Pathfinder Is Still Bad

[Koumei]

What are the best ways to minimize the cost of scribing spells into my wizard's spellbook? (The old secret page trick doesn't seem to work quite as well in PF as it did in 3.5)

If you get the spell as a scroll rather than being taught by someone, you don't have to scribe it: just keep all your scrolls in a binder or something, and memorise from the scrolls.

It would be really great if I could change the energy type from fire to .... something fewer targets are resistant to. How do I do that without taking Evocation as my arcane school specialization or re-rolling as a sorcerer for Havoc of the Society trait?

Can you invoke the "Backwards Compatible Herp de Derp" rule? If so just take Energy Substitution (3.5Ed, +0 Meta-Level, can choose Sonic).

[radthemad4]

Getting a Blessed Book would completely remove the cost of scribing for 1000 pages of spells (so you'd just have to pay the borrowing price). Don't know if it's worth the price though.

[Username17]

I'm not really sure what the issue is. You still get two free spells for going up a level, and secret page in Pathfailure was only nerfed so that you cannot make a secret page showing a spell of higher level than the actual page. But since you always have two free spells of your highest known spell level in your spell book, that nerf is meaningless.

-Username17

[virgil]

I'm not really sure what the issue is. You still get two free spells for going up a level, and secret page in Pathfailure was only nerfed so that you cannot make a secret page showing a spell of higher level than the actual page. But since you always have two free spells of your highest known spell level in your spell book, that nerf is meaningless.

An interesting change in Pathfinder's wording has made it more explicit that it can be used to make a duplicate spellbook, as every DM I've talked to prior to 3.P didn't believe that secret page could actually make text that could be memorized from.

Of course, now, every DM I've talked to about the spell has instead just outright houseruled it that it can't be used to generate spells that can be memorized from (OP, in their words)...

[Kaelik]

I'm not really sure what the issue is. You still get two free spells for going up a level, and secret page in Pathfailure was only nerfed so that you cannot make a secret page showing a spell of higher level than the actual page. But since you always have two free spells of your highest known spell level in your spell book, that nerf is meaningless.

An interesting change in Pathfinder's wording has made it more explicit that it can be used to make a duplicate spellbook, as every DM I've talked to prior to 3.P didn't believe that secret page could actually make text that could be memorized from.

Of course, now, every DM I've talked to about the spell has instead just outright houseruled it that it can't be used to generate spells that can be memorized from (OP, in their words)...

It absolutely amazes and terrifies me that most DMs would houserule to destroy both the story of the spell kindle, and the story of taking away the Wizards spellbook and having him be minorly disadvantaged but not crippled because they think 50gp per spell level is somehow an important balance consideration.

Like, I want to be able to tell stories about how the Wizard's spellbook is destroyed or attacked and he has to operate based on just his current spells to get somewhere and get a copy, but that literally can't happen if you make a Wizard pay for spell book copies.

Also the 50gp per spell level cost is even more susceptible to fucking Corpse looting than regular loot, you can at least demand that his new not dead Wizard comes in whit less loot. You can't demand that he doesn't come in with a spellbook, so you only have to die three times before you have 8 free spells of every level.

[Captain_Karzak]

I'm not really sure what the issue is. You still get two free spells for going up a level, and secret page in Pathfailure was only nerfed so that you cannot make a secret page showing a spell of higher level than the actual page. But since you always have two free spells of your highest known spell level in your spell book, that nerf is meaningless.

-Username17

Are you saying that the text of a single spell scribed into your spell book definitely could be enchanted with multiple overlapping castings of secret page?

Because if each spell scribed into your spellbook can only benefit from a single casting of secret page at a time, then the secret page spell (in PF) essentially can only double the number of free spells you get at each wizard level.

[Kaelik]

I'm not really sure what the issue is. You still get two free spells for going up a level, and secret page in Pathfailure was only nerfed so that you cannot make a secret page showing a spell of higher level than the actual page. But since you always have two free spells of your highest known spell level in your spell book, that nerf is meaningless.

-Username17

Are you saying that the text of a single spell scribed into your spell book definitely could be enchanted with multiple overlapping castings of secret page?

Because if each spell scribed into your spellbook can only benefit from a single casting of secret page at a time, then the secret page spell (in PF) essentially can only double the number of free spells you get at each wizard level.

Of course you can. Nothing about having Secret Page cast on a spell prevents you from casting Secret Page a second time. You just have different code words, for example "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10" ect. And you can have entire spellbooks on a single page, hence, the SpellKindle.

