|
| 16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So I've been discussing this question another thread but I wanted some clarification on the PFS legality of this issue.
Basically it boils down to: I've got a bard magician who pretends he's a master of all magics (with the help of a decent UMD), including wizardry. To complete this gimmick, I bought him a blank spellbook.
Now the question is: can I actually put spells in that book? Of course, the bard would have no use for it in any way but I was mostly wondering if it would be legal to put spells in a spellbook when you don't have the "Spellbook" class feature.
Option 1: The easiest option that seems to follow all the rules very clearly is for the bard to purchase the spellbook and pay for all the scribing costs but to hand the spellbook to the party wizard and ask him to please write the spells in there. The wizard would cast read magic and make his Spellcraft checks like normal and then hand the spellbook back to the bard and my bard would walk away from the table with a spellbook that has actual spells in (that other wizards could then learn from). I don't see how this breaks any rules as long as I pay for everything. But I just wanted to make sure before I started doing it.
Option 2: Now the real question I had was whether my bard would be able to scribe the spells himself if he cast read magic, made the Spellcraft checks, and paid the scribing cost. I'd be using the exact same procedure a wizard would use to copy a spell into a spellbook, the only difference being that I wouldn't be able to prepare those spells the next day. They would just sit there looking pretty (and also as a library to other players). Basically, do you have to have the "Spellbook" class feature to copy spells into a spellbook or can you just follow the "decipher magical arcane writing" rules like normal and copy the spells down even if you don't actually use a spellbook? Ultimately the result wouldn't be that much different from Option 1; I'd still have a spellbook with spells that I can't use but in Option 1 I have to wait until I play with a wizard buddy whereas with Option 2 I can just do it myself.
Thanks!
|
This has some other spplication, too.
The Mnemonic Vestments allow a spontaneous caster to use a spellbook.
If the wearer is a spontaneous caster, once per day she may use a spell slot to cast a spell from a written source (such as a scroll or spellbook) as if she knew that spell.
I used Option 1 above last week for my sorceress, but option 2 would be very nice. Either way, what is legal is important.
|
|
Yeah, but that's what Read Magic and Spellcraft are for: so he could (potentially) write down actual arcane spells instead of just writing random scribbles. As long as you follow the rules for copying a spell into a spellbook, it should be a real spell in there, just not one you can cast from because that's not the way bards cast. But another wizard should be able to look at it and use Spellcraft to figure it out and thus copy it into their own book.
|
|
You can scribe meaningless scribbles and try to bluff people into thinking it's a spellbook. You don't have the ability to make an actual functioning spellbook though. Not that I'm sure how it will help you do so, No one expects a wizard to be open with their books, especially another wizard.
I'll be easy to fool the rubes, but run into someone with decent ranks in Spellcraft and/or Knowledge Arcana than your scheme will run aground right there.
My sorceress has mid-teens in both Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft. She can read magic, and with an arcane bloodline, might have been reading for most of her life. I'm hoping she can actually write the stuff, and I would rather not have to dip a level of wizard to do it.
If she really cannot write anything herself, what mechanism to we need to use to get a spellbook written? Can a PC wizard write it if I pay all the costs? Do I need to hire an NPC wizard to write it? If so, would the scribing and access costs be enough?
|
|
I would think that having another PC to write it for you would be fine as long as you pay the costs.
As for an NPC doing it for you, I imagine you could do it but some other cost would be required and I'm not sure what that would be. We'd need some official clarification on that.
As to whether you can write it yourself, I would say yes but I also have an investment in this question and am waiting for a more official answer before I start doing that.
|
|
I am aware of Read Magic's capabilities and limitations. But you missed the "and Spellcraft" part of what I said.
I'm not sure you are understanding the question I am putting forward. Please review the section on Deciphering Magical Arcane Writings in the Magic chapter of the CRB. The main hurdle to be overcome in copying a spell into one's spellbook is being able to decipher what you are copying from. Read Magic allows you to decipher magical writing. Spellcraft is then also used in the process of copying that spell into a spellbook. Both of these things are available to a bard. The only difference is that a bard does not actually use a spellbook (i.e. does not have the Spellbook class feature). So my question was whether a bard would still be allowed to use Read Magic and Spellcraft to copy spells into a spellbook that they can not use (except with limited use through a Mnemonic Vestment and to provide as a resource to actual wizards).
|
(IMHO) in any campaign this would have to be answered by the DM...
