|
"Doh, I forgot your cipher from yesterday" repeated everyday for the rest of your life.. is absolutely stupid. If the DC is low enough to take 10 and auto pass then the book should just be your book now and you go on with life.It's just as stupid (or not stupid) as "I forgot how to cast that spell". Remember, wizards don't just use up spell slots when they cast a spell - otherwise they'd be able to cast them again the next day without their book. They actually forget how to cast it. Forgetting how to read someone else's magical writing seems like it'd be right along the same lines.
It is based upon the idea that a spell is so complex to cast that you need all that prep time to just ready it so that a few words and signs will make it go off. You are essentially holding the charge in your brain until you say the words and pull out the bat poop to make it go boom.
I read another thread that explained how it came from a certain book and all that but that was the basic idea.
It's just as stupid (or not stupid) as "I forgot how to cast that spell". Remember, wizards don't just use up spell slots when they cast a spell - otherwise they'd be able to cast them again the next day without their book. They actually forget how to cast it. Forgetting how to read someone else's magical writing seems like it'd be right along the same lines.
This is not the only possible interpretation of the ambiguous rules. Here's my interpretation (no more valid than yours, but easier to believe, I think):
Using a literal reading of the Pathfinder rules (and ignoring the "memory" terminology from earlier editions), I treat spells as discrete, intangible objects constructed at preparation time and carried around on the caster's aura until discharged.
Therefore magic is not viewed as a "skill". Casters know exactly how many spell slots they have based on their own rituals and initiations. They think of spells in the same terms we do.
This description is far more coherent than the "memory" model, and reflects accurately not only the behavior of spell slots, but of expendable and permanent items. I submit it for the general improvement of your game-world.
I'm with Ashiel — when I'm GM, you stop making rolls as soon as you have had a chance to familiarize yourself with the cipher. Once it's "yours" it's yours. Adhering slavishly to the RAW here will add absolutely no fun or balance to my campaign, and the "ownership" clause gives me a legitimate way out.
It is based upon the idea that a spell is so complex to cast that you need all that prep time to just ready it so that a few words and signs will make it go off. You are essentially holding the charge in your brain until you say the words and pull out the bat poop to make it go boom.
I read another thread that explained how it came from a certain book and all that but that was the basic idea.
Spell complexity isn't the only explanation — I'm much happier with the "spells are objects" approach, see under the spoiler in my previous post.
Going back to the OP as a DM I always hand waved this away, I thought it was cool to have more than one spell book and I was sure to add some rare and unique spells to every book they find. The books came to be to my casters what swords and such were to melee. I even went as far as to make up a few campaign specific spells over the years as well, and the really cool ones were named and had interesting descriptions. I just thought it was much more interesting to have the caster pull out his pile of books looking for the right formulas etc...YMMV
Then again I also allowed for better results for exotic components, tearing a spell from a book and using it as a scroll, and applying spells to unique situations that arent really expressed in the RAW.
I think maybe that why casters never seemed OP to me, my players never used save or die, or even save of suck spells..they seemed to boring compared to the wierd dragon magazine spell I had thrown into the book they took from the necromancers apprentice...
I like your idea Evil Lincoln. Much neater.
I hated the Vancian system until this penny dropped for me. It turns out I didn't hate the system itself, I hated all of the crufty explanations that had cropped up over the years. If you strip all that stuff away, and you just look at what the core rules say about spells, there are lots of explanations for the various phenomena.
Imagine coalescing your spells in the morning and carrying them around like loaded weapons until discharged; makes me want to play a full caster PC. Trying to explain how magic is a skill that you forget each day... not so much.
I can't sustain disbelief in a world where the casters don't know what spell levels are (though I think they have a better name for them). I can't sustain disbelief in a world where casters don't know how many slots they have.
I'm glad you like the interpretation, it is easily one of my favorite topics over which to ramble.
|
Yeah - the forgets his spells is old edition fluff (based on Jack (is it Jack? I can't recall right now...) Vance books - which are set in the future!). New edition fluff is more like preparation time is actually casting long spells, but leaving the last bit out, so you can complete the casting and 'fire' the thing in a few seconds... which is much better IMHO. It also brings up the question of whether you could detect a Wizard's 'uncast spells' with Detect Magic and identify them with Spellcraft...
