To learn, prepare, or cast a spell a wizard must...
Spellcraft
... Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0 level spells take 30 minutes).
A wizard may know any number of spells. He must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time by getting 8 hours of sleep and spending 1 hour studying his spellbook.
What does learning a spell do for a wizard? Not much as far as I can tell, because just learning a spell doesn't mean you can cast it, you have to have it in your spellbook first, and there are some very strict rules and DC's for copying other spells into your book. Am I missing something obvious, or is this just a case of fluff that doesn't really matter to the mechanics of preparation and casting?
"Learn" means "add to your spellbook."
Without learning it you can't put it in your spell book, and you can't cast it.
If you haven't 'learned' it then you don't know it and you can't put it in your head or book.
Okay, after looking deeper into the mechanics I think I understand this. Essentially a wizard has to do A LOT to get a new spell into his book, unless it's one of those two free ones that come at a level up. First the wizard has to decipher the magical writing at a Spellcraft DC of 20 + the spell level, that's just to understand the other caster's "shorthand." (Unless he has read magic or the other caster is present) If that check fails the wizard has to wait a day to try and decipher the arcane writing again. Once he/she gets a successful check, then the wizard has to study the spell for an hour and make another Spellcraft DC of 15 + the spell level. If that Spellcraft check is successful they've "learned" the spell and can copy it into their book. Copying it though requires one hour per spell level with 1/2 hour for cantrips. It also costs money to scribe the spell which is dependent on level.
I think my problem with this came in that their seems to be a rather large discrepancy between the Spellcraft language on page 106 of the Core Rulebook, and the Arcane Spells language on 218 and 219.
Spellcraft
... Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0 level spells take 30 minutes).
However...
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.
Seems to me that "1 hour" should read "1 hour per spell level or 1/2 hour for cantrips. Because that is the part of the process where he is "learning" the spell. Am I wrong?
If you have never seen the spell before it is:
1 spellcraft to understand the short hand.
1 spellcraft to learn the spell +1 hour
Copy the spell at 1 hour per spell level and gold cost (1/2 hour for a cantrip with it still taking a full page).
If you have never seen the spell before it is:
1 spellcraft to understand the short hand.
1 spellcraft to learn the spell +1 hour
Copy the spell at 1 hour per spell level and gold cost (1/2 hour for a cantrip with it still taking a full page).
I don't get that from any of the language. The "copying" section in the back of the book only says "1 hour" not Spellcraft check to learn plus one hour. It does say:
Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
Time: The process takes 1 hour per spell level. Cantrips (0 levels spells) take 30 minutes to record.
But that is copying the spell, not learning it. I still see a discrepancy between those two parts of the book.
But that is copying the spell, not learning it. I still see a discrepancy between those two parts of the book.
So you are copying something in someone else's short hand that you don't actually know?
Sorry nope you have to know it first then copy it over.
The rules for learning it (so you know it) are in the spellcraft section.
Once you know it (aka have learned it) -- which takes an hour -- then you can copy it over as per the copying rules.
Please note the line you yourself put in:
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
Seems to be a progression of "What spell is this?" to "How does it work?" to "How can I make it work for me?". Though the "How does it work?" stage seems to be useless beyond allowing you to copy it. If you wanted to micromanage a wizard's time, he could probably learn spells while traveling (an hour here, an hour there), saving him time at home when he gets down to copying.
Actually there are several things that allow you to simply use a spell you know for them: Spell mastery, and the magecraft amulet which allows you to spontaneously cast spells you know -- not spells in your spell book.
So if you had the magecraft amulet and you learned a spell from someone else's spell book, but didn't copy it over yet you could still cast it spontaneously if it was a spell in the school of magic you chose for the day.
Also since you 'know' the spell you can craft items of the spell too -- since all that is required is that you know the spell -- not that you have it in your spell book.
Alright, so the process seems complicated, but is actually very simple. A "learned" spell is one the wizard can prepare and cast. Without learning, the magical writings mean nothing. The most important concept here is actually not learning or copying, but "preparing". So, preparing is affected by these terms in the following ways:
- Preparing - Studying a spell from a wizard's own or a borrowed spellbook thereby placing it into one of his daily spell slots.
- Learning - learning a spell means that a wizard can later prepare it.
- Writing - Writing a spell in a spellbook is actually putting a prepared spell (thereby expending it) onto a page so it can be prepared again from that page indefinitely.
- Copying - The only process whereby a wizard can "write" a spell without preparing it.
Alright, so the hard and dirty of spell copying and preparation is that a wizard must prepare a spell into one his daily slots, and then expend that slot to write it in his spellbook. Copying is an exception to this simple system so that a wizard my write spells without having to utilize his prepared slots. Learning a spell is the first step that allows any of that to happen. The learning step is only separate from the deciphering step in that a wizard can decipher spells (and therefore view the spell's description) even though he may be unable to learn it due to class or school restrictions. That is all.
Yes, BUT, the spellcraft language says it takes one hour per level of the spell to "learn" it. Whereas in the Arcane Writing part of the book it says you need only study a spell that you've deciphered for 1 hour. There's the discrepancy, how long does it take to "learn" a spell.