In PFS that would be Mr Brock, so unless he chimes in on this (and I don't expect him to, but I'll check back just in case I'm wrong), than any answer you get will be subject to YMMV.
It's a great idea, and in my home game I'd be fine with it, but in PFS? I would have to rule against it (but I do tend to be kind of conservative). At my table this would not work.
Good luck!
nosig: Please clarify: What would not work?
OPtion 2? That is the one that needs adjudication form Mike Brock.
Option 1 should not need or require any adjudication. It just means that you would have to track the spells written into the spellbook by noting that "Spell X was written into my spellbook by John, PFS #X-Y, scenario Z."
All scribing costs would have to be paid by the Sorcerer/Bard/what-have-you.
I don't see anything that would need to be adjudicated in that option.
|
|
...Please review the section on Deciphering Magical Arcane Writings in the Magic chapter of the CRB. The main hurdle to be overcome in copying a spell into one's spellbook is being able to decipher what you are copying from. ...
No... the major hurdle is formulating the spell that you have deciphered into your own personal magic writing formulae. Without the Spellbook class feature, it's quite reasonable to assume that you do not have this capability.
Mind you, I think you've presented the question in a very fair and straight-forward way. Also I am not saying that you can't, but I think you misinterpret the difficulty. Any sorcerer, bard, or rogue with read magic can decipher a written spell. Writing it in a spellbook is more... arcane... than just 'copying'. But spellcraft skill might be enough - looking forward to the answer.
|
|
Option 2? That is the one that needs adjudication form Mike Brock.
Option 1 should not need or require any adjudication. It just means that you would have to track the spells written into the spellbook by noting that "Spell X was written into my spellbook by John, PFS #X-Y, scenario Z."
All scribing costs would have to be paid by the Sorcerer/Bard/what-have-you.
I don't see anything that would need to be adjudicated in that option.
Yeah, I don't really see any problems with Option 1 so I'm probably ok to go ahead and do that. My bard wouldn't have any use for it but it would be a legitimate spellbook written by an actual wizard, so there would be no issue with a second wizard using it as a reference to learn new spells.
Option 2 is a little trickier. Here are some quotes to help:
A wizard can also add a spell to his book whenever he encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings).
I think we've already established that a bard/sorcerer with read magic has this part taken care of.
Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). . . .
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
Now I realize the text repeatedly and consistently says "a wizard" but the CRB was written before the other spell/formula book classes were written and before Mnemonic Vestments existed. There is nothing in the above that says you have to have the "Spellbook" class feature or that you have to be able to use the spellbook once you are done copying spells into it. The only things required to copy spells into a spellbook are read magic and Spellcraft, both of which bards/sorcerers have access to. If you are flexible in realizing that the language "a wizard" was used simply because there was no reason for anyone else to use a spellbook when the CRB was written and realize that since then with the advent of Mnemonic Vestments bards and sorcerers do have a use for spellbooks now, I don't see much reason why those classes wouldn't be able to copy spells into a spellbook. As quoted above, once you understand a spell (read magic), you can record it into a spellbook (with Spellcraft).
|
I think there is one bit that I haven't seen here being mentioned.
Wizards do get Scribe scroll as free first level feat. An interesting question id can you write spells without it.
Off course someone clever will say - but PFS replaces scribe scroll. This is done to ensure you can't craft scrolls.
Would this rule out a wizard writing his own spellbook? RAI you could argue this but off course RAW every wizard (outside PFS) has scribe scroll and this becomes academic. And a wizard doesn't work if he can't write his own spellbook (and no other alternatives are given). So PFS wizards need to be able to write their own spellbook.
But the only other exemption to crafting I know straight away is wizards and bonded objects.
But to me writing someone else spellbook seems to akin to crafting to comfortably say it can be done. Add Mnemonic vestment or someone wanting to cast spells from spellbooks in the same way as scrolls and you bring in write scrolls through the backdoor.
Interesting innocent question - but it could have unexpected alternative uses if allowed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is one bit that I haven't seen here being mentioned.
Wizards do get Scribe scroll as free first level feat. An interesting question id can you write spells without it.
