A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Once a spell from another spellcaster's book is deciphered, the reader must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level) to prepare the spell. If the check succeeds, the wizard can prepare the spell. He must repeat the check to prepare the spell again, no matter how many times he has prepared it before. If the check fails, he cannot try to prepare the spell from the same source again until the next day. However, as explained above, he does not need to repeat a check to decipher the writing.
-----------------------
Surely the bolded section above is a mistake. What is the point of using another person's spellbook if you already have the spells available to yourself? As written, there is no way to use a captured spellbook without going through the painstaking process of copying everything into your own book, which is just silly!
|
It provides a method for preparing spells if your own spellbook is lost.
There's an assumption that no two mages cast spells exactly the same way so you have to copy the spell or somehow write it into your own spellbook to have your own understanding of that spell. If you're preparing it from someone else's spellbook, you're sorta doing that translation on the fly but, since you understand the spell in your own way, you can... probably... hence the roll.
If you haven't written the spell into your own spellbook at least once, you simply lack the frame of reference to prepare the spell from the borrowed spellbook.
I really can't back this up with citations from the rules, though. Its just the impression I've gotten and the conclusions I've drawn while considering the same rules you're asking about.
Correct, this is what you do when you book has been lost, stolen, or whatever. You can try and prepare spells from other peoples spell books until you either get your book back... or buy a new blank book and start writing new spells into it.
Slightly off the topic intent, but can a wizard scribe a spell from another's spellbook into their own?
Yeah. When ever I play with another caster we make a point to never learn the same two spells at level. Generally, in game we play it off as two competing mage each trying to figure out a spell that will out do the others.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Surely the bolded section above is a mistake. What is the point of using another person's spellbook if you already have the spells available to yourself?
The party has two Wizards.
Both have Magic Missile.One Wizard loses his Spellbook.
Until he buys a new Spellbook, he may borrow the other Wizard's book to prepare the spell.
Once he buys a new book and copies a new copy into his new Spellbook, he no longer needs to borrow.
Slightly off the topic intent, but can a wizard scribe a spell from another's spellbook into their own?Yes. Spell craft roll to learn the spell and maybe another roll. But you can do it.
No you can't. And why would you?
If it's in your spellbook, you don't need to scribe it into your spellbook again and if you've lost your spellbook, you can't prepare it at all BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A SPELLBOOK!
The rule is clearly ridiculous as written.
Surely the bolded section above is a mistake. What is the point of using another person's spellbook if you already have the spells available to yourself?The party has two Wizards.
Both have Magic Missile.
One Wizard loses his Spellbook.
Until he buys a new Spellbook, he may borrow the other Wizard's book to prepare the spell.Once he buys a new book and copies a new copy into his new Spellbook, he no longer needs to borrow.
Except as written it doesn't work that way.
V3.5 Forgotten Realms' method of handling it was far more elegant: You don't need to have the spell in your spellbook, but you DO need to make a check every time you prepare from a foreign book due to the unfamiliar nature of it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Ravingdork - the disconnect you seem to have is that whether you've lost your spellbook or not, you've still recorded the spells you know in that book. So you can prepare them from another book, using the borrowed spellbook rules.
You could do that even if your spellbook was destroyed, because those spells were still recorded in your book.
Ravingdork - the disconnect you seem to have is that whether you've lost your spellbook or not, you've still recorded the spells you know in that book. So you can prepare them from another book, using the borrowed spellbook rules.
You could do that even if your spellbook was destroyed, because those spells were still recorded in your book.
So now I have to keep two list of spells known? One for any spell I've ever kept in my spellbooks, and another for what I currently have in my spellbook?
I seriously doubt that was the intent of the designers.
Short of taking Spell Mastery, if you don't have a spellbook, you don't have spells (except read magic). It's a simple concept.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
So now I have to keep two list of spells known? One for any spell I've ever kept in my spellbooks, and another for what I currently have in my spellbook?
I seriously doubt that was the intent of the designers.
Short of taking Spell Mastery, if you don't have a spellbook, you don't have spells (except read magic). It's a simple concept.
