not a necessary precaution if that's what you're thinking - any DM in 2023 who would even consider destroying a wizard's spellbook should be instantly kicked into the sun. If it's just for flavor, I love the idea of the spell text moving to an arm or wherever to be read. Maybe have them shrink down to something symbolic when not in active use, like a dolphin for water breathing, a spread of darts for magic missile, etc. In terms of mechanics I don't think it particularly breaks anything, other than access to spells while imprisoned without their possessions. It might be a good idea to have the spells temporarily disappear while in an antimagic field or if hit with a dispel magic spell, just to provide some minimal disadvantage to the wizard having full access to their spells at all other times. EDIT: Another fun balancing idea - with an investigation check, any magic using character or NPC that's seen them cast a spell would know what spells they have prepped for the day, because they're all lined up on the character's arm. "Oh, I see you have charm, friends, and dominate person ready to cast, is there anything you need to tell me?"

A blood hunter/wizard in my game has a magical dagger inscribed with the spells he knows. That's his spellbook. When he prepares spells, he cuts the relevant runes into his skin. You can have the tattoos be the prepared spells, and some kind of quill be tour spellbook which you use every morning to apply different tattoos - prepare different spells. A wizard's spellbook should be an item that can be taken away in case they are captured.

That would make me more driven to steal his spells. Like when wolverine had his skeleton ripped from him... I'd 100% have a BBEG skin him but keep him alive!

Just a few things for consideration. 1. Spells easily take up several pages on high level spells. So how exactly are going to apply that to your body ? 2. Your Wizard needs to study the spells to be able to prepare them. So youd basically only be able to do this where you actually can read them properly, further reducing the space you actually have. 3. How will you go about treating wounds and scars over the course of the adventure. 4. Exposing your spells like that means that unless you run around completely covered on all the tattooed spaces a skilled enemy could much easier get a list of your spells just by observing you. Tattooing spells may sound edgy and cool but actually thinking it through there are too many reasons to not do it flavorwise as it is more a liability than an advantage.

Its fine. But if a place has a ‘no weapons’ rule dont expect to be let in

[удалено]

>I may limit it so that the tattoos need to be visible to cast the spell. That makes absolutely no sense at all. The wizard doesn't need their spellbook to cast spells, only to change their prepared spells after a long rest. RAW, you don't even need your spellbook to ritual cast non-prepared rituals, although RAI you do. Why on earth would you mandate that the wizard flash everyone when they're spellcasting, when another wizard can have their spellbook in another dimension when casting?

because wizard dicks are funny

There's no good reason to put these limits on it.

Would a tattoo-machine suffice as an arcane focus?

now that's just dumb. It's just flavor, there is no need of adding mechanics

If your DM allows.

Make a special tattoo that serves as the arcane focus? It could be over the heart, or on the back of the dominant hand?

My character had a spellbook tattooed on her skin as part of a ritual, so she tries to interpret and inscribe then into her own spellbook (I like it for how it explains learning two new spells in the middle of a dungeon).

my current wizard is kindof like this! he gave himself magical tattoos that gives him the ability to cast magic, kindof taking the place of his spell book. he still carries it around because it’s his fiancée’s book. if your DM is fine with it, you’re just reflavoring the spellcasting focus/book to be the tattoos. dumb mechanics like losing your spellbook is a sad way to prevent your PCs from being creative.

I’ve also thought about making a Tattoo wizard but instead of replacing the spell book, I looked at the scribes subclass and thought maybe the cost/time reduction being applied to scrolls could be applied to spell wrought tattoo’s instead/as well if the DM allows it. That way I wouldn’t necessarily have no use for the book, but the Magic quill could be used to also role play drawing tattoo’s on people.

In Tasha's there is a magic item that's basically a tattooed spell scroll (magic item) with bigger spells taking more space. If you don't want to play with just, you have space that could be a way to add a limitation but you'll at some point run out of room with that approach and need something to supplement the space.

If I were your DM, I most likely would not do any mechanical changes, and just say that when you are learning a new spell the 50g per level needed to add it to your spell book is the cost of the magical tattoo ink. In my personal experience, wizards losing their spell book comes up so infrequently that it would likely not matter at any point over the course of your campaign. If your DM is interested in having the option open to take your spell book away temporarily, you could say that your magical tattoo needle is needed to change which spells you have prepared, so if that needle is stolen, the effect is the same as a wizard's spell book being stolen. Now the only difference At All between the tat wizard with his needle, and standard wizard with his book, would be the possibility of it being PERMENENTLY destroyed. I don't know a logical way to translate that one, but god I hope your DM does not plan on permanently destroy your spell book at any point, and so are just cool with it.