Magus don't get Scribe Scroll and also write in spellbooks, so I'm fairly certain they are not co-dependent.
|
|
And it is actually a transfer of wealth from one PC to another. Your non-book using PC is transfering wealth from himself to another PC, the wizard. He is paying the access cost that that wizard would have had to pay to gain that spell... so, in effect you are buying the wizard access to the spell. Something that several times on other threads have been sited as an issue. At least some judges would view it as such, which means that your going to get issues if you try this.
Not really. There is not access cost involved. It would be no different than two wizards playing together; there is no access cost between the PCs but each wizard still has to pay the scribing cost to copy things in his own spellbook.
So say my bard has a spellbook and I play with a wizard with his own spellbook. At the end of the adventure I say, "Hey, you have several spells I like. Could you please copy them into this book for me? I will pay for the ink." The bard pays the scribing costs and has some new spells in his book.
Then the wizard says, "Ah! I see you have a few spells that I do not have. I'd like to copy them if you do not mind." Then the wizard copies the spells into his book, paying the normal scribing cost.
It would be no different than two wizards playing together. We're each paying for our own thing.
there are also no rules that cover the ownership of spellbooks by non-book using spell casters (which would be Option 1).
Anyone can buy blank spellbooks. It's just standard equipment listed alongside everything else in both the CRB and UE.
|
|
@nosig: ok, ok, after thinking about it a little more I think I understand what you mean by transferring wealth. Because they are copying it from me they are not having to pay an access charge they normally would have, as I'm acting as the 'middle man' between two wizards who aren't actually playing together.
I suppose it's something to think about but I don't really think it would have that big of an impact. It still follows the rules (especially if someone else writes it for me i.e. Option 1).
Could it be abused to shift the wealth potential of a PC? Potentially. But so could someone who spends all of their money on gear that they don't personally use and then at the beginning of every scenario saying, "Hey, who wants this +5 longsword I've got? I don't use it, I just bought it to pass to the fighter/barbarian. Oh, and take this magical armor I've got too!" A situation like that falls within the rules but I doubt it happens often enough to worry about. Similarly, I don't think we'd see a bunch of non-spellbook characters carrying around (and spending precious gold on!) a spellbook they can't personally use, just for the benefit of an unknown wizard they might run into some day.
|
|
@nosig: Ha! Ok, that's a decent point. But the problem with your analogy is that you're talking about passing along material items from PC to PC after an adventure is over and there are specific rules prohibiting that (although if that alchemist wanted to pass out poison and antitoxin during the adventure, it is within the rules to do so). It is perfectly within the rules set of PFS for PCs to transfer spells from spellbook to spellbook though (and then walk away from the table and still have those spells).
In PFS there are no rules that allow a non-wizard/non-magus PC to own a spellbook (or a non-alchemist to own a formula book).
Well, nothing's stopping someone from buying a blank spellbook or formula book (at least currently). The real question is whether you can then put spells/formulae in there, which I suppose is what the whole thread is about.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@nosig: Regarding this recent side-topic of whether having a fellow PC scribe into your spellbook bypasses the normal "access fee" and therefore isn't allowed, remember that PC wizards have always been able to scribe from each other's books without paying that access fee. What exactly is different here?
------------------------------------------
Regarding some of the other points brought up throughout this thread:
First, the "Scribe Scroll" feat makes no mention of enabling the use of spellbooks, and the "Scribe Spells in Written Form in General" feat does not exist.
Second, the subject was raised of whether the Arcane Magical Writings rules' use of the term "wizard" was purposefully exclusive of other classes or if it's just a result of having been written when no one else ever had any reason to touch a spellbook. I believe it's the latter, and here's why:
As was mentioned, the magus also uses spellbooks, just like a wizard. Normally, when a rules element is restricted to a specific class, any new class that uses that rules element will say to use their class level as their "effective [otherclass] level". For instance, inquisitors have an effective cleric level for domains, lots of classes have an effective druid level for an animal companion, etc.
The magus' spellbook class feature does not do this. If the Arcane Magical Writings rules were to be read as being exclusive to wizards, then the magus class feature would need to include the standard "using his magus level as his effective wizard level" language that's used regularly throughout the game.
It doesn't.
Instead, it simply describes how his spellbook works, with no mention of wizards whatsoever, and references the same CRB scribing rules without any sort of exceptive caveat.