Yes, obviously you need a list of every spell you've added to your spellbooks. You also should track which of your spellbooks they are in, if you're reasonably high level and don't have a blessed book. In the improbable event that you lose one or more spellbooks, that master list tells you what spells you are able to prepare from other sources until you've rebuilt your spellbook. Page 219, down near the bottom, describes how you go through that process, by the way. With your way of playing (lose the book, lose all your spells) that section winds up making very little sense.
Not actually all that difficult to keep track. I played a wizard for 8 years straight starting with day 1 that 3.0 came out, and I had this information for all his spellbooks. Every once in a while had to prepare from an alternate source.
I'm really pretty sure I know designer intent on this, especially since the rules are actually quite thorough.
Page 219, down near the bottom, describes how you go through that process, by the way. With your way of playing (lose the book, lose all your spells) that section winds up making very little sense.
Actually, if you remove the bolded portion in the OP, the section you mention would very much still make sense. In fact, it would make MORE sense.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Actually, if you remove the bolded portion in the OP, the section you mention would very much still make sense. In fact, it would make MORE sense.
I'm having a lot of trouble putting myself into your head, and figuring out where the rules are losing you.
The rules are simple:
To prepare a spell, you must have previously written it in your spellbook.
So, if you capture a spellbook with a spell you don't yet know, you can't prepare it until you've written it your own book.
If you lose or don't have your book, you can prepare those spells you recorded in your own book from another book.
If you want to remake your own book, you have three options:
1) record spells you already have prepared
2) prepare from a book that's not yours, then record
3) copy from another book using the normal rules
I wonder if the "already knows and has recorded" is throwing you because it's really just repeating itself. You don't actually "know" a spell until you've recorded it in your book. The rules just state it that way so people don't think they can prepare a spell before they've written it in their own book.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Russ Taylor: I understand the rules (and your interpretation) perfectly fine. I just disagree with your interpretation and believe the bolded text to be an error.
Not that the RAW does not say "previously written into a spellbook," as you like to say, but rather they say "recorded in his own spellbook."
The latter sure sounds more like its speaking in the present tense rather than the past tense.
If your spellbook gets destroyed, then there is nothing recorded in it. Therefore, you cannot prepare a spell from a borrowed spell book, per RAW.
I know it sounds ridiculous. That's why I think it an error.
Surely the bolded section above is a mistake. What is the point of using another person's spellbook if you already have the spells available to yourself? As written, there is no way to use a captured spellbook without going through the painstaking process of copying everything into your own book, which is just silly!
Well, I was perfectly happy until I read this...
I have always used that you could prepare spells from a spell book you found, if you made the check (I not the take 10 kind of guy in many situations).
I guess I'll just stick to what I have been doing, eventhough I have to call it a houserule now.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Hands Ravingdork Occam's razor.
Case 1:
1) the rule is in error
2) it has been in error since 3.0
3) no one's noticed this and had a problem with it in that time
or
Case 2:
1) you're reading too much into the tense
Turns out case 2 makes a lot less assumptions, and is the reasonable hypothesis to eliminate.
See also an old point I've made before: writing rules to eliminate all confusion (1) leads to huge, bloated rulebooks, (2) creates more confusion anyhow, since the more words, the more potential for creative reading.
Russ Taylor: I understand the rules (and your interpretation) perfectly fine. I just disagree with your interpretation and believe the bolded text to be an error.
Not that the RAW does not say "previously written into a spellbook," as you like to say, but rather they say "recorded in his own spellbook."
The latter sure sounds more like its speaking in the present tense rather than the past tense.
If your spellbook gets destroyed, then there is nothing recorded in it. Therefore, you cannot prepare a spell from a borrowed spell book, per RAW.
I know it sounds ridiculous. That's why I think it an error.
'and has recorded in his own spellbook' is past tense. If it was supposed to be present tense, it would read 'and is recorded in his own spellbook'.
Besides, get your head wrapped around the fact that you recorded something in your spellbook. Then it was stolen from you. Has that book stopped being 'your spellbook'? No it hasn't, because the spells were written in the book in your method of casting spells. Anyone that picks it up treats it as someone elses spellbook, not theirs, even if they stole it from you.