Yeah - the forgets his spells is old edition fluff (based on Jack (is it Jack? I can't recall right now...) Vance books - which are set in the future!). New edition fluff is more like preparation time is actually casting long spells, but leaving the last bit out, so you can complete the casting and 'fire' the thing in a few seconds... which is much better IMHO. It also brings up the question of whether you could detect a Wizard's 'uncast spells' with Detect Magic and identify them with Spellcraft...
Since you can't, I've tried to work that into my interpretation of the in-world perspective.
I don't think it would be all that bad if you could detect full spell slots on a caster, though. Or even empty spell slots! (that would be their level of initiation, in my parlance). It would be kind of neat, what with detect magic being an unlimited-use cantrip, that casters would be able to sense the magic left in their opponents.
But... for some reason, it isn't done.
If I get my druthers, I'll start another thread where we can go on and on about interpreting the RAW from an in-world perspective, absent the baggage from earlier editions. Wouldn't be the first time!
I like your idea Evil Lincoln. Much neater.I hated the Vancian system until this penny dropped for me. It turns out I didn't hate the system itself, I hated all of the crufty explanations that had cropped up over the years. If you strip all that stuff away, and you just look at what the core rules say about spells, there are lots of explanations for the various phenomena.
Imagine coalescing your spells in the morning and carrying them around like loaded weapons until discharged; makes me want to play a full caster PC. Trying to explain how magic is a skill that you forget each day... not so much.
I can't sustain disbelief in a world where the casters don't know what spell levels are (though I think they have a better name for them). I can't sustain disbelief in a world where casters don't know how many slots they have.
I'm glad you like the interpretation, it is easily one of my favorite topics over which to ramble.
It is like "Hanging" spells in Zelazny's second Amber chronicles. They do the long magical prep ahead of time, hang them in their mind, and can them call complex breaks in physics out with a few simple thoughts and words.
It is like "Hanging" spells in Zelazny's second Amber chronicles. They do the long magical prep ahead of time, hang them in their mind, and can them call complex breaks in physics out with a few simple thoughts and words.
Great, now I've gotta go and read those!
This is especially true (in its stupidity) in the context of 20+ intelligence wizards.Except..
If I break your cipher /then your book is mine/. I can now read it and learn everything you ever wrote in it.
I don't have to relearn your cipher every time I close your book and open it again. Why? Because I already did that.
Its my book now written in a cipher that I understand and can read. I can also write in it if I choose to.
"Doh, I forgot your cipher from yesterday" repeated everyday for the rest of your life.. is absolutely stupid. If the DC is low enough to take 10 and auto pass then the book should just be your book now and you go on with life.
The fighter doesn't have to make a check to learn that +3 sword thats better than his +2 sword. He just picks it up and keeps moving.
-S
Please note the edit about using a different cypher for each spell everyone? Why else do I bother putting in edits if nobody reads them. by MDT
Spoiler'd most of it since it was getting rather long.
The fact is- you can put every word of every spell in a different cipher.. once you cracked it, its cracked. Once you know X spell- regardless of how hard its hidden, coded, or whatever- then you shouldn't have to do it again. unless you are absolutely stupid.. in which case- go give the spellbook to a wizard. Wizards aren't stupid- they have the highest intelligence scores in the game.
Whether the book is 1 whole "new cipher" or every spell is a different one is irrelevant. the PC should be able to sit down, read through the book, and make the check. If passed he can read the cipher and if failed then he can't. But rolling every day to figure out if he can remember the cipher he figured out yesterday is absolutely silly. It would be akin to (but a whole lot easier than) saying that once you learned a whole new language you had to go back and learn it again everyday because you just forgot it all.
It should either be a check by spellbook or, preferably, a check per spell. Make the check once for each spell and if you pass you can memo that spell from that book, forever. If you fail then you can retry after you gain another point in Spellcraft. (or after you take alot of costly research, or whatever).
Forgetting someone's handwriting you figured out the day before though just makes no sense. Figure it out and its figured out.
-S
Preparing a spell is reciting most of it except for the very last part.