In order for that to be okay, we then have to conclude that the CRB's scribing rules from the Magic chapter are the general rules for how to scribe spells into a spellbook, NOT something that's exclusive to wizards.
Therefore, anyone capable of jumping through the specified hoops should be able to achieve the described results.
|
|
yes, and who has spell books? Wizards and Magi PCs.
Well, they're the ones who start out with spellbooks as part of their class, but nothing is stopping anyone else from purchasing a blank one. But I guess we've already agreed on that.
You can't even keep the spellbooks looted from the bad guys! Why is that? Because only Wizards and Magi have spellbooks with spells in them.
Well, I think this has more to do with the fact that everything is liquidated at the end of the adventure.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so turning back to the original question:
Option 1: As of right now, there is nothing preventing any PC from buying a blank spellbook. As of right now, there is nothing in the current rules that would disallow another wizard PC from copying spells into that spellbook as long as the spellbook owner paid the scribing costs. There is some (understandable) concern about wealth transfer, but it remains to be seen whether that would be a big enough problem to concern ourselves with. I think we'll just have to await some input from the campaign leadership on this.
Option 2: This is admittedly a bit more dubious. It seems (to me) that under some interpretations of the rules it could possibly be done (a bard writing spells into a spellbook for use by other wizards and/or for use with the Mnemonic Vestment). As much as I would love for it to work, I understand that this option is a little more out there so I'm not going to hold my breath on it becoming PFS legal any time soon. But it seems legitimate to me.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the higher-ups weigh in on this then.
|
|
Second, the subject was raised of whether the Arcane Magical Writings rules' use of the term "wizard" was purposefully exclusive of other classes or if it's just a result of having been written when no one else ever had any reason to touch a spellbook. I believe it's the latter, and here's why:
As was mentioned, the magus also uses spellbooks, just like a wizard. Normally, when a rules element is restricted to a specific class, any new class that uses that rules element will say to use their class level as their "effective [otherclass] level". For instance, inquisitors have an effective cleric level for domains, lots of classes have an effective druid level for an animal companion, etc.
The magus' spellbook class feature does not do this. If the Arcane Magical Writings rules were to be read as being exclusive to wizards, then the magus class feature would need to include the standard "using his magus level as his effective wizard level" language that's used regularly throughout the game.
It doesn't.
Instead, it simply describes how his spellbook works, with no mention of wizards whatsoever, and references the same CRB scribing rules without any sort of exceptive caveat.
In order for that to be okay, we then have to conclude that the CRB's scribing rules from the Magic chapter are the general rules for how to scribe spells into a spellbook, NOT something that's exclusive to wizards.
Therefore, anyone capable of jumping through the specified hoops should be able to achieve the described results.
Thank you! That's essentially just a much more concise way to put the argument that I was trying to say earlier.
So maybe Option 2 has more life to it than I imagined.
|
|
@nosig: Spellbooks, travelling spellbooks and the blessed book have no requirements listed to purchase them, other than a gold cost. No class restrictions, just general items, or a Wondrous Item that can be purchased by anyone with sufficient Fame.
Also, as mentioned, I don't see any real way to use having a random Wizard/Magus/Other scribe a spell into your spellbook is transferring gold to you, or getting gold transferred to them. No more than trading spells with a Rogue 11/Wizard 1 would do so.
No, the only thing I see as a concern is whether a non-magical class could scribe spells into a spellbook, which would be possible if it is blanket opened to being able to use Read Magic and Spellcraft to scibe spells into spellbooks.
How, you ask? Easy. All it takes is a Wayfinder, a dull grey Ioun stone, and someone trained in Spellcraft. The Method I resonance effect for a dull grey Ioun stone is, after all, a once per day use of Read Magic.
So, with the Law of Unintended Consequences, is the campaign willing to let, say, a Lore Warden Fighter be able to scribe spells into a spellbook?
Then again, using the retraining rules, what would happen to that Rogue 11/Wizard 1 if he retrained that level of Wizard into another level of Rogue? Does his spellbook, with the spells he has paid good gold to scribe spells into, just go Poof and disappear? If so, does a pile of gold, equal to what he paid in scribing costs, suddenly appear in his belt pouch?
Can Ninjas and Rogues, using the Minor Magic talent for the ability to cast Read Magic three times a day, and trained in Spellcraft, scribe spells into spellbooks?
