Unlocking the Cena Code: How Magic Mushrooms Changed John Cena's Life

John Cema is a prominent figure in the world of magic mushrooms. He has gained a reputation for his expertise and understanding in the field. Magic mushrooms, also known as psilocybin mushrooms, are a type of fungi that contain psychoactive compounds. These compounds, specifically psilocybin and psilocin, have been used for centuries in spiritual and therapeutic rituals. John Cema's passion for magic mushrooms began early in his life. He became fascinated by their potential for personal growth, healing, and exploration of consciousness.

As near as I can tell, from the rules I posted above, partially duplicating a spellbook (by partially I mean one spell) costs 15 gp for the blank book, 50 gp per spell level, expending a prepared spell slot, and 30 min per spell level.

If he does enough adventuring to warrant advancing another level of wizard, it is likely that he has to use 1 of his 2 free spells for doing so to replace that spell in his spellbook. Since ritual spells can be cast without using a spell slot, a wizard is limited in how many they can cast per day only by time normal cast time 10 minutes per cast and any costly components used in the spell.

He became fascinated by their potential for personal growth, healing, and exploration of consciousness. Over the years, he has dedicated himself to studying, cultivating, and advocating for the responsible use of magic mushrooms. One of John Cema's notable contributions to the field is his research on the potential therapeutic benefits of magic mushrooms.

Cast spells on the fly from spell book

used to be in 1e there was a rule if a mage needed to read a spell directly out of his spellbook, it was risky and dangerous but could still be done.

Is there such a rule in existance any more, I could not find one.

Not that I have seen as an actual rule.

Given the cost of a spell book though, there's nothing saying that they technically could not be used - perhaps a Spellcraft check is in order?

I use basically the same system as was presented in 1st Edition Unearthed Arcana. Here is the original wording:

"In extremis, the DM may allow a magic-user to cast a spell directly from any sort of spell book just as if the book were a scroll. The book must be of appropriate sort so that the spell matches the profession of the caster, ie magic-user spell, magic-user spell book. The caster must be able to know and use the spell in question. (Note that in this regard, reading directly from a spell book differs from the use of scroll spells.) Direct casting of a spell from a spell book automatically destroys that spell. There is also a 1% chance per level of the spell that the spells immediately preceding and following the spell cast will likewise be destroyed. There is an additional 1% chance that the casting of a spell directly from a spell book will destroy the entire book. A permanency spell, for instance, would not prevent a spell from “disappearing” when cast in this manner; even though writing might remain on the page, that writing will no longer be magical in nature. These strictures apply whether a spell caster is using his or her personal book or the book of another. Read magic is required for one magic-user to read another magic-user’s spell book, and a magic-user can learn a spell by reading it from another’s book. This learning process requires 2-8 hours of study per level of the spell, after which time the spell is learned and thereby immediately usable by the magic-user who did the studying."

Here is my wording:

An arcane caster that prepares spells may choose to cast a spell directly from his book. Doing so does not require (or cost) a spell slot. The spell is permanently erased from the book and there is a 1% chance per level of the spell that the entire book is destroyed. The character must be wielding the book at the time of casting and all spells cast in this manner have a minimum casting time of 1 Full Round Action (or longer if already longer).

I think this might have some unforseen consequences.
This way, spellbooks can be used as very cheap scrolls, since they do not cost anything to inscribe.
The cost of 100 gp for a spellbook is cheaper than any scroll with a spell-level higher than 1. Furthermore it does not require a feat to write in a spellbook.

I can see why it might be grand to have a spellcaster throwing spells at a risk from his spellbook, when the party is in dire peril, and he is out of spells which might save them. But I think these circumstances should require a GM ruling, rather than changes to the rules which might do more harm than good.

Edit: Just realized that it is only 15 gold for the spellbook.

The combination of these two rules generally makes this a bad idea.

"Spellbook, wizard’s (blank) 15 gp 3 lb."

"Replacing and Copying Spellbooks
A wizard can use the procedure for learning a spell
to reconstruct
a lost spellbook. If she already has a
particular
spell prepared, she can write it directly
into a new book at a cost of 100 gp per page (as noted
in Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process
wipes the prepared spell from her mind, just as casting
it would. If she does not have the spell prepared, she can
prepare it from a borrowed spellbook and then write it
into a new book.
Duplicating an existing spellbook uses the same procedure
as replacing it, but the task is much easier. The time
requirement and cost per page are halved."

and for clarification

"Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook
Once a wizard understands a new spell, she can record it
into her spellbook.
Time: The process takes 1 hour per spell level. Cantrips
(0 levels spells) take 30 minutes to record.
Space in the Spellbook: A spell takes up one page
of the spellbook per spell level. Even a 0-level spell
(cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has one hundred
pages.
Materials and Costs: Materials for writing the spell cost
100 gp per page."

