I am new to the forum and pretty much to AL.
I am playing a wizard and want to know if at the end of an adventure I am awarded a spellbook from a fallen NPC does this count as a Permanent Magic Item, consumable, or what?
Trying to figure out which adventure would have included a spellbook.
--
Pauper
[quote="Pauper"]
Trying to figure out which adventure would have included a spellbook.
--
Pauper
[
In a couple of the new Expeditions adventures for levels 5-10 there are spellbooks which appear as rewards at the end of the adventure.
ZethTheRed wrote:
Thanks!
Pauper wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Spelbooks arent magical items. But they are as impossible to find as magic items.
U can only buy empty ones and cannot purchase access to spells in AL. Which is pretty dumb because if another wizard sits down at your table you are free to trade spells all day.
I heard there was a spellbook somewhere in HOtDQ, but have not encountered it yet.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Is there an AL rule that says that spells have to be copied down during adventure time? I don't recall seeing anything about it in the ALPG. It seems like it would be something that you would say you did during the downtime, and you mark off an appropriate number of downtime days and spend the daily lifestyle money.
Except the rules for copying spells in the PH don't reference Downtime -- they specifically list a number of hours (2 for copying to your spellbook, 1 for copying from it) per spell level.
This seems weird to me given that other similar tasks have been abstracted into the Downtime system, so I agree that this would work as well, except there's no specific guide to say how many 'hours' translate to a downtime day. (8? 12? 16?) It would require the AL admins to create a rule different than the rule in the PH, and I'm not sure if that would fly, since they'd need to clear that with the folks at the mothership.
For ease of adjudication, as well as ease of logging (other downtime events are already expected to be logged, so this should, too), I'm good with a 'general houserule' of "a wizard can copy 4 spell levels into her spellbook for each Downtime day spent".
--
Pauper
I played an adventure where a spellbook was found and I spent downtime, its accociated costs, and the costs of copying 15 levels of spells into my spellbook. I hate that something as basic as this was overlooked in the AL downtime rules.
How many downtime days did it cost you?
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
I think that allowing 8 hours of spell scribing per downtime day is fair. Crafting is a legal downtime activity, and the old rule regarding crafting was that you had to put in 8 hours of work each day. Scribing spells isn't that much different from other forms of crafting. Therefore, a similar metric of 4 spell levels per day is balanced against both the mechanics of crafting and the in-game expectations of what one does during a downtime day and the operating hours of libraries/magic schools.
Some AL adventures take place over a span of a couple of hours; others take place over several days. Getting worked up over what you're doing hour-by-hour in downtime days feels incredibly non-productive to me, when you can end up with huge swaths of unaccounted-for time in the adventures themselves.
Which is to say that I don't require players to spend downtime days in order to manage their spellbook because 1.) it's usually not actually necessary and 2.) it gets into a level of fiddly bookkeeping that's not fun and wastes everybody-else-at-the-table's time.
That said, time constraints on scribing spells are useful re: preventing doing it during the adventure itself. Outside of that, though, it doesn't really affect anything and isn't worth dealing with.
So I'm confused by this part of the conversation.
The basic rules simply state: "For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 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."
Why are downtime days being discussed? Are we suggesting that over the course of (for example) 3 short rests, 2 long rests, and other such times, a wizard can't find the time to copy a 1st level spell out of another wizard's spellbook? That he has to spend some fraction of a downtime day to carve out 2 hours (or 1 hour for a spell in their tradition)?
It makes sense to find a way for wizards to leverage downtime days towards learning spells more efficiently (read: cheaper). Is that what is being discussed?
Or are people working under the assumption that downtime days MUST be spent to learn spells a wizard has found. If so, I'd love to see the actual text in the basic rules or ALPG that backs this up. It almost seems hateful towards wizard players.
There are several adventures where there are no long rests, and some where short rests are not very likely; or you retrieve the enemy's spell book at the end of an adventure. In such cases, you may use downtime days to copy spells.
Well at the moment there is no clear way to deal with learning spells. As a DM I would probably rule that time spent learning spells is not actually resting, You are doing mentally taxing work. So I am fine with you spending the 1 or 8 hours of a short or long rest learning spells, but since you are not actually resting, you are not replenishing your resources. If the rests take longer than those 1 or 8 hours needed then time can be used for stuff like learning spells. At a guess, most wizards will opt to actually rest before learning spells.