Can'o'worms, time, really.
Heck, what happens to the spellbook of a 7th level Wizard who spends the 35/49 PP to retrain into a different class entirely?
|
|
@kinevon: It does open up a lot of possibilities, that's for sure. You've come up with a few interesting ideas I hadn't thought of, but I wouldn't necessarily label it a can of worms just yet. By that I mean: what's the harm of a fighter with a wayfinder, a dull grey ioun stone, and ranks in spellcraft running around with a spellbook? If that's what the fighter wants to spend their money and skill ranks on, I say go for it. It really doesn't offer anything to them except that it's interesting that he is able to do it and when he runs into a wizard he can say, "Oh cool, I've been collecting spells myself! Don't really know how to cast them, but here, have a look." (At least a bard or sorcerer could more properly take advantage of the Mnemonic Vestment by being able to make their own spellbook.)
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I don't see it as a serious problem. If the player has put skill points, etc., into the appropriate abilities, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to reap the benefits.
I see it as only a minor step away from a character with a single-level dip into wizard. I did that with my (non-PFS) ranger, but that was mostly to fit with the backstory (a solo adventurer; he needs a way to select the valuable items from a treasure hoard, and to identify magic throw at him).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@kinevon: It does open up a lot of possibilities, that's for sure. You've come up with a few interesting ideas I hadn't thought of, but I wouldn't necessarily label it a can of worms just yet. By that I mean: what's the harm of a fighter with a wayfinder, a dull grey ioun stone, and ranks in spellcraft running around with a spellbook? If that's what the fighter wants to spend their money and skill ranks on, I say go for it. It really doesn't offer anything to them except that it's interesting that he is able to do it and when he runs into a wizard he can say, "Oh cool, I've been collecting spells myself! Don't really know how to cast them, but here, have a look." (At least a bard or sorcerer could more properly take advantage of the Mnemonic Vestment by being able to make their own spellbook.)
Heh. I can see it now:
Lore Warden Fighter, trained in Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana), among other skills (LWs are skill heavy, for Fighters, from Scholastic and a tendency to have a higher Int than standard), a set of dull grey Ioun stones, including at least one Ioun torch (that should count as dull grey), and a Wayfinder with the ability to cast Detect Magic at will...Note: That wayfinder exists, it is one of the PP purchases in the Pathfinder Society Primer, IIRC. Get it with Heritage, I think it is, and you can still get the Light at will, as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish there was some official word on this, but it's never been clear if this is something Mike would want to address, since it strays into rules territory. I'd have a spell book for my mnemonic vestment and ring of spell knowledge wearing Sorcerer if I could. Ultimately I decided without it being clearer, I'm better off just buying a lot of scrolls. Easier to get to in combat anyway. (I don't actually know what action searching through a spell book is, but it seems like a scroll would be easier). Plus scrolls let me cast something twice if needed. That doesn't help much for passing around spells to others, though.
I think that Paizo may be leaning towards option 2.
Take a look at Versatile Spontaneity, PFS Primer page 9.
It allows spontaneous casters to "prepare" a spell that they do not know. To do so, they need the selected spell on a scroll or in a spellbook.
I don't think that it matters if the PC retrains out of the class/feat/skill that allowed them to scribe the spellbook in the first place - they keep the spellbook, but can no longer add to it. Similarly to a magical harpoon possessing melee PC that trains out exotic weapon proficiency harpoon, they will still own their magical harpoon, just no longer be as proficient with it.
I can't see any harm in a non-preparation spellcaster having a spellbook. For the most part, they won't be able to use it (mnemonic vestment and versatile spontaneity being the exceptions that spring to mind). I can't even see any ripple effects (or kinevon's law of unintended consequences) coming into play.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to just briefly cast my vote in favor of non-wizards being able to scribe in spellbooks. In addition to the mnemonic vestments and versatile spontaneity, there's also the ring of spell knowledge which can use either scrolls or a spellbook to increase a spontaneous caster's spells known, and the Arcane Archivist revelation of Lore Oracles, which explicitly requires that the Oracle have a spellbook (no scrolls allowed).
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
there are also no rules that cover the ownership of spellbooks by non-book using spell casters (which would be Option 1).
