| wspatterson |
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Just got this e-mail from a player, so I wanted to see what the forum at large had to say:
"In the rulebook on page 106 under Spellcraft in the "retry" paragraph it says if you fail a Spellcraft check to learn a new spell, you can try again after one week. On page 219 under "Spells copied from another's spellbook or scroll" it says you can't try again until you gain another rank in Spellcraft."
Now, obviously, he is thinking that learning a new spell and copying a spell are the same thing. We're just trying to decide what happens now that he failed the roll to copy a spell from a scroll into his spellbook.
Thanks.
| Disenchanter |
I see two schools of thought on this...
First, is that on page 219 is something of a "copy and paste" hold over from 3.5 that slipped through editing. I don't know this for certain.
Or learning a new spell is different from copying from a spellbook/scroll.
I am less inclined to agree with the latter, because that means page 109 only refers to the two spells a Wizard gains at a new level. Which are supposed to be able to be copied into the spellbook without a roll.
Without further official input, I would say that page 109 is supposed to be correct.
| james maissen |
Just got this e-mail from a player, so I wanted to see what the forum at large had to say:
"In the rulebook on page 106 under Spellcraft in the "retry" paragraph it says if you fail a Spellcraft check to learn a new spell, you can try again after one week. On page 219 under "Spells copied from another's spellbook or scroll" it says you can't try again until you gain another rank in Spellcraft."Now, obviously, he is thinking that learning a new spell and copying a spell are the same thing. We're just trying to decide what happens now that he failed the roll to copy a spell from a scroll into his spellbook.
Thanks.
The retry after 1 week is the changed rule, while the gain 1 rank was the old 3.5 rule.
I would imagine that 1 week time would be the intended rule and a reference to the old one was simply missed.
-James