So it has been recorded in your spellbook, and is currently recorded in your spell book. Even if the spell book was destroyed, the spell has been recorded in it (prior to it's destruction).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Except as written it doesn't work that way.
borrowed spellbook ... Once ... deciphered, the reader must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level) to prepare the spell.
Unless I didn't make myself clear in my post, it does work that way and your first post could be used as proof of how it works.
keep two list of spells known?
I seriously doubt that was the intent of the designers.
Only one spells know is required to be tracked. The spells you have every put in a spell book of yours. Whether or not you have that book available to memorize isn't relevant. So yes I think that is the intent, and that was the 3.5 intent as they (WotC) commented on it several times.
If your spellbook gets destroyed, then there is nothing recorded in it. Therefore, you cannot prepare a spell from a borrowed spell book, per RAW.
First of all, your assuming the only situation in which you would be without your spellbook would be one in which that spellbook was destroyed. What if it's stolen?
Second, your grasp of semantics is not nearly as good as you would like to think. Lets parse this sentence, shall we?
"A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook"
Ok, here we go:
"A wizard" this would be the PC, or you
"can use a borrowed spellbook" this means the aforementioned wizard can use a spellbook not his own
"to prepare spells he already knows" i.e. spells picked up through leveling, or those transcribed from another book/scroll and succeeded at the appropriate spellcraft roll to learn
"and has recorded" Note the past tense. This means that at a chronological point previous to the time in question, i.e. yesterday, two weeks ago, St. Stivens day 4 years ago, at some point in the past, if you will
"in his own spellbook" his own, in this case refers to the player character, and implies ownership.
So, final analysis. If your wizard, at some point in the past owned a spellbook, and, at some point in the past transcribed spells into it, those spells that that wizard has previously transcribed into said spellbook (that that wizard owns) can be prepared from another spellbook (owned by a different entity) with a spellcraft check.
I just thought of something. Once you've ganked the wizard, now it's your spellbook. So if you're not borrowing it, you actually grabbed it, I don't see any difference here than purchasing another 5 gp spellbook; unless people want to argue that only the spellbook that you begin play with is your spellbook.
Anyone got anything that dismisses this thought?
Further evidence that the rule is borked as written.
...
(And yes, I was wrong about the tense, just read it too fast is all.)
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured(...)
-----------------------
Surely the bolded section above is a mistake. What is the point of using another person's spellbook if you already have the spells available to yourself? As written, there is no way to use a captured spellbook without going through the painstaking process of copying everything into your own book, which is just silly!
I don't think the rules are broken, but their use might be limited to the point of silliness.
Since 3rd edition, it has been more or less assumed that a wizard travels with all of its spells in the same spellbook. And why wouldn't they? Spellbook are rather trivial items since 3ed; not the rare and priceless treasures they were fluffed about in previous editions. Spellbooks are cheap enough and spells take relatively little space so very few wizards PCs travel with only a portion of their spells nowadays.
BUT, if you want to kick it old school, your main spellbook remains nice and secure in your wizard's tower. Why, it might get stolen or damaged if you carry it along! Besides, the thing is like two feet tall and weights a ton (at least it feels like it when you have a STR of 8). Therefore, you set out with you TRAVEL spellbook, a much smaller version of your full library in which only a fraction of your known spells fit in. Of course, you carry a few scrolls for the odd times when secret page comes handy, but otherwise you rely on the few spells you could fit in your traveling book.
AND, so it happens that this town has a wizard college and they allow you (for a price off course) to consult their spell library. What d'you know! You're only a skill check away from preparing secret page and save a scroll!
--------------------------
In other words, I agree that the RAW are a bit obsolete and could use some revamping. Preparing a spell you do not already know or possess in your spellbook would be handy...
'findel
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
now it's your spellbook ... argue that only the spellbook that you begin play with is your spellbook.Further evidence that the rule is borked as written.
Other than it isn't your writing in your book.
So your theory suggest the following is true:
1) Found a lost manuscript from a famous author.
2) It is now my manuscript.
3) I take it to a publisher and tell him it is my writing.
4) The real author sues me after publish.
5) A handwriting expert at trial says the writing is...