[Covent]

Ok, please explain slowly to me how secret page helps wizards in pathfinder?

Pathfinder
Secret Page
School transmutation; Level bard 3, sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 10 minutes
Components V, S, M (powdered herring scales and a vial of will-o'-wisp essence)
Range touch
Target page touched, up to 3 sq. ft. in size
Duration permanent
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
Secret page alters the contents of a page so that it appears to be something entirely different. The text of a spell can be changed to show another spell of equal or lower level known by the caster. This spell cannot be used to change a spell contained on a scroll, but it can be used to hide a scroll. Explosive runes or sepia snake sigil can be cast upon the secret page.

A comprehend languages spell alone cannot reveal a secret page's contents. You are able to reveal the original contents by speaking a special word. You can then peruse the actual page and return it to its secret page form at will. You can also remove the spell by double repetition of the special word. A detect magic spell reveals dim magic on the page in question but does not reveal its true contents. True seeing reveals the presence of the hidden material but does not reveal the contents unless cast in combination with comprehend languages. A secret page spell can be dispelled, and the hidden writings can be destroyed by means of an erase spell.

It seems to me that a wizard could cast secret page on say a page containing Haste and change it to say Fireball if and only if he already had a spell book scribed by him with Fireball, right?

Now this is useful in generating spell book copies, but not in gaining new spells, unless you paid another caster who had that spell to cast secret page on your spell book, correct?

Cost to get a casting of secret page is 150 gp (Wizard), 180 gp (Sorcerer), or 210 gp (Bard).

Cost of scribing a spell from another spellbook is (spell level squared) * (1.5 if courtesy cost). So even with wizard casting and an NPC having the spell you want it is not cheaper until 4ths right?

So this is basically a way to save a very small amount of gold on gaining new 4th + spells in a spellbook or a way to create duplicate spell books? Not such a huge deal right?

Also would this not require the wizard to make spellcraft checks on all of the pages created with purchased secret page? Or perhaps not?

Arcane Magical Writings
To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in his own way. Another person's magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until he takes time to study and decipher it.

To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in another's spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell's level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.

Once a character deciphers a particular piece of magical writing, he does not need to decipher it again. Deciphering magical writing allows the reader to identify the spell and gives some idea of its effects (as explained in the spell description). If the magical writing is a scroll and the reader can cast arcane spells, he can attempt to use the scroll.

Wizard Spells and Borrowed Spellbooks
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Once a spell from another spellcaster's book is deciphered, the reader must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level) to prepare the spell. If the check succeeds, the wizard can prepare the spell. He must repeat the check to prepare the spell again, no matter how many times he has prepared it before. If the check fails, he cannot try to prepare the spell from the same source again until the next day. However, as explained above, he does not need to repeat a check to decipher the writing.

P.S. To the gentleman who stated just memorize from scrolls I do not belive you can do that in Pathfinder. Do you have a citation? As far as I can see you need a spellbook.

Spellbooks: A wizard must study his spellbook each day to prepare his spells. He cannot prepare any spell not recorded in his spellbook, except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory.

A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his prohibited schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice. The wizard also selects a number of additional 1st-level spells equal to his Intelligence modifier to add to the spellbook. At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards' spellbooks to his own (see Magic).

[Kaelik]

It's really simple. First you get access to some spell, the best method is spell trading, an acceptable method is paying to look at someone else's spellbook.

Then you Study their spell, then cast Secret Page instead of scribing it into your book with expensive inks, and you don't pay arbitrary ink costs.

You can put as many pages on one page as you want, so you can have all your level 3 spells keyed off of one page, if you really wanted to. Or your entire book could be on the first page of a Gate if you are level 17.

[tussock]

"Text can be changed to show another spell known by the caster."

Seems the key bit of text. Wizards "know" the spells they have scribed into a spellbook somewhere, historically, and still hinted at by various text. They also have to have access to a spellbook (or scroll) and know the spells written in (on) it to prepare the spells. If it's not their copy, they have to have already decyphered the other copy and made another check to prepare it, in addition to knowing the spell.

So you have your home spellbook that you learn things into, to know them, and then your secret page spellbook where you double up spells with the codewords. Fireball bringing up a fireball spell, for instance.

Bringing up the "original contents" won't bring up the other secret page spells though. The code word doesn't hide a particular layer, it explicitly displays the original layer, which hilariously lets you bypass a Secret Page with a Secret Page.