As best I can tell, there are no rules that cover the ownership of holy symbols by non-divine casters (clerics, paladins, etc.), but I have played at many tables where such non-divine characters will refer to, or brandish, a holy symbol, even if there is no mechanical benefit for doing so. It has zero impact on that game.
If the non-Wizard spellcaster carries around a spellbook with spells which have been inscribed therein, and doesn't attempt to cast those spells or use the pages as scrolls, I don't understand the issue.
Mark
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Mark, there is an in game advantage to haveing a spellbook. Several of the posters here want it just for that advantage. NOT that I am against this. After all, I have a PC that took a dip into wizard partly just to get a spellbook (which he fills with every spell he can. Yes, my 10th level Trapsmith has one level of wizard and ten 5th level spells in his book - picked up before we could get access from NPC wizards.).
But what I am saying is that there is no way in the current PFSOP rules for one PC to scribe spells for another PC. It is very close to the rules for the transfering wealth from one PC to another. Until it is addressed by TPTB, I would have to rule that we could not do it .
YMMV
What's the in-game advantage? Having something that other PC spellcasters can copy spells from? I don't understand how that is an advantage. They can already copy spells from the spellbooks of PC casters, right?
As well, your comment earlier in the thread was about there not being a rule permitting non-casters from owning a spellbook. That's a far different proposition than there being no rule permitting them to copy from a non-casters book (which I think is the real issue you have, right?)
I will agree that the rules don't expressly permit it, but they don't deny it, either. Maybe it's me, but I really don't see the problem here.
Mark
|
|
@nosig:
Spellbooks and travelling spellbooks are ion the equipment section of the Core Rulebook, and there are NO restrictions placed in the CRB as to who can own such a spellbook.
And there is, as posted by many others earlier, NO, repeat NO, transfer of money or gold form one PC to another.
If the owner of the spellbook pays for the inks and such needed to scribe a spell into a spellbook he owns, and also pays any access costs involved, where is the transfer of wealth?
The owning PC pays exactly the same as if he were a Wizard or Magus, and winds up with a spellbook he cannot use except, possibly, in limited circumstances.
It takes no money from the Wizard's pocket, unless he decides to scribe one or more spells from the spellbook into his spellbook, which would be the sam eprice as copying spells from a PC wizard, or even a Wizard 1/Anything 19 who has a spellbook available.
TO be honest, I still don't understand where you come up with transferring wealth. It doesn't, any more than any transaction that your Wizard 1/Rogue X has ever been involved with with his spellbook.
"Hi, I am trained in Spellcraft. That means that, no matter what my class is, I actually have a chance of deciphering the content of this scroll I am looking at." ANY class. Even a Lore Warden Fighter could do that. Heck, even an Eidolon could potentially do that, if it were trained in Spellcraft.
Remember that, for a Sorcerer to cast a spell from a acroll, he needs to have understood the spell, whether that is through a Spellcraft check, or using read magic, he understands the spell in the scroll. If he can read it, doesn't that mean that he can copy it?
Heck, monks in the middle ages would copy some very elaborate illuminations and calligraphy, and they didn't even necessarily have to understand what they were writing.
So, question 1) Where are you seeing a transfer of wealth?
Question 2) Where do you see that sorcerers, bards, etc., are unable to comprehend a written spell?
|
|
It makes me sad that such an interesting, flavorful thing looks like it's going to go down in flames because of some RAW that's several years old. I understand the importance of RAW, but I feel like we're suffering because of clashing assumptions on the part of various writers. The original writer of the Arcane Magical Writing section assumed that no one other than wizards had any use for spellbooks—perfectly fair since, at the time, no one did—which leaves us with a section that never clearly addresses this issue that's arisen in the last several years. But from as early as the APG (with the Lore Oracle's Arcane Archivist revelation), to as recently as the PFS Primer (with Versatile Spontaneity), writers have been creating abilities, items, and feats which would all range from wasteful at best to useless at worst if the writers had not been assuming that the players using them would have a means of easily accessing spellbooks of their own. Indeed, since Arcane Archivist not only requires a spellbook, but destroys spells written in it, I have to believe that the writer of that particular ability believed that Lore Oracles, at least, had the ability to copy spells on their own.
I know RAI is useless in PFS, but it still seems like a shame to let all these fascinating things go to waste.
|
|
Its in a book written specifically for the pathfinder society, its a legal source, but odd pathfinder society rules stop it from working?