The deal with spells is they're like a poem or dance where they have to be recited perfectly or it doesn't work and you have to try again from the beginning. Trick is they're wasted if you mess up when you prepare them same as when you cast them.
Think of it like reciting a poem, like The Jabberwok. Preparing the spell is like reciting perfectly the whole poem except the last line. If you said the whole poem up to the last part perfectly, you've prepared the spell. As soon as you say that last line perfectly, spell goes off. If you mess up the last line, you're SOL, you got to go back and recite the whole thing from the begining. If you keep messing up that begining part, you can never get anywhere in the first place.
Now - someone can put The Jabberwok in their own shorthand and recite it perfectly no problem - they're fluent in their own shorthand, infact they reason the use their own shorthand is to make it easier for them to get it right.
It's true - You might be able to figure out their shorthand, BUT just because you can figure it out, doesn't mean you're fluent in it. To you, you're translating while you're reading, so when you read from it, you're likly going to keep screwing it up and tip over your words and never get anywhere - However, if you're really good, maybe you can manage it without messing it up - THAT'S the spellcraft check.
You can avoid all that by not messing with HIS shorthand, and put it in YOUR shorthand which you are fluent in and can read easily - that's the difference.
It's just as stupid (or not stupid) as "I forgot how to cast that spell". Remember, wizards don't just use up spell slots when they cast a spell - otherwise they'd be able to cast them again the next day without their book. They actually forget how to cast it. Forgetting how to read someone else's magical writing seems like it'd be right along the same lines.This is not the only possible interpretation of the ambiguous rules. Here's my interpretation (no more valid than yours, but easier to believe, I think):
I like that way of looking at it much better. And now that I go re-read the Magic section with that in mind, I can see how phrases like "Certain other events ... can wipe a prepared spell from a character's mind" don't necessarily have the memory-based interpretation I was reading into it.
Thank you for a new way of looking at it!
It is like "Hanging" spells in Zelazny's second Amber chronicles. They do the long magical prep ahead of time, hang them in their mind, and can them call complex breaks in physics out with a few simple thoughts and words.Great, now I've gotta go and read those!
Dont listen to Karkon...
Either you "get" Zelazny or you you dont. I found the chronicles to be very entertaining and a nice deep exploration of human nature (books 1 through 5) and an exploration of pre-destination vs Free will (books 6 through 10). it is Merlins tale (6 to 10) where the concept of hanging spells come from.Although in that series it is still possible to cast spells without hanging them first (it is just much harder).
If I get my druthers, I'll start another thread where we can go on and on about interpreting the RAW from an in-world perspective, absent the baggage from earlier editions. Wouldn't be the first time!
Yes, please. I love your take on spells.
Stuff
Let's see...
What we have here is, say for a 3rd level spell, 3 pages of highly complex mathematical formula, each bit of which must be done in exactly the right way, with exactly the right rituals, hand movements, and not a single bit of it wrong. That's the equivalent of say, trying to hand mix a radioactive dye and antidote combined, without any computers, and trying to get the ingredients exactly correct with no mistakes without advanced measurement devices to ensure the exact quantities.
Now, you're trying to follow this recipe in spanish when you speak english.
Oh, and it's not any version of spanish, it's south american spanish. On the next page is a a 3rd level spell that's written in portuguese, and after that a 2nd level spell in early germanic and after that one written in mainland spain spanish.
Now, you're trying to remember, each day, exactly which bits of which spell you got right the day before. All without having taken notes on how to do this. You're doing it from the foreign language recipe each day, deciphering 1 to 9 pages of very complex mathematical formulae and recipes.
And you think doing it once means you'll do it perfect every time from then on? Without taking any notes on the spell or translating it to your native language?
So... there are good rules on how to copy spells from a book.
But I don't want to copy the spells. I killed the wizard. His book is mine.
Do I have to still pay to copy the spells? Why? Why can't I just take "ownership" of his book or some such?
Yes, D&D 3.5 has a Spellcraft option for just that.
Mastering a Foreign Spellbook: Requires one week plus one day per spell within the spellbook and a successful Spellcraft check at DC 25 + level of the highest-level spell in the book. Failure means you cannot attempt to master it again until you gain 1 rank in Spellcraft.
StuffLet's see...