So basically you would be giving wizards super cheap scrolls (I believe it would be 465 GP for a 9th level spell) in exchange for a slightly longer casting time a increased weight.

If the cost for inscribing the spells were more in line with the cost of a scroll this would be reasonable, unless you change the current pricing guidelines it's kind of a bargain as has been pointed out.

I like the casting from the spellbook bit. Of course the bonded item adds a bit of that flavor to the wizard.

If the cost for inscribing the spells were more in line with the cost of a scroll this would be reasonable, unless you change the current pricing guidelines it's kind of a bargain as has been pointed out.

I like the casting from the spellbook bit. Of course the bonded item adds a bit of that flavor to the wizard.

holy cow! I think we totally forgot the wizard had bonded item, HAH! So he could have cast that spell (without reading it from his book)

UGH (beats head against wall) *Shaking fist at new rules that haven't sunk in yet*

I loved the casting spells from books in a pinch bit. Even though it is a cheap way to go scroll wise, it is also depriving you of that spell until you can reconstitute your book. However, I also feel that there should be a chance of worse things happening than just messing up your book. A chance you can mess up the spell, perhaps targeting yourself instead.

holy cow! I think we totally forgot the wizard had bonded item, HAH! So he could have cast that spell (without reading it from his book)

Actually it would be nice if this was added back in but that spells cost the same in a spellbook as a scroll. I may have to house rule it if it is not.

holy cow! I think we totally forgot the wizard had bonded item, HAH! So he could have cast that spell (without reading it from his book)

well all we needed was once! and heck casting from the spell book is REALLY once!

One small problem before people complain about "cheap scroll" : the wizard cannot prepare the spell again until it is replaced in his spell book. If that wizard does not have that spell prepared and still in memory . they just LOST the spell.

And in many circumstances, that means they may have to wait until they advance a level to replace that spell in their spellbook! O.o

One small problem before people complain about "cheap scroll" : the wizard cannot prepare the spell again until it is replaced in his spell book. If that wizard does not have that spell prepared and still in memory . they just LOST the spell.

And in many circumstances, that means they may have to wait until they advance a level to replace that spell in their spellbook! O.o

As near as I can tell, from the rules I posted above, partially duplicating a spellbook (by partially I mean one spell) costs 15 gp for the blank book, 50 gp per spell level, expending a prepared spell slot, and 30 min per spell level.

One small problem before people complain about "cheap scroll" : the wizard cannot prepare the spell again until it is replaced in his spell book. If that wizard does not have that spell prepared and still in memory . they just LOST the spell.

And in many circumstances, that means they may have to wait until they advance a level to replace that spell in their spellbook! O.o

As near as I can tell, from the rules I posted above, partially duplicating a spellbook (by partially I mean one spell) costs 15 gp for the blank book, 50 gp per spell level, expending a prepared spell slot, and 30 min per spell level.

Not denegrating your interpretation of the 1e rule regarding doing so nor the proposed partial re-transcription at all WWWW.

Wizards are seldom strong (and tactically savvy ones carry at worst a medium encumbrance load unless absolutely necessary), spellbooks are heavy (~5 lbs each, not to mention they are not exactly as easy to ready as a loaded crossbow or a dagger) and subject to ruination by immersion in water (or other, nastier fluids), and are often strapped for cash just to afford their spell book in the first place.

I think my point is: Joe Wizard does not have spell A in memory/prepared and in desperation to solve problem #35, Joe casts spell A from his spellbook in the course of resolving the encounter.

Now poor Joe doesn't have the spell available to him to prepare at any later point until such time as he re-acquires that spell and once more scribes it into his spellbook (at the PHB-prescribed time requirements, which are slower than scribing a spell scroll). If he does enough adventuring to warrant advancing another level of wizard, it is likely that he has to use 1 of his 2 "free" spells for doing so to replace that spell in his spellbook.

