Secret Page: Cheapo Dupe Spellbook Facilitator ... or Not?

[User3]

Awhile back, I read about Frank's neato Secret Page (the arcane spell) trick that allows a wizard to cheaply create duplicate spellbooks. You can find it in his Lexiconinomicon thread down in the Spellbook section.

http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewth ... br][br]The other day, I ran across an incredibly long thread at the WotC Forums that had embedded in it, a huge multi-person heated debate on the legality of Frank's Secret Page trick.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.p ... br][br]The debate quietly started on pg. 11 and went on for 20+ pages with no final conclusion or debate "winner". Thorak was the guy who was pushing hard to quash the use of this spell as Frank advocated. Both sides of the argument had some valid points and were working the nuances of the spell's verbiage to hammer home their points.

***

So my question to you guys is ... what is your final opinion on the legality of Frank's Secret Page trick?

Thanks!

[Cielingcat]

Thorak's argument was actually "Secret Page doesn't say what it explicitly says right there in the book."

Does Secret Page say you can turn the item into anything that's written? No, it does not. So it cannot do that.

Vs.

Secret page alters the contents of a page so that they appear to be something entirely different. The text of a spell can be changed to show even another spell.

Now, to some people, this means that only a spell can be changed to another spell. But that's totally fine. A cantrip costs 100 gp to scribe, and only takes one page. You can change a cantrip into any spell ever. You also know every cantrip ever automatically, which means you can get a ton of spells for free, limited only by how many cantrips your DM allows in the game.

[bitnine]

Heh, I remember that thread.

Thorak had a lot of arguments. My favorite part:

You can tell that secret page forms words by writing because it inscribes. And you know that it inscribes because it writes. It is good to know the assumption that your reasoning is based upon. In the end, we have a good way to show that Thorak assumes that secret page writes.

Already covered this. Inscribing = writing. Which, yes, makes this definition somewhat circular, but it's not the only one that supports my point, anyway.

To draw a colorful analogy, he was all like, "Naw, son! I got arguments all up in here! Don't you be looking and calling that one circular. I go so many arguments you won't believe! Now forget about that 'circular' nonsense and look at this here - this here's my main argument, but don't you forget, I got arguments coming out the seams!"

Do go ahead and read the whole thing, if for entertainment purposes only. A good chunk of it is about how wizards are balanced because the DM scares them into spending time and gold into making backups of their spellbooks and if he's running the game "right" destroying their spellbook from time to time.

As a fun historical note, that thread was actually spawned from the 79-page mammoth Do pure fighters suck?, and tumbled off into Minconceptions of Class Drawbacks, as well as probably a dozen ancillary threads.

[Edit: Right, the thing itself. Originally, I had some qualms as it was presented as secret page makes one spell appear to be another, and that might fall short of functioning as that other spell. Particularly since the presenter kept referencing the idea that a page in a spellbook wasn't magical and therefore it must function just as in real life, and appearance is all that can matter with nonmagical spelltext. 'Cause seriously, 'nonmagical' means about jack shit in D&D when it comes to functioning realistically, especially in basing/adjudicating rules off of such reasoning.

Anyways, giving it some consideration later on - and probably in no small part due to reading Thorak's take - it seems like it should work fine. /Edit]

[User3]

Ah yes, I remember that thread.

The quick version: Thorak is wrong - we even proved that using his own metrics Secret Page works to copy spells.

For instance, Thorak got stuck advocating the following:

(1) Secret page cannot transmute materials into other materials. Hence, you can't create a page that has 100gp of materials in it from one that doesn't.

(2) Secret page used on another spell description somehow doesn't involve the same materials as the other spell descriptions. Ie, it has transmuted them into something else (since the previous spell description provably had 100gp of materials).

=><=

Of course, he didn't understand this was a contradiction. That makes him both a fucking moron and wrong.

(Note, even if secret page can only target a spell, nothing prevents you from layering it on top of itself. Ie, every page of a spellbook could actually be the complete spell book, and you can 'flip' through the spells on the page using a series of command words to show what the next layer is, so there is no limit on the number of "free scribings" secret page generates.)

[User3]

looks like Thorak has a lot of issues with the unique ink that spells are written in. per his diatribes on pg. 12 of that thread.

i'm not getting a clear read on what his logic is with the spell. that said, the spell is prime material for rules debate. meaning its wording is not ironclad and open to a lot of interpretation.

[Crissa]

Uhh, I always thought Secret page just covered things up, but didn't add additional information. "Oh, hey, have another sheet of parchment!"

Doesn't it require you to fill the new page with your own ink?

-Crissa

[User3]

1172959264[/unixtime]]Uhh, I always thought Secret page just covered things up, but didn't add additional information. "Oh, hey, have another sheet of parchment!"

Doesn't it require you to fill the new page with your own ink?

-Crissa

What makes you think that?