If some time can be found outside of resting, traveling or otherwise doing stuff (fighting, carousing, etc.), by all means, learn parts of the spell. Adventures generally contain a LOT of such time so the whole "time to learn spells" thing should rarely come up. In case it does come up, I feel the use of downtime days would be totally valid. I would even agree that if both wizards spend downtime to "swap" spells that the time could be mitigated substantially as the "2 hours 50 gp" thing assumes solo study. Things get a lot easier with a tutor.
Avross wrote:
Odds are good that any encounter you find a spellbook in will have included a wizard that was blowing the crap out of the party. Good time to take a long rest.
Safe rests are very easy to take once you have leomunds tiny hut. The party will be perfectly happy spending some rest time to make their magic factory more powerful.
I would dispute any claim that copying spells is too strenuous to allow rest. Reading is specifically allowed and fancy writing is not strenuous compared to poking at broken legs and bandaging wounds which is also allowed during rest. You can cast spells during rests, so why couldnt u learn them too.
A couple of adventuring days is likely all you would need to get what you needed from an ally's spellbook. Assuming 2 short rests ans 1 long rest. Thats 10 hours per day. Plus it is likely some of the spells u copy will take reduced tome due to your specialization. For instance cone of cold and sending are evocation spells.
Byakugan01 wrote:
More to the point, a short rest is one hour, and the process of copying spells into a spellbook takes two hours per spell level. Without some sort of magical office that opens to reveal all your inks, parchments, and quills, it'll take more than two short rests to copy one first-level spell, since it takes time to set up and take down a scribing setup -- and that assumes the wizard even has something that would work as a 'portable' scribing desk.
It really makes more sense to abstract spell copying into a downtime activity, where the wizard can be assumed to have access to a comfortable workspace, adequate supplies, and the like.
--
Pauper
Avross wrote:
Thankfully, Skerrit posted that using Downtime for this is fine, if the book is acquired near the end of the mod. If found during the mod, obviously, you won't be getting most of those spells into your own book unless the mod allows for some lengthy travel time or something during which you could possibly copy the spells, maybe.
Now we just need to figure out *how much* Downtime... 
I think 8 hours is good and it seems to be a good concensus for it. Anyone think a different number should be used for this?
I just did a straight expenditure of hours since my success or failure in copying the spell is not predicated on my state of restfulness. What I did run across was cost overruns. I still have the spellbook, so if I don't want to scribe it all down at once, I can come back to it and finish it later? There might be spells in this book that I am currently unable to cast at the moment.
Blade2718 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
So looks like there is a fair concensus on the 8 hour day for downtime and I think its a good number, so until there is anything more official I will be using it.
I still feel that any "free" time in the adventure, between aquiring the spellbook and the conclusion, can also be used. Not including the minimum required time used for short or long rests the players wants to benefit from. So if you rest 12 hours overnight that would still leave you 4, and if everyone takes a short rest and you don't need one.. there is an hour (how people are going to feel about you experimenting with spells like fireball while in a Leomunds Tiny Hut is a different question )
You kind of remind me of our backup DM. I am truly thankful for anyone willing to DM, and I try to always thank the DM after each session.
But he is always coming up with ways for my wizard's magic to function in other ways than intended. If you shockin grasp that guy you'll damage your ally too because hes grappling him, if you attack that guy you'll hit all the PCs cuz they are standing in a puddle of water, *me to DM*"Can I shock that puddle over there that only has monsters in it to hurt them?" DM 'No." I fireball into a room full of bad guys while the PCs are backed up in a different room so they would be safe....DM "Bricks from the walls get blown everywhere so everyone takes "rolls a d6*....Oh and the treasure chest is destroyed along with the treasure.
While it is creative, it doesn't make the game more fun. It does the opposite and is actually quite stifling. It feels a lot more like being DMed by someone with a grudge against magic users. I chalk it up to inexperience, and again I super appreciate that he is running for us because everyone else flaked out. But it is still there. He will probably try and force me to make skill checks to find 'special inks' to scribe with at all, even though I have already marked off gold for 'scribing materials' the last time we were in waterdeep. That is IF we ever actually find a spellbook. It encourages a very paranoid approach by the players.
Don't hate on da mages bro.