You are suggesting the expert will say:
"My handwriting"
I suggest he will say:
"from the real author of the book"
|
Slightly off the topic intent, but can a wizard scribe a spell from another's spellbook into their own?Yes. Spell craft roll to learn the spell and maybe another roll. But you can do it.No you can't. And why would you?
Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll: 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). 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). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
Directly from the PRD. Yes you can copy from someone else's book to yours. You would do it so you have the spell in your book and can prepare it any time you like.
If I spend a couple decades writing in "my" diary then gift it to someone or it gets stolen, is it still mine? Or is it someone else's diary?
I'd have to rule that a diary being a highly personal book remains "mine" no matter who has physical or legal ownership of it. Similarly my autobiography is mine no matter to whom I had the sheets of paper I've written it on.
Magical writings such as spellbooks are the same; they're highly personal works of art. Sure, another caster can decypher my writings given time, and he/she can write down their understanding in their spellbook, but that requires concentration and effort. Not what you want when you're already spending an hour memorizing your own writings every morning.
I think the RAW is just fine. It allows you to improvise with a friendly mage's book if you're unexpectedly without yours. It doesn't allow you to simply grab an enemy caster's book and start using it, automatically adding everything in it into your repertoire.
Final comment for RD, it's no arduous hardship to keep track of what spells you have in your book... you're already doing that. If your book gets stolen, just start an inventory of your new book, showing only the spells you've successfully transcribed.
Worth it to read the rules on inscribing spells from borrowed spell books, especially for paying NPCs for the service of letting you copy from their books to get new spells.
Here's a better example Anguish.
I am a cryptographer.
I write my diary in a cypher that I make up. It's my cypher, there are many in the world like it, but this one is mine.
My diary is stolen.
The thief can't read my cypher. He sells it to a cryptographer. The cryptographer sets about breaking my cypher. When he does, he finds valuable information on cryptography in it.
He copies my notes on cryptography to his own diary, using his own cypher, which is different from mine. There are many in the world like it, but that one is his.
Directly from the PRD. Yes you can copy from someone else's book to yours. You would do it so you have the spell in your book and can prepare it any time you like.
Unless it's not in your spellbook, in which case you can't scribe it into your own. If it IS in your spellbook, why would you scribe it into your spellbook again? BORKED! Did you not read my entire post? Or are you just choosing to ignore it?
Worth it to read the rules on inscribing spells from borrowed spell books, especially for paying NPCs for the service of letting you copy from their books to get new spells.
Seems like a contradiction of rules to me. Like I said: BORKED!
|
|
Unless it's not in your spellbook, in which case you can't scribe it into your own. If it IS in your spellbook, why would you scribe it into your spellbook again? BORKED! Did you not read my entire post? Or are you just choosing to ignore it?Directly from the PRD. Yes you can copy from someone else's book to yours. You would do it so you have the spell in your book and can prepare it any time you like.
Like Berik said I am not responding to prepping spells but learning new ones and then scribing them into your book. It is easy to do.
The preparing from a borrowed book part is a little screwy but I home ruled that away and called it a day. In any case the rule as written is not borked it just reflects a different idea about spell memorization and someone else's books.
Seems like a contradiction of rules to me. Like I said: BORKED!
I don't think its contradictory either.
You can prepare a spell you have penned in your own spellbook (duh!)
Should you, for a reason or another, not have your spellbook at hand, you can prepare a spell penned by somebody else. This requires a check because every arcane caster uses the "same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in his own way". This "borrowed spellbook" is only a surrogate, it does not allow you to expand your repertoire of spells. Whether it should or not is another question.
You can add a spell from somebody else's spellbook in your own. Note that nowhere does it say that it allows you to prepare the spell.
Similarly, you can inscribe a spell you have prepared in your spellbook, but you don't have to have the spelled prepared in order to inscribe it.
If you don't have the spell prepared, you need to understand the spell in order to copy it. This takes 1 hour and a successful check (in addition to the initial decipher check). Again, understanding a spell does not allow you to prepare it until it has successfully been inscribed in your spellbook. Only THEN can the new spell be prepared.