Secret page alters the contents of a page so that they appear to be something entirely different. The text of a spell can be changed to show even another spell. 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.

Material Component
Powdered herring scales and will-o’-wisp essence.

No ink required. The spell explicitly alters the contents of the page.

[RandomCasualty]

It all depends on if you see a spell as being information or as being a distinct D&D object.

Thorak sees it as an object you pay 100 gp per spell level for. That is you can take a spell and write it using normal inks and it's unusable, because it isn't technically a spell object. Thus secret page just creates an illusory non-real spell object that while it looks real, is about as game mechanically effective as an illusory orc.

On the other hand if you view a spell as information, that is, it's just words and symbols on a page, then you can record and create spells with illusions.

Theoretically though, if you allow people to use secret page to create spellbooks, why can't they also create magic scrolls with them? After all, scrolls are just symbols on a page too, so you should be able to duplicate those using SP.

[User3]

1172959980[/unixtime]]It all depends on if you see a spell as being information or as being a distinct D&D object.

Thorak sees it as an object you pay 100 gp per spell level for. That is you can take a spell and write it using normal inks and it's unusable, because it isn't technically a spell object. Thus secret page just creates an illusory non-real spell object that while it looks real, is about as game mechanically effective as an illusory orc.

On the other hand if you view a spell as information, that is, it's just words and symbols on a page, then you can record and create spells with illusions.

Theoretically though, if you allow people to use secret page to create spellbooks, why can't they also create magic scrolls with them? After all, scrolls are just symbols on a page too, so you should be able to duplicate those using SP.

Some problems with your position.

(1) Secret Page is *not* an illusion. Its transmutation. It literally transmutes the page into the spell-object.

(2) Spells are just information. See the PHB on arcane magical writing.

(3) Scrolls are the spell-itself embedded in the page. its not just a recording of how to cast the spell, someone literally cast the spell onto the page and embedded it there.

[RandomCasualty]

1172965760[/unixtime]]
(2) Spells are just information. See the PHB on arcane magical writing.

The problem with such a stance is that you have no defense against a PC who wants to scribe spells using cheap ink as opposed to the 100 gp/page ink. After all, if a spell is just information, why do you need such high quality inks?

[User3]

1172966595[/unixtime]]

1172965760[/unixtime]]
(2) Spells are just information. See the PHB on arcane magical writing.

The problem with such a stance is that you have no defense against a PC who wants to scribe spells using cheap ink as opposed to the 100 gp/page ink. After all, if a spell is just information, why do you need such high quality inks?

I don't know. Because the rules say so?

Honestly, I think paying money to scribe spells is a crock of shit, so I'd rather toss that and make the rules consistent. But the rules both claim that a spell recorded in a spellbook is a series of "complex notations" (text containing information) that is the recipe for casting the spell. It also claims if you want to write it you need 100gp of materials. These two claims make no sense taken together.

I know someone made the argument that a normal pen/ink can't write fine enough to capture sufficient detail. Of course, this would only mean you'd need to write bigger... But at least it vaguely makes sense in terms of both of the rules in the PHB, unlike any other position. A spell that can show a spell, however, is sufficiently precise or otherwise its not showing the spell (its showing something else - ie, showing a spell is only showing it if it is verifiably that spell such as by comparison).

Also remember wizards prepare spells using their spell books. The spell book really is a cooking book for magic.

Regardless, as a spell-record is non-magical, and SPage shows it, and uses all the right materials if used over a another spell record (because the materials are already in the page), your decision on that part of the rules isn't relevant to SPage's functionality.

[Judging__Eagle]

Well, I know that in Living Greyhawk, they did away with the 100gp/page costs to scribe in new spells into your book.

And LG is anything but permissive; magic items access is really restricted, as are some classes, prestige classes and special material equipment (ex. it used to be one adamantie weapon ever, so arrows are useless, this might have changed in the last couple of years though).

Wizards can share a max of one spell per adventure that they're on though.

[RandomCasualty]

I've always treated the "shows a spell" functionality as meaning that it looks like that spell at first glance unless it's examined closely in detail. I tend to treat secret page similar to an illusion anyway, since its flavor is more based around hiding what's on the real page, as opposed to creating useful synthetic pages.

While I don't think it's entirely unreasonable of an interpretation to say the spell can create other spells, it's such a 180 on the spell's flavor that I would consider such a thing pretty distasteful in actual play.

Not to mention the fact that I'm not rolling all those checks for each page if the PC gets hit with a dispel.

[User3]

1172972584[/unixtime]]I've always treated the "shows a spell" functionality as meaning that it looks like that spell at first glance unless it's examined closely in detail. I tend to treat secret page similar to an illusion anyway, since its flavor is more based around hiding what's on the real page, as opposed to creating useful synthetic pages.