So making them spend time to scribe spells, as is required by the rules, is hating on mages. Thats fine, you are absolutely entitled to feel persecuted as a mage, more power to you. For me its just the time. Inks, paper, nighlight, meditation bell etc., I can and will handwaive. You are a spell profession after al. Why would a mage ever not be prepared. But it still takes time to master a new spell. Besides, in most adventures there will be ample time to learn the spell in between the "important" stuff. So while I think its good to reach a downtime spell learning consensus it should mostly only come up if you do not find the spells till the conclusion.
Other than that I would say it is unlikely, though possible, you know me as a DM. I am still fine with you projecting anti-mage mongering on me through comparison, but those examples you give would never be mine. Well that, and I quite enjoy playing mages. Mages in 5e are back to being the versatile powerhouses of old (well they don't have to be but they certainly can be). They will however take a while to accumulate power and resources. This, the writing and learning of spells, is just one of the sacrifices that go with that promise of future power. Wade through the mire of mental fatigue, low fortitude and lower combat aptitude to come out as lord of the universe at the other end.
Likely it is just my inexperience talking here though.....
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Well, it could surely be run by the RAW, but then there would be 0 official time to write/learn spells at the end of an adventure. I feel that would be unfair to mages, but I would not be oposed to it if a mage insisted. Any mage not willing to spend downtime days is absulutely free to try and find official time in their next adventure. I don't really see anyone trying to force mages to spend downtime days. I certainly don't think that would be right. I am just willing to offer it as an option. As i keep repeating, 9 times out of 10 there will be plenty of room in the adventure to learn the spells. For that remaining 1 corner case, adding the option of using downtime days is a boon that has been "officially" sanctioned, which works for me, so I am good with the conclusions I reached from the thread. I wish you the best with your wizardly hardships.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
The problem with standardizing the time between modules is that players can spend downtime...If there is only 2 days between modules - they could not spend 20 downtime to "catch up". The space between modules is deliberately vague, to allow one player to spend X downtime days, while the second player might play the next module the very next day (chronologically).
AL is a drop-in system. I simply think the act of standardizing the amount of days between modules is an attempt to gain "free" downtime days.... That's what they are.... days between adventuring when you do other stuff. If you don't spend any downtime days, the next module occurs back to back with the first module - occuring the very next day from your PCs pov.
I'm not sure what the issue with wizards using downtime for scribing their spells is. Downtime accumulates at a rate a lot faster than characters generally spend it. With 10 days between each adventure that's enough time to scribe 40 levels of spells.
Is the problem that other magic classes do not have to spend downtime? That's true, but they also lack the versatility of the spellbook. I would imagine many sorcerors and warlocks would be really happy to spend 2 downtime days and gain access to 8 new first level spells.
The Adventurers League staff has made certain decisions about that campaign that, while they may not make sense to everyone, are still binding. One of those is that your character is automatically "fresh" at the beginning of an adventure. The staff has chosen to hand-wave any mechanics behind it—you don't cast healing spells, or spend hit dice or do anything else. There's no rationale given; it just happens.
Another decision they've made is to limit downtime. You have to "earn" downtime; you can't simply declare that you're going to take time off between adventures to perform some activity without "spending" your downtime. Downtime is the time between adventures, so your PC can't do anything between adventures without spending downtime.
According to the campaign staff, "The following options are available to players during downtime:
• Catching up
• Crafting (exception: multiple characters cannot commit to crafting a single item)
• Practicing a profession
• Recuperating
• Spellcasting services (end of the adventure only)
• Training
Other downtime options might be available during adventures or unlocked through play, including faction-specific activities."
So, according to a strict interpretation of these rules, wizards may not copy spells between adventures. They would be forced to find time during an adventure, which may or may not be agreeable to the rest of the adventuring party.
The proposed option to allow wizards to spend downtime to copy spells expands, rather than limits, a wizard's options. In my opinion it's a reasonable thing to allow, but I understand if "strict constructionists" think it shouldn't be allowed at all.
The idea that wizards should be allowed to do things between adventures without spending any downtime goes completely against the principle of having limited downtime at all.
I like using my ale nun's downtime to craft beer.
Oh here is a good one...
i cast Fabricate and use my spellbook containing all the spells it already has plus the new spellbook in order to create a new spellbook that has both spells in my own notation.
It is obviously already commensurate quality to be a spellbook...i have all nevessary skills and proficiencies required to scribe such spells. All the ink is already there.
I wonder if thats a legal action in AL?
Just having spells appear in the spellbook while skipping the gaining of the actual knowledge through experimentation, just not gonna cut it. But if fabricate would work to create such a combined spellbook I would totally let you cut the time in half.