As to familiarizing with a foreign spellbook, I can't seem to find it anywhere neither in 3.5 SRD nor in Pathfider PRD, bu I seem to recall that with a DC 20 Spellcraft check (and probably a week of study), you could effectively acquire a captured spellbook and prepare all spells from it as if it was penned by you. Again, no quick and dirty preparation from someone else's spellbook.
'findel
Unless it's not in your spellbook, in which case you can't scribe it into your own. If it IS in your spellbook, why would you scribe it into your spellbook again? BORKED!Directly from the PRD. Yes you can copy from someone else's book to yours. You would do it so you have the spell in your book and can prepare it any time you like.
You're talking about two different concepts, here.
First there is memorizing spells, or prepairing the spells you plan on castin for the day. The rules assume you are doing this from a spellbook the wizard in question owns, in which said wizard has inscribed spells himself, paying the requisite 50gp per page.
If a wizard is prepairing spells for the day from a spellbook that a different wizard has inscribed spells into, it requires him to have, at some point, inscribed said spell into a spellbook (in other words, it must be a spell that wizard has already learned), and make a spellcraft check to decipher the magical writings of a caster other than himself.
The second rule assumes the wizard has a spellbook in which to inscribe his spells, and is attempting to learn the spell (I.e. add to his spells known, as distinct from his spells memorized at the begining of the day). This requires a spellcraft check to properly transcribe the spell, and 50gp per page spent in materials over and above whatever you may have paid the owner of said book for the priveledge of learning the spell.
The rules make perfect sense, you just need to realize that your using the spellcraft skill for two different applications (one to prepare for the day, one to add to spells known.
What exactly is "borked" about that?
Directly from the PRD. Yes you can copy from someone else's book to yours. You would do it so you have the spell in your book and can prepare it any time you like.
Unless it's not in your spellbook, in which case you can't scribe it into your own. If it IS in your spellbook, why would you scribe it into your spellbook again? BORKED! Did you not read my entire post? Or are you just choosing to ignore it?
Where does it ever say that a spell has to already be in your spellbook in order for you to be able to transcribe* it from another source?
*AKA learn, since which spells a wizard is able to prepare for the day is limited only by the contents of his spellbook.
What exactly is "borked" about that?It means Raving believes the rules are broken and his brand of fix is what is needed.
Yeah, I get what the word means, I was more wondering what the justification is. All I'm seeing, really, is "blah blah blah, I don't understand the rules, therefore they're stupid"
Reading another wizards spellbook is like borrowing someone elses notes for your chemistry class... the info is all there but it uses their own shorthand so you need to figure out what they mean.
Reading another wizards spellbook is like borrowing someone elses notes for your chemistry class... the info is all there but it uses their own shorthand so you need to figure out what they mean.
Not a bad analogy. Cause if you missed that day and haven't read the section, his notes aren't going to make much sense until you learned the material.
...The rules assume you are doing this from a spellbook the wizard in question owns, in which said wizard has inscribed spells himself, paying the requisite 50gp per page...
Just a note: the cost isn't 50gp per page anymore, it follows the table of costs under the 'Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook' section.
Not a bad analogy. Cause if you missed that day and haven't read the section, his notes aren't going to make much sense until you learned the material.Reading another wizards spellbook is like borrowing someone elses notes for your chemistry class... the info is all there but it uses their own shorthand so you need to figure out what they mean.
Agreed. Not the best one to discuss rules like this, but I'm reading the Wizard Spells and Borrowed Spellbooks section of the Core Rulebook, Page 219, works upon the assumption that a Fireball by any other name is a fireball.
Continuing the example, there may be a dozen different routes to creating the Fireball spell, either by calling forth the tiniest sliver of power from the Elemental Plane of Fire or summoning the essence of a Red Dragon to even using magical ether to increase the chemical reaction of the spell components beyond their normal limits. But at the end of the day, Magic, however vast and seemingly limitless it is, still falls under some form of order and thus a Fireball Spell in a Wizard's Spellbook can be understood and used by another Wizard if they have a deep enough understanding of these 'rules'.