It's not shortcutting the learning process though, because you don't know spells until you've scribed them into a spellbook, and you can't secret page a spell until you know it.

[Kaelik]

"Text can be changed to show another spell known by the caster."

Seems the key bit of text. Wizards "know" the spells they have scribed into a spellbook somewhere, historically, and still hinted at by various text.

If you are going to argue both:

A) "Understanding a spell and being able to write it into your spellbook is totally different from knowing a spell, so you can't Secret Page spells you understand and can write into your book, because you don't know them."

and

B) "When a Wizard kills a Wizard and picks up his spellbook, and keeps it forever, I never ever let him know the spells in it, so he can never prepare spells from it ever, and I will knife him in the eye if he tries to use the Complete Arcane Spellbook Mastery rules!"

Then you can argue that Secret Page can't write new spells AND YOU HAVE TOTALLY BALANCED THE GAME BY ENFORCING THE DESPERATELY NEEDED 100% TOTALLY AWESOME 100GP PER SPELL LEVEL COST!

And aside from the terrible stupid consequences you added to the game in B, you didn't ruin anything to enforce your stupid fappery.

On the other hand, if you don't assert both A and B, then you are right back to Wizards having free spells.

Bringing up the "original contents" won't bring up the other secret page spells though.

Except you know, the rules:

"You can then peruse the actual page and return it to its secret page form at will."

So you can in fact, have multiple secret pages, and bring up the multiple secret pages.

[tussock]

"Text can be changed to show another spell known by the caster."

Seems the key bit of text. Wizards "know" the spells they have scribed into a spellbook somewhere, historically, and still hinted at by various text.

If you are going to argue both:

A) "Understanding a spell and being able to write it into your spellbook is totally different from knowing a spell, so you can't Secret Page spells you understand and can write into your book, because you don't know them."

Writing the spell into your spellbook is how you get to know your own snowflake version of the spell formula. There is no state where you know a spell and have not written it into a spellbook, it doesn't exist.

B) "When a Wizard kills a Wizard and picks up his spellbook, and keeps it forever, I never ever let him know the spells in it, so he can never prepare spells from it ever, and I will knife him in the eye if he tries to use the Complete Arcane Spellbook Mastery rules!"

Yay for pp140 of the second Wizard splat for the previous half edition having a new rule for saving you ... the price of a Blessed Book as a high level Wizard. You still don't know the spells in it that you don't know, you can just prepare spells from it without a check, if you know them. Because you can only prepare spells that you know and have in a spellbook (or scroll) at hand.

And you still only know the spells you've written into a spellbook.

So you can in fact, have multiple secret pages, and bring up the multiple secret pages.

Hmm. I guess so. Weird rule interpretation so well supported in fluff.

[Kaelik]

Tussock, your inability to cite a rule makes conversation with you impossible. I mean, I could go find the 3.5 rules for Wizard spells known, and quote it, and the show you how the Complete Arcane rules allow you to add all the spells in someone else's spellbook to your spells known (A thing you obviously want Wizards to be able to do, because for fucks sake, that's the entire purpose of Wizards going to look for some famous asshole's spellbook).

And of course, if you do allow that, then all the Wizards in the Academy just own all each others spell books and then cast Secret Page.

And if you don't then you ruined the actual stories you can tell so you can enforce a meaningless few hundred GP per level.

I could also explain to you how the rules for learning spells work, and how there is a specific point at which you have the ability to write a spell into your spellbook, and how obviously being able to write a spell into your spellbook should make you able to make a secret page take that form, since you aren't inventing the information, because you know the spell.

But again, all this is pointless, because you don't even know the rules you are referencing, you don't even know that they exist, much less where to find them, so you can't possibly know how those rules interact with other rules.

[rasmuswagner]

So, mechanical trap crafting is hilariously stupid. A CR 1 swinging log trap that mildly inconveniences someone who fails an easy perception check costs 1.000 gp to craft. That's 333 gp worth of materials, and 25 weeks of workif your skill modifier is +10. (DC 20 * check result 20=400 sp worth of progress).

But you guys, they totally fixed it in Heroes of the Wild! Simple traps like the aforementioned swinging log can be crafted from materials scrounged in the wild (1d4 hours and a Survival check to scrounge), and count their price as sp not gp for the purpose of crafting.