Unfortunately I would also consider a spellbook with spells in it an item that requires a, very VERY, high degree of craftsmanship... so no fabricate. But an interesting thought.
TheBreen wrote:
So my concern was less with what the ruling ends up being and more with the ramification of what else people would assume should follow the same rationale. Was it going to lead to an argument at a table where one player argues that if the fighter has time to regain HD, then his wizard should be able to ... or the rogue shouldn't be able to ... or etc, etc.
I'd rather have that debate here than at a table. And TheBreen's last post is pretty much what I needed to hear.
TheBreen wrote:
During an adventure - no. Downtime is spent between adventures (or episodes jn a multipart Adventure) with the player announcing any downtime expenditures at the start of the module.
It's possible that it could be done in an adventure without spending acculmulated days. Take DDEX1-13 for example. In it you have a day where between your briefing and when you need to do something for the adventure. Given where you are at the time, the adventures suggests a number of activities you might do with that time. Some are related to finding out more investigation/adventure, but it also allows you some shopping for the thing you have to do or carousing (a DT activity which in this case costs you no DT cause it happens in mod) if you just want to waste time; among others (and there are more). If you said "My wizard ignores the adventure for the day and scribes spells. I'm gonna go get a Coke while everyone else RPs what happens that day." I'd have no issue with that.
Fantabulous, thanks.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Fabricate specifically says you can make things that require a high degree of craftsmanship if you have the necessary skills(profiency). Although what constitutes a high degree of craftsmanship is up for debate.
Seems reasonable to make a copy of 1 book, using a second book right?
If u are a jewelcrafter you can make jewelry. A sculpter could make a 'David'. A cook could turn a pile of ingredients into a feast? A smith can make weapons and armor...or barding for their horses.
Im curious now cuz im not sure how it ought to be.
The problem is that while fabricate can make an exact duplicate of a captured (or allied) spellbook - you cannot prepare spells from said spellbook. Part of the process of learning spells involves deciphering the wizards unique notation, practicing the spell and then copying it into your own spellbook using your own notation method.
Spellbooks are inherrently nonmagical, but the arcane formula's and notation methods are unique to each wizard. There is overlap sure, but each wizard records their spells differently - using different shorthand methods, diagrams, code, etc.
Fabricate performs none of these tasks. It just makes a duplicate spellbook - which you still have to learn spells from and transcribe them into your spellbook normally. Sorry, it doesn't shorttrack this process.
Kalani wrote:
Without looking at the spell (away from books), I don't see why not
So....say i have my own spellbook.
Can i copy it with a fabricate? I think the answer is yes.
Now say i find a book of elven poetry. Can i copy the book? I think yes.
Can i create the same book, except written in common instead of elvish? I think the answer is still yes.
What if i don't speak elvish either? Or if i never even opened the book to begin with? Does it matter? I think i can still make the new common language version. Because it doesn't say you have to have an intimate or molecular knowlege of the material, only that you have sufficient material and the proficiency required. In this case i would say since i do have proficiency in common, i have the ability to create the finished product in common.
If this is the case, then i should be able to create a spellbook in the same fashion.
I don't think this automatically allows me to learn the spells. I do still have to practice it, but a DM halving the time requirement seems fair. I do however think this would bypass the GP expenditure listed. Because i no longer need 'new' ink.
The spell takes all the raw materials, which need to be present for it to work, and turns them into the finished product without you having to do the work. So for a book you would need the proper material for the pages, leather or other appropriate material for the covers, and ink for the writing. No ink equals blank pages.
As a Dm, I would also rule that you could only make an exact duplicate of something if you knew exactly how it was put together or created or every word written in the book, etc. That is why there is the requirement of being proficient in the appropriate tools/skills to make high quality items with the spell.
In all honestly this is starting to sound more and more like a search for additional, overly cheap and possibly unintended benefits from the fabricate spell. As a DM I am starting to get a little paranoid about the entire thing. I am convinced that fabricate was never intended as a spellbook mass production loophole so I intend to treat any player use of fabricate in this direction with a healthy dose of fair but doubfull...
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
RAW on fabricating spell filled spellbooks are effectively: It is a DM call.
This is likely also why most the replies are in the form of restrictions/rulings Yes, it would seem arbitrary, but if the rules expectation is that it will indeed be arbitrated, that makes perfect sense.