On to the part where the rules mention 'has recorded in his own spellbook'. These are spells the Wizard knows, has probably used several times already and understands the basic concept of the spell. This means that unlike the 'Unknown' Spells in that Rival Wizard's Spellbook, the known spells are formula that the PC (or NPC) Wizard can understand with a bit of logic and training applied. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping the Wizard from using the Spellcraft Check system to 'decipher' these Unknown Spells and scribe them down on a Scroll or a Spare Spellbook for later use and/or scribing back into his new/recovered Spellbook, but I see the text in this section as a none-too-subtle hunt for the PC (or NPC) Wizard to get off their tush and grab a new Spellbook while they hunt down the thieves of their original book(s).
Slight tangent there, but the writing of a New/Replacement/Backup copy of a Wizard's Spellbook is mostly a time-grind, than any real hit to the Wizard's Hip-Pocket. Most successful Wizards will have 'traveling' Spellbooks, containing their spells for most everyday use, while they will have potent 'Grimoires' back home, heavily warded and containing their most secure (and dangerous) spells behind several layers of protection.
And while it is a pity, a Wizard would benefit from a High Linquistics skill to be able to write down their spell formulas in a personal cypher designed to frustrate would-be thieves, adding layers of protection to the book without resorting to magic that could potentially destroy the tome.
*crossposted*
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 some people 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'?
Just a note: the cost isn't 50gp per page anymore, it follows the table of costs under the 'Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook' section.
Good call, forgot about that. Haven't played a PF wizard yet, so I haven't had to reread the rules a million times yet [edit] like I have for 3.5.
Rereading that I realized it sounded a little sarcastic, which was not my intention.
I would like to point out that it's a SpellCRAFT check, not a spell COMPREHENSION check.
What you are doing is trying to cast a spell like someone else, both in their ways of thinking and physical motions, and it is a way that is NOT YOURS. This is akin to trying to move, act, talk, and react like someone else...ask an actor how difficult that can be. Every spell has its scribers touch stamped on it, and that person is not you.
When you recopy it, you 'reorder' the spell into something you can understand easily. You don't copy it 'exactly'...you make it YOUR SPELL, not theirs, and so no spellcraft check needed after the copying.
==Aelryinth
The entire concept of how D&D handles spells is broken IMO. Why would you roll a spellcraft check to "learn" a spell which you must "memorize" at the start of every day, only to forget it the second you cast it? And if you lost your spell book and had to start over, [WHY] should you be able to transpose your old spells into a new book if you have never truly "memorized" them? What is the spellcraft check for when learning new spells? Useless... Play with spell points instead. The D&D magic system is terrible.
The entire concept of how D&D handles spells is broken IMO. Why would you roll a spellcraft check to "learn" a spell which you must "memorize" at the start of every day, only to forget it the second you cast it? And if you lost your spell book and had to start over, [WHY] should you be able to transpose your old spells into a new book if you have never truly "memorized" them? What is the spellcraft check for when learning new spells? Useless... Play with spell points instead. The D&D magic system is terrible.
Way to go radically off-topic to rant about a pet peeve of yours.
I'd rebut you, but, see off-topic. Short version: you're railing against a strawman version of the D&D magic system that you perhaps even believe is the actual system, but isn't.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The entire concept of how D&D handles spells is broken IMO. Why would you roll a spellcraft check to "learn" a spell which you must "memorize" at the start of every day, only to forget it the second you cast it? And if you lost your spell book and had to start over, [WHY] should you be able to transpose your old spells into a new book if you have never truly "memorized" them? What is the spellcraft check for when learning new spells? Useless... Play with spell points instead. The D&D magic system is terrible.
Always worked fine for me :/
Why would you roll a spellcraft check to "learn" a spell which you must "memorize" at the start of every day, only to forget it the second you cast it?
Please point out a single reference to memorizing spells in D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, or Pathfinder.
Go on, I've got time.
The twentieth century called, it wants its rant back.
|
Umm as lasarx said...why is this even remotely an issue? Did anyone bother to read what read magic says? You cast it, read the looted spellbook and you can prepare from that spell book all you want now. You don't even have to cast read magic each time anymore. And as you can ALWAY prepare read magic, even with no spellbook and cantrips are unlimited, the rule that RD seems to be getting bent out of shape over is pretty much irrelivant.