What we have here is, say for a 3rd level spell, 3 pages of highly complex mathematical formula, each bit of which must be done in exactly the right way, with exactly the right rituals, hand movements, and not a single bit of it wrong. That's the equivalent of say, trying to hand mix a radioactive dye and antidote combined, without any computers, and trying to get the ingredients exactly correct with no mistakes without advanced measurement devices to ensure the exact quantities.
Now, you're trying to follow this recipe in spanish when you speak english.
Oh, and it's not any version of spanish, it's south american spanish. On the next page is a a 3rd level spell that's written in portuguese, and after that a 2nd level spell in early germanic and after that one written in mainland spain spanish.
Now, you're trying to remember, each day, exactly which bits of which spell you got right the day before. All without having taken notes on how to do this. You're doing it from the foreign language recipe each day, deciphering 1 to 9 pages of very complex mathematical formulae and recipes.
And you think doing it once means you'll do it perfect every time from then on? Without taking any notes on the spell or translating it to your native language?
Yep. I do. Because I have an intelligence of 24 and I can snap my fingers and bend a hole in the fabric of reality and force a demon to come through and do my bidding.. Because I'm that bad ass.
But that level 1 "magic missle" spell in some other wizard's spell book is just too complicated. Everyday I check Bobs book instead of mine I have to study and re-remember how I did it.
If the character is that stupid then they aren't playing a wizard. Wizards have obscenely high Int scores. Maybe the bard can't do it, or the cleric, or the fighter.. but the Wizard? Thats his thing. Spells. Thats it. Saying he can't figure it out and remember how he did it yesterday is like literally saying the fighter picks up a new long sword and has to make a roll everyday to remember how to swing it.
Make your roll, learn your spell, and get on with life.
-S
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
It's an easier Spellcraft check to prepare the spell from a borrowed spellbook than it was to decipher it. So basically, the only way your wizard is too dumb to pull it off without a take 10 (or even a "take 1" at high levels) is if they didn't spend many ranks on Spellcraft...i.e. don't understand magical theory very well.
That seems fine to me.
Don't forget Wizards have to know and have had written the spell down in their own books before being able to prepare it from another's book. (Which is an awesome rule, prevents Wizards from stealing tons of spellbooks and just Taking 10 on their Spellcraft DCs to prep the spells with ease) Dunno if that was pointed out yet.
Yep. I do. Because I have an intelligence of 24 and I can snap my fingers and bend a hole in the fabric of reality and force a demon to come through and do my bidding.. Because I'm that bad ass.But that level 1 "magic missle" spell in some other wizard's spell book is just too complicated. Everyday I check Bobs book instead of mine I have to study and re-remember how I did it.
If the character is that stupid then they aren't playing a wizard. Wizards have obscenely high Int scores. Maybe the bard can't do it, or the cleric, or the fighter.. but the Wizard? Thats his thing. Spells. Thats it. Saying he can't figure it out and remember how he did it yesterday is like...
Wow,
Not much to say to that. Rules can pretty much go out the window. "Magic R Magic, rar, go away" seems to be the idea of the day. Basically, I think you'd be better off at this point to simply do away with the magic system and let any wizard cast any spell he wants whenever he wants. One of the big limitations on Wizards is them having to work hard to get the spells in the first place. It's the games way of putting a break on their power. The loss of a spellbook is supposed to be a weakness of the class.You are basically of the opinion it seems that any limitations built into the system, which I've already pointed out are reasonable, are garbage. I suggest you simply do away with spellbooks entirely then, and have fun in your game.
"Doh, I forgot your cipher from yesterday" repeated everyday for the rest of your life.. is absolutely stupid. If the DC is low enough to take 10 and auto pass then the book should just be your book now and you go on with life.The fighter doesn't have to make a check to learn that +3 sword thats better than his +2 sword. He just picks it up and keeps moving.
-S
Actually... he does. You can't tell if a sword is +1 or +3 or flaming or cursed from a first glance. Hell, you can't even tell if it's flaming unless you picked it and happened to mumble the command word.
You have to make a spellcraft check to identify magical properties. Harder checks to identify command words and the like.
Now, the sword might look a little fancy that will clue him in that there's something special about the sword... but you won't know what it does until you study it in detail or be fortunate enough that everything about it more or less presents itself when you start swinging it.