Skerrit wrote:
Blade2718 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
There is currently no proficiency requirement to craft paper or make books in 5e. So apparently everyone knows how to make it.
the Fabricate spell description itself makes it clear a lot of things can be made without a proficiency, even though there are artisans tools for the trade. Such as a wooden bridge, or clothes. There are carpenters tools and weavers tools.
Is the difference about quality?
I wasnt asking the questions for anything nefarious. I was already planning to take the spell to make Plate armor for our fighters. A set of Splint mail plus some leather = enough material to make Plate armor. That does save us a bunch of money, and accomplishes nearly a year of crafting work in 10 minutes.
This takes a couple sifferent things into account. Its good armor, the kind PCs pay for, not cheap dungeon stuff. So, its good quality material. My character is proficient with smiths tools. I was also assuming i would make sure they marked it as being worth the cost of the original material. Cuz mass producing free money is dumb and not the point at all.
But this thread started talking about spellbooks and then i started to think about it.
The reason it seems reasonable to me with spellbooks is because the books represent a particularly valuable investment, without actually having calculated values in the book.
So as far as i know a spellbook is only worth what it is listed for. But what is inside it cost 25 or 50gp per spell level, with 8 first level spells and then (level-2) x2 other spells in it that were free.
now that i add it up, there may be no spellbooks in any printed material that have any 'bonus spells' at all. And it may be RAW that spellbooks are automatically converted to gold after an adventure...meaning it would be extremely important to stop -during- the adventure to scribe the material before it is destroyed. That would seem like a malicious rule though.
Byakugan01 wrote:
While at a tangent to the spellbook debate; crafting a full plate is a job that requires a LOT of skill, knowledge of the material, armors in general etc. For a full plate to be truly effective it needs to be specifically tailored to the wearer. All that is in the crafting of a price of a full plate. Unless your wizard has all the required knowledge and crafting experience at a mastery level, using Fabricate to create one might be stretch for many DMs. Me among them.
That said, its not as if I am gonna suddenly start checking providence on any full plate I come across as a DM (who has the time or energy...). If someone lets you do it, more power to you. Loophole seeking and creation is a time-honored D&D tradition after all
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
thats seems like an extremely narrow definition. I read 'raw materials' as 'equivalent mass and quality of similar materials'.....raw metal can be scrap metal, or melted iron/steel, or ingots, or unrefined ore. I mean I could just cast it on the dead dragon corpse....thats all the leather, and sinew, and scales I need for Dragonscale plate.
It's not like there is a periodic table of elements in dnd.
Seems like people really hate this spell and would look for any way at all to make it non-functional.
Probably should have erratta....as if that will ever happen.
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
As I stated in the Fabricate thread, I would consider fabricating a book to require the following proficiencies:
- Bookbinders tools: To fabricate the book itself.
- Calligrapher's Tools: To fabricate the text. Proficiency in the language not required, although I would impose disadvantage on any check involved, as you would not necessarily notice spelling/grammatical errors when copying the form/structure of a language you do not know.
- Painter's supplies: To fabricate any interior/exterior art including (but not limited to): pictures, diagrams, border art, fancy lettering, or maps*
If you lack any of the required proficiencies, you are unable to fabricate that portion of the book. Fabricating a captured spellbook would at least require bookbinders and calligrapher's tools, if not all three (as most wizards would have diagrams showing the correct somatic components and material components used, how they are prepared, etc).
*I would not require cartographer's tools as you are only copying an existing map (which is essentially a drawing/piece of art). I consider cartographer's tools necessary to create an original map and have the scale correct. Copying the scale of an existing map is easy (any artist could duplicate it with a simple grid pattern and duplicating each square exactly).
Fabricate is a 4th level spell...so you can take it at 7th level.
And the spell description specifically mentions making armor and weapons if you have proficiency in smithing tools.....not smithing AND...AND
I still read raw materials as 'the material you are using to make the new thing'....Getting into the minutia of was the tree planted in the ground and untouched, was it chopped down, was it cut in half at a mill? Ohh nope sorry its not raw enough now? Better get out a wood chipper and turn it back into something that I think is more raw. Like using already made leather straps and buckles to become the straps and buckles in a piece of armor....makes 0 sense not to be able to use them....because they are already -in a form you would already logically make during the creation of the item-. You actually make the magic more powerful by making it do even more of the steps involved....thats totally counterintuitive.
At what point are you just adding in random stuff from real life or in order to stop creativity?