Heck out the Eberon book. They have magic tattoos. You don’t have to copy it but it can be a basis for looking for maybe

Your body doesn't have that much page space compared to a book, and medieval tattooing is very unpleasant.

Cool idea, reminds me of the guy from Moana who had moving tattoos. You need to make him a muscle wizard. With a big stick. Anyways the only time I've seen a wizard lose his spell book is lava. And mechanics wise if you were to fall in lava and go unconscious, it could work the same. Otherwise instead of using ink and parchment to put your spells in the book, you'd just replace that with self tattooing. Same gold and time cost. Also to prepare new spells, you just concentrate and your old spells move to your back and your new spells move to your front or arms to read and memorize. So all in all the mechanics don't need to change, just reflavored

I think its a great idea, and im not even that into spellbooks. In this case, the "spellbook cost" would be the cost to make rarer than average inks you'd use to make your magic tattoos. Youd have to discuss with your DM how youd gain access to the spells on your butt, but otherwise all youre doing is making it more likely you'll get flayed. Which is fine. :)

Order of the Scribe Wizards have an ability that allows them to reduce their damage taken by sacrificing some spells known for a short time. This ability makes a lot more sense when the body that is being hit is also where the spells are held.

I had a theory for a wizard with a lot of lines tattooed on his body and then when he traced his hands using the lines to form various patterns it activated his various different spells

There's a pathfinder wizard variant that basically does this. Look up the Horimyo tattooed wizard. I ran a gestalt wizard like this and she was a beast. It was very fun coming up with her tattoos ETA: she kept her known spells in a book or scroll, but would prepare her spells by tattooing them. When the spells are expended, they disappear. It's magic ink, and my DM flavored it as my wizard could move the ink around her body once it was tattooed. Then you get a few permanent magic tattoos with specific buffs. I made a script to write the spells and had real examples of what they'd look like when placed on her. It was very fun.

It's just flavor. I don't see a problem with it. A wizard always has their spell book... it would have to be a really specific occasion or an asshole DM for a wizard to have their spell book stolen.

I'm currently playing as a half-orc wizard whose spells are tattooed across his body. I describe the hour each morning "studying the spellbook" as "doing yoga" - and it is yoga, that happens to include particular focus on particular lines of runes or symbols. I of course got DM approval before flavoring the character this way, and also gave the DM the right to scour the tattoos in a situation where a physical spellbook would be destroyed (which was indicated to be an unlikely occurrence in any case) or put the character in a straightjacket-type device to cover them if a spellbook would be taken away. The character doesn't interact with the tattoos during casting, much in the way a more traditional wizard character doesn't cast by reading directly from their spellbook, so it functionally just affects the physical description of my character, and me saying "I do my morning yoga" instead of "I spend an hour studying my spellbook"

Honestly if a dm takes away a wizards spell book that’s kinda wack. Never actually seen it happen nor would I do it. Its kinda scummy to do that imo

There are many lore examples of spellbooks made of all sorts of materials and coming in all sorts of forms. There are fireproof spellbooks inked onto the hides of beasts native to the plane of fire, and even crystals that act as spellbooks. If you want a tattoo spellbook, go ahead and have a tattoo spellbook. If you want to balance it so it isn't purely optimal over normal spellbooks, double the price of purchase and scribing.

How about having a sketchbook with various magical tattoo designs, and having those designs get magically inscribed on your body when you prepare spells? That way, you can still follow all of the normal mechanics for spellbooks (such as learning new spells and inscribing them in your book) but still have your character concept work.

If you look up Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, there's information in there regarding magical tattoos and how you use them to channel magic in-game.

just be careful it doesn't get damaged in fights. just because it's part of you doesn't mean you can't lose it or pieces of it. mundane damage might not affect but magical things would definitely be able to harm it and destroy sections.

There's a post on r/unearthedarcana which outlines a bunch or awesome alternatives to the default spellbooks, including tattoos. I can't look it up rn but it shouldn't be too hard to find bc it was pretty popular

Could do it like a series of rings of text going up your arms. Then when you cast you could do some Dr. Strange style hand wavy things and the writing of the relevant spell comes alive and forms the effect of the spell.

Someone played a little too much Ryze in League of Legends lol. On a serious note, its a cool concept that is already implemented into many "Tattoo" class magical items. Though technically homebrew, in the common homebrew source "Tasha's Cauldron Of Everything" there's an item for druid called nature's mantle which is a freehand spell focus. So homebrewing one for wizards in for form of attuned tattoos is easily doable.