Yep. I do. Because I have an intelligence of 24 and I can snap my fingers and bend a hole in the fabric of reality and force a demon to come through and do my bidding.. Because I'm that bad ass.But that level 1 "magic missle" spell in some other wizard's spell book is just too complicated. Everyday I check Bobs book instead of mine I have to study and re-remember how I did it.
If the character is that stupid then they aren't playing a wizard. Wizards have obscenely high Int scores. Maybe the bard can't do it, or the cleric, or the fighter.. but the Wizard? Thats his thing. Spells. Thats it. Saying he can't figure it out and remember how he did it yesterday is like...
Wow,
Not much to say to that. Rules can pretty much go out the window. "Magic R Magic, rar, go away" seems to be the idea of the day. Basically, I think you'd be better off at this point to simply do away with the magic system and let any wizard cast any spell he wants whenever he wants. One of the big limitations on Wizards is them having to work hard to get the spells in the first place. It's the games way of putting a break on their power. The loss of a spellbook is supposed to be a weakness of the class.You are basically of the opinion it seems that any limitations built into the system, which I've already pointed out are reasonable, are garbage. I suggest you simply do away with spellbooks entirely then, and have fun in your game.
Not at all. You and I just disagree about what is reasonable.
I see the current rule as reasonable as requiring melee to make a roll everyday when they get new armor or new weapons.
Its even worse when you consider that taking 10 means you'll never, ever fail the check past level 2 or 3. The check becomes literally meaningless unless the DM houserules out the ability to take 10 on it.. and then its just a penalty.
You've pointed out why you think they are reasonable restrictions.. I've pointed out why I disagree. I never said throw out the whole magic system or anything- just this silly rule about a wizard never being able to co-opt a captured spellbook into his library.
By RAW no matter how much he studies it or how long he reads it- he can literally spend 8 hours a day for the next 10 years of game time reading that spell book and still never be smart enough to figure out the "special code" enough to not have to figure it out again brand new from scratch the next day.
That makes no sense.
And true Sekret but if he picks up a +1 sword and doesn't figure out its +1.. its still +1, and it still swings, and he can still use it, and .. well nothing really changes about the sword except for his ignorance. He -never- wakes up and looks at his longsword and says.. hmm *rolls dice* Nope.. no clue how that works. guess I have to use my old longsword.
He always knows how to grab the hilt, and swing it, and be as effective with it as he is any other longsword. (obviously- if it has some quality that requires him to activate he has to know about it to do it but the sword doesn't stop being a sword if he can't activate flaming or whatnot.. its just not quite as effective as it would be if he had the knowledge).
I do not think it should be "never make a check". But it should be one check- not one check a day for the rest of your natural life because you are just too stupid to remember the dude's cipher from day to day.
-S
I do not think it should be "never make a check". But it should be one check- not one check a day for the rest of your natural life because you are just too stupid to remember the dude's cipher from day to day.
is that one check for the whole book? for each individual spell?
As to the taking 10 rule?We have a house rule that covers that.
You get xp for preforming skills (successful or not) granted it is not much (10/20) but you only get that benefit if you actually throw the dice. Take a ten or a twenty and you forfeit that xp (and with our games 10 points can mean the difference between being level 3 and level 4).
Okay, the INTENT of the rule is probably something like weird magic writing requires read magic to understand at all, so ~~magically~~ it isn't about learning a cipher but rather just being magic enough to decipher it. We are dealing with some old-school concepts here (right D.M.?). It's not supposed to make sense.
PRACTICALLY, though, the rule is crufty and gets in the way. If you're a GM, you should consider waiving this for your players if you don't like it. If you're a player, and your GM won't waive it — suck it up. Put ranks in spellcraft, and see how many times your GM will actually force you to roll before they get bored and decide to waive it.
Let us all hope that this (and many other aspects of the magic chapter including the entire role of read magic and "magical writing") goes on the cutting room floor in the far-flung future 2nd edition of Pathfinder. I cannot help but express my enmity for a rule that adds such fiddly non-sense to the high level game whilst imparting no game balance or worthwhile flavor whatsoever. It should either have a damn good reason for existing or be cast to the vultures.