As far as how a character uses his character options, that is up to the players. But as an example, pretend it is an AL game and the DM says plate armor isnt available to the characters because it is expensive and takes a year to craft, and thus must be special ordered. I know, it's Waterdeep you say....a Metropolitan city with absolutely 0 access to arcane spells or decent armor. Sure there are lots of spellcasters around who charge for their services. How much do they charge for a copy of said spells? Oh, magic isnt for sale. ok then. How much to bribe someone to leave their spellbook unattended in your room for a couple hours? Hrmm. that won't work. OK, what if I use Suggestion on them? Oh, now I can only scribe spells during Downtime? well damn. See my predicament? So, how might a little tinker gnome wizard with a knack for makin stuff go about making sure his meat shields don't die horribly? I know there is this high level spell that is meant to make things easier to make...
I'm actually considering taking the skilled feat at 8th level, just to learn poisoning, Alchemy, and Carpentry. That way I can quickly make things like poison and acid, and Trebuchet's.
Actually, using Suggestion to get a Wizard to give you their spellbook is genius! I can see a GM trying to weasle out of it but it is a very creative thing to do. Once you have the book, you can rip out just the spells you want to keep and leave the book where ever, or you can just not give the book back. Whatever. You don't *have* to use downtime for scribing spells into your book. If you have time during a mod, go for it. Being able to use downtime days is a side benefit of the adventering life.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Actually that post has absolutely no sarcasm...The only part of that scenario that has not happened in our AL game is the part about using Suggestion. I can't/won't resort to such methods. I mean I could if I didn't care about role-playing. I'm pretty sure the book usually assumes if you are in one of the biggest cities on the planet that you can find basic armor to buy from the phb. But not us, unless we can change the DMs mind.
-The "crafting" paragraph does indicate that for armor crafting proficiency with smithing tools is one of them, but it does not limit the requirements to just smithing tools-
OK, now ur just messin with me. Isn't that a bit like saying a language proficency says you can write the language, but you also need proficiency in calligraphers tools because I said so and the book doesn't actually say that is ALL you need. In a DnD setting the only thing you should need to make a pen is a chicken feather, or a animal quill. If I need a -quality- pen then I'll kill a clean chicken, lol.
But you're right about needing DM adjudication. Which is the point of the discussion. So I can tell the DM what I want to do and have good arguments. We aren't allowed character edits, so it would be pretty shitty if I used a spell slot and a feat on a utility spell that I can't actually DO anything with.
How much trouble should you have to go through to give a couple party members +1AC, seriously.
Also I'm not really sure what you consider meta-gamey about any of this. I wanted to play a mage who makes stuff from the beginning. I want to use my magic for thrifty purposes outside of combat, and I want the meat shields to not die so they can keep me alive long enough to fireball everything to death. It's cool to be able to make stuff fast....people are so HARD to shop for! Also it is time consumeing making all my little clockwork tinker minions. Copies of the interesting monsters we've been encountering in our adventures....I plan on animating them with Animate Items eventually and using them to help us defeat the Cult of the dragon....My way of using our enemies strengths against themselves. A bit of Harper justice. But they can be destroyed, so it would be convenient if I could use my phenomenal cosmic power to recreat them easily.
If that was not sarcasm then I am sorry. The fact that I took it for sarcasm should indicate how I feel about some of the rulings in question..
What i consider meta-gamey is not the wanting to create stuff, but making reference to reduced costs, reduced creation complexity and spending less time. That makes it seem to me that the actual creation of something is not the goal but instead fabricate is meant to provide a shortcut (pls note the use of the word SEEM).
Again this is something that a table should generally be solveable, its hard to convey the required nuance in posts on a forum I guess. I like the clockwork thing, so I would likely work hard to find a way for fabricate to just work for you there. But that will not mean all DMs will do the same, regardless of wether an earlier DM did. Having fabricate do things that do not appear to be circumventing part of the rules is likely to go a long way in convincing DMs though. So maybe plate armors and spellbooks, that already have rules covering their creation, may just not be a great choice. A clockwork mini mindflayer however... well I for one like the basic idea...
Undrhil wrote:
Pauper wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
This also depends on the level of wizard, and if you can just get away. Running away may be easier than trying to find his spellbook. You could even have him meet you somewhere that would facilitate your escape.
So, again, my suggestion would be: "Give me your spellbook and then go take a long walk around the town."