Pleas bear in mind that this is a genuine question, as I'm not sure the rationale behind it. So when a thief is attacked by a dexxer, assuming the proper template, that thief can knock the weapon right out of the thief's hands and even potentially steal it, thus rendering said dexxer unable to harm anyone unless a backup weapon is brought out (and at that point, the thief may again disarm). Why is the same not true of spellbooks for mages? Mages must have a spellbook on their person, not even in their hands, but those spellbooks are un-stealable and come right back into your bag upon rezzing. (Also, I could be mis-remembering, but I thought when I played a LONG time ago that your spellbook actually had to be equipped in your hands to cast spells?) Why are spellbooks not able to be stolen, and why are they not left on your body when you die? This would be essentially the same as having your weapon disarmed / stolen if you were that dexxer above, and if you're a smart mage then you carry backup spellbooks in case one disappears... I don't see a problem with this. There are enough scribes that can make full spellbooks to "restock" if you lose one (or multiple) but the price is basically pocket change because you never NEED another one unless you start a new mage character. Wouldn't this benefit the UO economy to increase the demand for new spellbooks from time to time?
Logically, this is spot on. I just don't think it was ever a part of original UO, and would likely be too fundamental a change to in-game mechanics. And, as a thief that dies all the time, I'd hate to have to replace my spell book all the time.
I've been playing since T2A, and spellbooks have always been newbied in that time. (Think I may have misunderstood the last post.)
Well that answers that I guess... I understand the premise that spellbooks would originally be hard to fill and Devastating to replace when starting out, but not once you can farm readily and other players can provide brand new books with all 8 circles of spells. Maybe it's just my love of melee but it stinks that the only way to disable a mage is to kill them (since there are protection spells that allow casting through damage) or have them run out of mana when you can knock a dexxer's weapon out of their hands (and even steal it) with that template. Rules of equality would dictate that mages should at the least be required to hold a spellbook in order to cast, and therefore be subjected (via a successful disarm) to the same interruption as a dexxer! Anyhow, thanks for answering my question!
The bottom line is that every build has its relative strengths and weaknesses. If you like dexxing, so be it, but it doesn't make sense to start changing things to suit that class. I have a mage and a dexxer since the early days, and each offers something different. You have to use the right tools for the job. That's why many play a variety of chars.
magic lock + box ...can still use the reagents, just can't reach them to sell them so long as the container remains > 10 stone Granted, I don't see many people that do this.
I remember them always being newbied, like everyone has already said, but I'm also wondering why the spellbook doesn't need to be in your hands for casting. I don't remember it working like this on production at any time. I think it makes things a bit too convenient.