Past 7th level, certainly past 9th level, as a wizard, acquiring spells is statistically problematic. NPCs simply are not present in sufficient numbers to readily provide spells after anywhere from as low as 2nd level spells to no higher than 5th level spells. (Based on the DMG information on NPC density by class as proportionate to the population of the city.) Then they gotta track down the NPCs that potentially could have the spell they seek; interact with them in a presumably non-violent fashion; conclude what ever is determined to be the necessary transaction; THEN transcribe the spell into their spellbook once more.

Not denegrating your interpretation of the 1e rule regarding doing so nor the proposed partial re-transcription at all WWWW.

Wizards are seldom strong (and tactically savvy ones carry at worst a medium encumbrance load unless absolutely necessary), spellbooks are heavy (~5 lbs each, not to mention they are not exactly as easy to ready as a loaded crossbow or a dagger) and subject to ruination by immersion in water (or other, nastier fluids), and are often strapped for cash just to afford their spell book in the first place.

I think my point is: Joe Wizard does not have spell A in memory/prepared and in desperation to solve problem #35, Joe casts spell A from his spellbook in the course of resolving the encounter.

Now poor Joe doesn't have the spell available to him to prepare at any later point until such time as he re-acquires that spell and once more scribes it into his spellbook (at the PHB-prescribed time requirements, which are slower than scribing a spell scroll). If he does enough adventuring to warrant advancing another level of wizard, it is likely that he has to use 1 of his 2 "free" spells for doing so to replace that spell in his spellbook.

Past 7th level, certainly past 9th level, as a wizard, acquiring spells is statistically problematic. NPCs simply are not present in sufficient numbers to readily provide spells after.

This option would work if it was only used as a last ditch measure. But without some restrictions this is basically cheap scrolls with some downsides. However since scrolls are much more expensive after a point the restrictions probably do not outweigh the benefits given the existence of the handy haversack.

Not denegrating your interpretation of the 1e rule regarding doing so nor the proposed partial re-transcription at all WWWW.

Wizards are seldom strong (and tactically savvy ones carry at worst a medium encumbrance load unless absolutely necessary), spellbooks are heavy (~5 lbs each, not to mention they are not exactly as easy to ready as a loaded crossbow or a dagger) and subject to ruination by immersion in water (or other, nastier fluids), and are often strapped for cash just to afford their spell book in the first place.

I think my point is: Joe Wizard does not have spell A in memory/prepared and in desperation to solve problem #35, Joe casts spell A from his spellbook in the course of resolving the encounter.

Now poor Joe doesn't have the spell available to him to prepare at any later point until such time as he re-acquires that spell and once more scribes it into his spellbook (at the PHB-prescribed time requirements, which are slower than scribing a spell scroll). If he does enough adventuring to warrant advancing another level of wizard, it is likely that he has to use 1 of his 2 "free" spells for doing so to replace that spell in his spellbook.

Past 7th level, certainly past 9th level, as a wizard, acquiring spells is statistically problematic. NPCs simply are not present in sufficient numbers to readily provide spells after.

This option would work if it was only used as a last ditch measure. But without some restrictions this is basically cheap scrolls with some downsides. However since scrolls are much more expensive after a point the restrictions probably do not outweigh the benefits given the existence of the handy haversack.

In general play I would agree - although it is worth noting that the Handy Haversack requires a move action to get the book out. Book doesn't come out open, so at a minimum that's a full-round action WITH reading-grade illumination already in place to fire off a standard-action spell - and this is arguably a two full-round action sequence. The wizard cannot deploy a spell from his spellbook any where nearly as fast as a spell can be read off of a scroll under the same circumstances.

Frankly though, how likely are you as a player to deliberately burn spells out of your spell book when you have them prepared? Why SPEND money you don't have to? The in-game reason to blast spells out of your spell book I cannot grasp save as that measure of last-ditch desperation described.

Now, burning spells out of captured spellbooks I can see being a potential problem. A haversack loaded with nothing else has an absolute maximum of 24 such books contained within it. My groups are generally utterly mercenary enough to sell captured spell books off as fast as possible once they scavanged the contents.

'Course, this is why I have become more inclined to remove spellbooks from the game altogether other than as "sources of lore". You can learn a spell from them - but once learned, it is nothing more than a reference.

I would basically never burn a spell out of my main book since it is my main book. However I usually carry around several (2 to 3) copies of spells that I do not generally prepare but are very necessary in some specific situations. I would consider dropping a scroll and replacing it with 2 or 3 copies in a spellbook assuming the spellbooks are less expensive then the scroll. That way I have the scroll for when I need the spell fast but when time is not so tight I can save money.