While I don't think it's entirely unreasonable of an interpretation to say the spell can create other spells, it's such a 180 on the spell's flavor that I would consider such a thing pretty distasteful in actual play.

Not to mention the fact that I'm not rolling all those checks for each page if the PC gets hit with a dispel.

Ha! Good point. That right there would make this interpretation of the spell a pretty un-optimal option.

Seriously though, gang - Frank's trick may have some teeth to it in regards to the RAW. But from a RAI perspective, I don't think the authors intended for Secret Page to be used as a cheap spellbook multiplier.

Anyone care to disagree with that?

[Bill_Bisco_Isometric_Imp]

Personally, I am always in favor of a creative use of spells. It doesn't bother me that Frank Trollman has thought of a way to make a spell much more useful for an entirely different purpose.

I like it!

[User3]

RAI is just as bad as RAW. Remember, they *intended* to make Shapechange even better than it had been, because high level druids were "not good enough".

I'd rather use "rules as reasonable" in which case it depends on what kind of campaign you're running.

[Cielingcat]

"Rules As Intended" almost always means "Rules As I Want Them To Be."

[User3]

1172984370[/unixtime]]"Rules As Intended" almost always means "Rules As I Want Them To Be."

No. I said this earlier ... "But from a RAI perspective, I don't think the authors intended for Secret Page to be used as a cheap spellbook multiplier."

Which is explicitly stating a viewpoint on how the game's authors view the RAI of this spell. At least in my sphere of influence, when RAI discussions come about, that's the default viewpoint that's initially discussed.

[User3]

Right, but that doesn't matter, because their intent is often just as wrong as their execution.

[Crissa]

It says that it makes a blank page you can put explosive runes on...

...But it doesn't say it does that for you. So why do you believe it does anything else for you?

-Crissa

[Username17]

1173047887[/unixtime]]It says that it makes a blank page you can put explosive runes on...

...But it doesn't say it does that for you. So why do you believe it does anything else for you?

-Crissa

I really have no idea what you're saying here. Secret Page says that it changes your "real page" into a "fake page" that displays anything or nothing even spellbook pages with other spells on them.

What you're supposed to do is to protect your real information by using secret page to make fake information to throw people off your trail. What you actually do, is create fake information that you actually want.

So the very same functionality that allows you to hide a uniue and valuable spell under a copy of a common spell (which the spell explicitly allows) also can be used to hide completely worthless writings underneath a copy of that same valuable spell.

And then you can take that "fake text" and give it to your friends to copy off of or just use it as a backup for your main spellbook.

-Username17

[User3]

Hey Squirreloid (or whomever) - how in the hell did Thorak argue those rediculous points for over 20 pages and not get his head handed to him by somebody?

[User3]

1173068152[/unixtime]]Hey Squirreloid (or whomever) - how in the hell did Thorak argue those rediculous points for over 20 pages and not get his head handed to him by somebody?

I and others did. One of a few things are possible: (1) He failed reading comprehension, (2) He is totally unwilling to admit he's wrong, (3) He can't accept that the text could be broken, (4) I'm sure there are other reasons he's a fucking moron.

But read the thread. He's a complete idiot.

[Username17]

1173068152[/unixtime]]Hey Squirreloid (or whomever) - how in the hell did Thorak argue those rediculous points for over 20 pages and not get his head handed to him by somebody?

My eyes glazed over and I was forced to skip to the end. Eventually, Thorak was forced to retreat from all his points and fell into the following last argument:

• The rules say that once you understand a spell that you can copy it into your spellbook by spending 24 hours and 100 gp per page. (p. 179)
  
• Therefore any other method you use to make a page in your spellbook must cost 100 gp per page and take 24 hours.
  
• Trivially true handwaving about implicatory statements.

OK, did you follow that? He's saying that because you can scribe a spell into your spellbook for 24 hours and 100 gp per page that every method for scribing a spell into your spellbook costs 24 hours and 100 gp per page regardless of what else it says or does not say about that other process.

Which is puzzling to me, because the very same page of the PHB has an alternate method of scribing a spell into a spellbook (copying from an existing document) that only costs 12 hours and 50 gp per page. So basically he has a bunch of "If A then B. A! B!" rants, but ultimately he can't possibly demonstrate "If A then B" because page 179 demonstrates one case where A*B and A*~B.

Really, it's completely open and shut, Thorak is a classic example of someone who is arguing from the standpoint of increasingly complex logic without actually checking premises against the real world. I wonder how many teeth he believes that horses have?

-Username17

[Crissa]

It says it takes one page and lets you display something else there. It doesn't says it does it for you, just that anything can be placed there.

Because you can put anything in the slipcover of your notebook doesn't mean it doesn't come blank. The spell does not say it does this for you. It's not an illusion. It could be tonnes more clear, but it doesn't say it does all the scribing on either of the pages for you.

In fact, it doesn't say you have to write the real page, either.

-Crissa