You get xp for preforming skills (successful or not) granted it is not much (10/20) but you only get that benefit if you actually throw the dice. Take a ten or a twenty and you forfeit that xp (and with our games 10 points can mean the difference between being level 3 and level 4).
This is an amusing thought, thank you.
This is an amusing thought, thank you.
You get xp for preforming skills (successful or not) granted it is not much (10/20) but you only get that benefit if you actually throw the dice. Take a ten or a twenty and you forfeit that xp (and with our games 10 points can mean the difference between being level 3 and level 4).
My group tends to kit-bash ideas and concepts from other systems (looking for the fabled "perfect" game engine). And you are welcome.
|
I do not think it should be "never make a check". But it should be one check- not one check a day for the rest of your natural life because you are just too stupid to remember the dude's cipher from day to day.is that one check for the whole book? for each individual spell?
As to the taking 10 rule?
We have a house rule that covers that.
You get xp for preforming skills (successful or not) granted it is not much (10/20) but you only get that benefit if you actually throw the dice. Take a ten or a twenty and you forfeit that xp (and with our games 10 points can mean the difference between being level 3 and level 4).
How do you track that? Does the GM award XP on the fly, ie throw the dice get your XP, or does he tally behind his screen "1 skill check for Joe the Smasher, 2 for Fizban... etc"
Do all skill checks count? or only skill checks for the purposes of advancing the plot. (IE do if you have a rogue who insists on sneaking everywhere, even when it is inappropriate, or down right silly, do they still get XP?)
I do not think it should be "never make a check". But it should be one check- not one check a day for the rest of your natural life because you are just too stupid to remember the dude's cipher from day to day.is that one check for the whole book? for each individual spell?
As to the taking 10 rule?
We have a house rule that covers that.
You get xp for preforming skills (successful or not) granted it is not much (10/20) but you only get that benefit if you actually throw the dice. Take a ten or a twenty and you forfeit that xp (and with our games 10 points can mean the difference between being level 3 and level 4).How do you track that? Does the GM award XP on the fly, ie throw the dice get your XP, or does he tally behind his screen "1 skill check for Joe the Smasher, 2 for Fizban... etc"
Do all skill checks count? or only skill checks for the purposes of advancing the plot. (IE do if you have a rogue who insists on sneaking everywhere, even when it is inappropriate, or down right silly, do they still get XP?)
GM uses a check sheet. Each of us uses a different method. I for example use tic marks set beside each name.
And it only applies for "key" skill use. Using the skill to just be using the skill is what taking 10 and 20 is all about in our games.There is no back flipping to 3rd level in our games.
You get XP for overcoming obstacles. Doesn't matter if you use your wit, skills, or your weapon. If you don't overcome an obstacle of some kind, you likely aren't getting any XP.
Does the skill monkey eventually pull ahead of the pack?
I mean- you make a knowledge check for every monster.. but once you have found a trap (by skill use or by .. tripping it) i'd imagine the search/trapfinder person's skill use is going to go WAY up.. and all of it is "key skill use".
Searching a dungeon hallway for traps, the door for traps/locks, picking said lock or disarming said trap, etc. its all "key use".
-S
The first time you encounter a Haunt, you gain some XP.
As a DM I would not let a character move into a haunted house to gain a constant source of XP.
If the character gets to the point where they can read the cursive in a spellbook by taking 10, there is no point in rolling every time or gaining XP. Don't try to tell me a character can't take ten because a Hound of Tindalos will attack them in 10 years, because that is another extreme.
Most arguments are like a bridge over a river of lava. You could turn right and fall in the lava, or turn left and fall in the lava, but I will always go straight across the bridge. :)
Does the skill monkey eventually pull ahead of the pack?
I mean- you make a knowledge check for every monster.. but once you have found a trap (by skill use or by .. tripping it) i'd imagine the search/trapfinder person's skill use is going to go WAY up.. and all of it is "key skill use".
Searching a dungeon hallway for traps, the door for traps/locks, picking said lock or disarming said trap, etc. its all "key use".
-S
Dunno we dont do dungeon crawls...so the situation has never come up. But I would say that the "possibility" does exist. But that is why the GM not the player makes the decision as to what is "key" use. To curtail such abuses.