Also spellbooks weigh 3 lb. which means that another possible problem is that it seems a bit silly that under this ruling for balance it must be impossible to write a spell on anything but a 3 lb. book. The standard action (if going for the 2 full rounds to remove from haversack open and cast) makes sense for opening a book if the spellbook is one with many spells and the correct page needs to be turned to but might be a bit silly if the cover just needs to be flipped back since the spell starts on the first page as it would if using copies of spellbooks with a single spell instead of scrolls. Flipping back the cover is probably less effort then the page flip difference between casting a first and 9th level spell.

Not that I have seen as an actual rule.

Given the cost of a spell book though, there's nothing saying that they technically could not be used - perhaps a Spellcraft check is in order?

Actually, the Official 3.5 FAQ answers to this exact question:

"Can a wizard cast a spell directly from his spellbook? If so what effects on the spellbook are there?
No, you cannot use a spellbook like a scroll. A spellbook contains notes for preparing a spell, but it’s not a precast spell just waiting to be activated as a scroll is."

Allowing a Wizard to cast directly from a Spellbook was a highly-abusable tactic in my old days of D&D (BECMI edition), especially with all the 'Grimoires' taken from fallen enemy Wizards; fortunately (for me), this is no more possible in 3.x edition, and I truly hope it stays the same in Pathfinder for the future.
Just my 2c.

I would basically never burn a spell out of my main book since it is my main book. However I usually carry around several (2 to 3) copies of spells that I do not generally prepare but are very necessary in some specific situations. I would consider dropping a scroll and replacing it with 2 or 3 copies in a spellbook assuming the spellbooks are less expensive then the scroll. That way I have the scroll for when I need the spell fast but when time is not so tight I can save money.

He has been involved in various studies investigating the use of psilocybin in treating mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and addiction. His work has shown promising results, with many participants reporting significant improvements in their symptoms and quality of life. In addition to his research, John Cema is also known for his cultivation techniques. He has developed innovative methods for growing magic mushrooms that maximize yield and potency. His expertise has been sought after by both enthusiasts and researchers looking to cultivate their own mushrooms. John Cema is a strong advocate for responsible and safe use of magic mushrooms. He emphasizes the importance of set and setting, suggesting that a supportive and controlled environment is crucial for a positive experience. He also encourages individuals to approach magic mushrooms with respect and awareness, recognizing their potential risks and benefits. Overall, John Cema's contributions to the world of magic mushrooms have been significant. Through his research, cultivation techniques, and advocacy, he has helped to shed light on the potential therapeutic benefits of these powerful fungi. His work continues to inspire and educate others, promoting a greater understanding of magic mushrooms and their potential for personal growth and healing..

Reviews for "John Cena's Mind-altering Experience with Magic Mushrooms"

1. Alex - 1/5 👎

I tried "John Cema Magic Mushrooms" and was extremely disappointed. Not only did they have no effect on me, but they tasted terrible. I followed the instructions on the package, but unfortunately, it was a waste of money. I was expecting a mind-altering experience but ended up feeling absolutely nothing. I would not recommend this product to anyone looking for a genuine psychedelic experience.

2. Emily - 2/5 👎

I had high hopes for "John Cema Magic Mushrooms," but they fell short of my expectations. The packaging looked promising, and the reviews I read were generally positive. However, when I tried them, I barely felt anything. The effects were mild, and it seemed like a complete waste of money. I've had better experiences with other brands, so I won't be purchasing this product again.

3. Mark - 1/5 👎

My experience with "John Cema Magic Mushrooms" was far from magical. First of all, the mushrooms arrived in a damaged package, which raised concerns about their freshness. Secondly, the effects were minimal at best. I've had other brands that provided a much stronger and more enjoyable experience. Overall, I was highly disappointed and would not recommend this product to anyone seeking a psychedelic journey.

4. Sarah - 2/5 👎

I had heard good things about "John Cema Magic Mushrooms," but my personal experience was underwhelming. The mushrooms had a weird aftertaste, which made it difficult to enjoy the experience. Additionally, the effects were not as intense as I had anticipated. Although it did provide some slight hallucinations, it was not the mind-expanding experience I was hoping for. I would suggest exploring other options before trying this product.

Beyond the Ring: John Cena's Transformation through Magic Mushrooms