Something Fundamental?

[AndyJames]

[Dragon Snack]

A. A full spellbook can be sold for 5,000 gp.  Period.  Doesn't matter what scrolls were scribed into it, especially since you don't need to scribe scrolls into it to fill it up ('free' beginning spells, 'free' spells every level, copied from other spellbooks).

B. Yes, WBL guidelines are there for a reason.  Is that even in dispute?  His 'opinion' that second hand spellbooks should be worthless doesn't seem to be what he is 'ruling' (since you said he "He maintains that it is 5000 period, which only covers half the cost of the scribing"), so I don't see what the WBL argument is trying to accomplish.

[AndyJames]

He has the opinion it should be worth 0gp. I pointed out that would blow WBL out the water and why it is a false reasoning.

Also, the actual rule says *purchasing and scribing* not just *scribing*.

Other than that, do you dispute my analysis of the 3.5 system?

[katans]

Your analysis is just fine.

The actual rules contradict themselves. They state clearly 5000 gp, and as clearly "half the cost of purchasing and writing the spells". Meeep, no match. I'd stick to the 5000 gp though, because this gives a fixed price. A wizard who bought all the scrolls to fill his spellbook would have to sell it for a higher price than the college wizard who just copied stuff from his guild's library, and that means the first wizard is screwed... Well he is nevertheless, no matter which rule you apply, but that's another question .

[AndyJames]

It is assumed that you will have a list of spells on the NPC wizard's books and so can easily calculate the cost of the spellbooks from there. Also, it is noted in the DMG (or PHB) that you can scribe direct from another wizard at scroll cost plus a bit extra for his "research" time. This is also in line with the whole idea of "customise = cost more than random stuff you pick up" which pervades the entire WBL table.

Otherwise, you might as well just keep every spellbook you find as it would generally cost you more to scribe only the spells you need into your spellbook and sell the extra book. It goes against the entire philosophy behind the WBL table as my analysis states.

[Dragon Snack]

You're assuming that you can use every spell out of other spellbooks and there isn't much duplication.  Although I find that a lot of Wizards DO keep captured spellbooks (or at least I did, since my current group hand waves much of the spellbook "bookkeeping").

But there is nothing wrong with your analysis.  In fact I think Monte Cook or one of the other 3.0 authors said much the same thing about the WBL guidelines.

[AndyJames]

Yeah well... He has something to say about Monte and Skip too 

[RobbyPants]

I guess it's his game and he can do what he wants, but does he realize that by messing with WBL he's messing with some of the game balance?  Is he disputing you on this, or is this just an argument of ralism vs game balance?

[AndyJames]

Ultimately, it is realism/prejudice vs game balance. It is not explicitly stated as such, but he has his views about overpowered, what doesn't make sense, etc. I would just like him to play the game as the rules states instead of blacking out parts of the PHB/DMG and writing stuff into it in ink because, to be honest, I don't think he really understands the fundamental realities of 3.5 as much as he should as I don't think he has had time to really analyse the game. I mean, he lets Shivering Touch and Ray of Stupidity through but makes all sorts of noise against Shrink Item + dropping it on enemies and the Explosive Rune bomb tactics, which are arguably harder to set up and waste actions. He even limited the damage of a Huge animal companion dropping itself on an enemy (Slipper of Spider Climb are great, btw, when coupled with a Animal Growth'd grizzly ). Stat damage vs hp damage and he has a problem with the hp damage...

All I can say is that he is learning now, with my wizard build based around stat damage and enervations (Split Ray, Empower, Arcane Thesis, etc.).