Which means a trained trapmaker can make a swinging log trap in 2½ weeks of work. Nice fix, retards.

[Username17]

If you want realistic pit digging rules, play GURPS.

That being said, 3e has had a real problem with both making shit and real estate. Building mundane traps is both of those things, and is pretty much the perfect intersection of shit that doesn't work at all in the 3e Gold Economy model.

-Username17

[hogarth]

Don't forget the wonderfully nonsensical Ranger Trap rules, as well. For instance, if you take the Learn Ranger Trap feat, then once a day you can create a trap involving a box full of spiders as a full-round action, assuming you happen to be carrying around a box full of spiders.

[erik]

Don't forget the wonderfully nonsensical Ranger Trap rules, as well. For instance, if you take the Learn Ranger Trap feat, then once a day you can create a trap involving a box full of spiders as a full-round action, assuming you happen to be carrying around a box full of spiders.

A spell component pouch will also do for spider supply. Spider climb requires you eat a live spider as a material component, and spell component pouches are expected to contain of all the components you'll need.

If out of rations find a caster with Tasha's hideous laughter and you can eat their tarts.

[Meikle641]

Apparently DMG2 had rules for booby traps that I somehow missed until a few weeks ago. May be worth checking it as well. Plus apparently there's an infusion that can instantly produce some traps for like, 12 hours.

[hogarth]

Don't forget the wonderfully nonsensical Ranger Trap rules, as well. For instance, if you take the Learn Ranger Trap feat, then once a day you can create a trap involving a box full of spiders as a full-round action, assuming you happen to be carrying around a box full of spiders.

A spell component pouch will also do for spider supply. Spider climb requires you eat a live spider as a material component, and spell component pouches are expected to contain of all the components you'll need.

I never noticed this before:
"A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn't fit in a pouch."

So a spell component pouch doesn't have focuses that wouldn't fit in a pouch, but presumably it does have components that wouldn't fit in a pouch.

[Captain_Karzak]

Thanks for your guys help with the secret page trick. Now I have questions to help out the druid in our party.

In 3.5 could a druid cast produce flame and share it with their animal companion so that it's natural attacks do extra fire damage?

In PF could a druid cast produce flame on their animal companion via the share spells animal companion special ability? What about the frostbite spell?

[rasmuswagner]

Thanks for your guys help with the secret page trick. Now I have questions to help out the druid in our party.

In 3.5 could a druid cast produce flame and share it with their animal companion so that it's natural attacks do extra fire damage?

In PF could a druid cast produce flame on their animal companion via the share spells animal companion special ability? What about the frostbite spell?

Hard no on basic touch attack spells like Frostbite. No on Produce Flame, because it's not a spell with "Target: You", it's a weird zero-range effect spell.

[maglag]

So, mechanical trap crafting is hilariously stupid. A CR 1 swinging log trap that mildly inconveniences someone who fails an easy perception check costs 1.000 gp to craft. That's 333 gp worth of materials, and 25 weeks of workif your skill modifier is +10. (DC 20 * check result 20=400 sp worth of progress).

But you guys, they totally fixed it in Heroes of the Wild! Simple traps like the aforementioned swinging log can be crafted from materials scrounged in the wild (1d4 hours and a Survival check to scrounge), and count their price as sp not gp for the purpose of crafting.

Which means a trained trapmaker can make a swinging log trap in 2½ weeks of work. Nice fix, retards.

To be fair, it's not just any log trap, it is an eternal zero-entropy trap that will outlast the eons and be in perfect working condition a million years later even if it never received any maintenance.

Doing something durable always takes a lot more work than a makeshift job that will fall apart by itself eventually.

[virgil]

Bah, this player. I offered them use of the Tome Monk, and they read the class and everything. They asked to play Pathfinder's Unchained Monk instead, felt it was easier to understand...

[RedstoneOrc]

Bah, this player. I offered them use of the Tome Monk, and they read the class and everything. They asked to play Pathfinder's Unchained Monk instead, felt it was easier to understand...

All you need to do is print tome monk on a good printer in a nice pamphlet format with a high priced pic on the front. Bam! Fixed your'e shitty player problem with the powers of fake quality.

[hogarth]

All you need to do is print tome monk on a good printer in a nice pamphlet format with a high priced pic on the front. Bam! Fixed your'e shitty player problem with the powers of fake quality.

You'd probably have to rewrite it to sound more serious and less like some wiseass playing for laughs. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just makes it sounds less professional to the average Joe.)