No, no, it just makes it ridiculously expensive and less efficient than just using the scroll directly. Plus, it adds a good chance that you'll completely waste the scroll by not casting the spell you prepared. But it technically works.
|
|
It makes me sad that such an interesting, flavorful thing looks like it's going to go down in flames because of some RAW that's several years old. I understand the importance of RAW, but I feel like we're suffering because of clashing assumptions on the part of various writers. The original writer of the Arcane Magical Writing section assumed that no one other than wizards had any use for spellbooks—perfectly fair since, at the time, no one did—which leaves us with a section that never clearly addresses this issue that's arisen in the last several years. But from as early as the APG (with the Lore Oracle's Arcane Archivist revelation), to as recently as the PFS Primer (with Versatile Spontaneity), writers have been creating abilities, items, and feats which would all range from wasteful at best to useless at worst if the writers had not been assuming that the players using them would have a means of easily accessing spellbooks of their own. Indeed, since Arcane Archivist not only requires a spellbook, but destroys spells written in it, I have to believe that the writer of that particular ability believed that Lore Oracles, at least, had the ability to copy spells on their own.
I know RAI is useless in PFS, but it still seems like a shame to let all these fascinating things go to waste.
While he doesn't specifically say it, SKR probably doesn't think that oracles should be able to write spells in to spellbooks: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lba6?APG-Lore-Oracle-Arcane-Archivist-question
He could have corrected people saying you needed to have access to a wizard for this revelation, but he did not
Looking at p219 of the Core Rulebook:
"Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through
several methods. A wizard can only learn new spells that
belong to the wizard spell lists."
And in the following paragraphs they seem to take great pains to always say, "The Wizard..."
And I'm pretty certain that any other class that has a spellbook as a class feature says something on the order of, "...Uses a spellbook like a Wizard..."
Sorry if I missed someone saying that already in the thread... I got curious and had to check for myself.
|
|
@nosig:
1.1) Where do you see scribing a spell as crafting?
So far as I can see, it is NOT crafting, and is not covered by either the crafting rules, nor by any of the prohibitions against crafting in PFS.
1.2) Yes, it increases the value of the spellbook, by the same amount as the owning person is spending on scribing costs. Nowhere does it generate value from nothing.
Actually, a standard Wizard's or Magus's spellbooks do indeed generate value from nothing, since they get those free cantrips and spells to scribe for free in their own spellbooks. That other spellbook is actually going to have an actual cost associated with every spell scribed in it. EVERY SPELL.
1.3) And, if you look around, you will find that there have been posts that those early season spellbooks, which were actually included on the chronicles as scrolls, should have been listed as spellbooks.
So, in short: There is no, repeat NO, transfer of wealth between players. Less transfer, in fact, than between your Wizard 1/Rogue X and another PC Wizard/Magus.
2.1) So, that DC 20 Spellcraft check to understand a scroll, which is applicable to both Wizards and Sorcerers means that a Sorcerer understands the spell to cast, but not enough to, say, use the scroll to scribe another scroll?
In regular, crafting allowed Pathfinder, is there any rule saying a Sorcerer cannot take Scribe Scroll? If not, does that not mean that the Sorcerer can write spells down?
|
|
Actually, a standard Wizard's or Magus's spellbooks do indeed generate value from nothing, since they get those free cantrips and spells to scribe for free in their own spellbooks. That other spellbook is actually going to have an actual cost associated with every spell scribed in it. EVERY SPELL.Actually, the ruling in PFS is that only spells you actually PAID to scribe adds to the cost of the spellbook, when selling said spellbook.
True, but I wasn't talking about sales price, but actual value.
That Wizard's spellbook has a bunch of spells in it that may not raise its resale value, but do raise its effective value above what was spent on it.
Wizard 9, Int 18 at start:
All cantrips for free
7 1st level spells at start
2 more 1st level spells at 2nd level
2 2nd level spells at 3rd level
2 more 2nd level spells at 4th level
2 3rd level spells at 5th level
2 more 3rd level spells at 6th level
2 4th level spells at 7th level
2 more 4th level spells at 8th level
2 5th level spells at 9th level
Which adds up to a pretty penny, there, thatr the Wizard gets totally for free.
What would that makle the replacement value of his spellbook be?