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
That spellcraft DC is exactly the same as the one on the spellcraft chart on page 106. However, there it says:
Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (o level spells take 30 minutes).
And the chart has the exact same DC as the one listed in the Arcane Writings section. DC 15 + Spell level.
So... What I'm saying is there is a discrepancy in the book about how long it actually takes to learn a spell once it's deciphered. Under spellcraft it says 1 hour per level, under Arcane Writings it only says one hour. Which is it?
But that is copying the spell, not learning it. I still see a discrepancy between those two parts of the book.So you are copying something in someone else's short hand that you don't actually know?
Sorry nope you have to know it first then copy it over.
The rules for learning it (so you know it) are in the spellcraft section.
Once you know it (aka have learned it) -- which takes an hour -- then you can copy it over as per the copying rules.
Please note the line you yourself put in:
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
Abraham I wasn't disagreeing with you on the process, I was disagreeing on the time. You say spellcraft check + 1 hour. I get that, that's what it says in the back of the book, but as per my previous post, that's NOT what it says under Spellcraft. There it says "1 hour per spell level." I'm just trying to reconcile the two different times.
I think it's just a typo, they left off the 'per level' after 'It takes an hour'.
I think it's just a typo, they left off the 'per level' after 'It takes an hour'.
That's what I thought, and mentioned in one of my previous posts, but that's a pretty big typo. That takes learning three third level spells from nine hours to just three... So I'm wondering if that is errata'd somewhere or if maybe it should be FAQ'd?
I think it's just a typo, they left off the 'per level' after 'It takes an hour'.That's what I thought, and mentioned in one of my previous posts, but that's a pretty big typo. That takes learning three third level spells from nine hours to just three... So I'm wondering if that is errata'd somewhere or if maybe it should be FAQ'd?
Ok,
I think I have read through it again, and now understand it. Let me try my interpretation...Learning the spell : Learning a spell is handled under Spellcraft, and it's one level per hour of the spell to learn it. Once learned, you know the spell from then on. That is, you don't ever have to relearn it.
Copying the spell : Copying a spell from one book to another is different. The section on copying a spell, where it says one hour, says nothing about learning the spell, only copying it. It talks about deciphering the other wizard's script so you can copy it, and then making a spellcraft check to prepare it so you can copy it.
So....
My interpretation after having reread the two parts :
You cannot prepare a spell you have not learned. So, the section on copying spells is assuming that you have already learned the spell at some previous point. In other words, this is the rules for copying a spell into a spellbook that you have already learned. If you haven't learned the spell, you have to learn it first. Then you can copy it into your spell book using the copying rules.
Why the two different sets of rules? Well, if your spellbook is destroyed, you don't 'unlearn' the spells you had before. You just need to redo them in your own notation if you can find a source for them. Here's a scenario :
Willy Wizard has all cantrips, and 3 first level spells in his spellbook, Mage Armor, Magic Missile and Color Spray. Willy's spell book get's destroyed by the goblins that capture him (they hate books!). However, after escaping, he finds the remains of a wizard in a pit trap, complete with spellbook. The poor wizard that was killed had all the cantrips, and had the spells Mage Armor, Color Spray, and Shocking Grasp.
Using the spellbook, Willy sits down in a sheltered spot and begins deciphering the dead wizards writing. He succeeds at deciphering Mage Armor and Color Spray. He prepares those and then writes them down in the spellbook again, in his own notations. This takes an hour (per the rules).
However, when he comes to Shocking Grasp, he hasn't learned this one before. So he has to do the spellcraft checks to learn it. It takes 1 hour per spell level this time (still an hour, but this is the learn check). Once he's learned it, he can go ahead and put it back in the book in his own notation. If he'd instead been learning Invisibility (a 2nd level spell) it would have taken him 2 hours to learn it.
So, copying assumes you have already learned the spell, but if you haven't, you have to learn it first.
You cannot prepare a spell you have not learned. So, the section on copying spells is assuming that you have already learned the spell at some previous point. In other words, this is the rules for copying a spell into a spellbook that you have already learned. If you haven't learned the spell, you have to learn it first. Then you can copy it into your spell book using the copying rules.
Does this then require three separate Spellcraft checks? One DC 20 + spell level to decipher, one DC 15 + spell level to understand (which takes an hour), and then another DC 15 + spell level (which takes an hour per spell level) to learn... and THEN you can copy it into your spell book, which also takes an hour per spell level? Man that is A LOT of work to take a spell from a scroll or another wizard's book, and put it into yours so you can prepare it every day. I mean if you encounter a 3rd level spell you've never learned that's SEVEN hours of work just to get it "prepare-able" and copied in your book.
You cannot prepare a spell you have not learned. So, the section on copying spells is assuming that you have already learned the spell at some previous point. In other words, this is the rules for copying a spell into a spellbook that you have already learned. If you haven't learned the spell, you have to learn it first. Then you can copy it into your spell book using the copying rules.Does this then require three separate Spellcraft checks? One DC 20 + spell level to decipher, one DC 15 + spell level to understand (which takes an hour), and then another DC 15 + spell level (which takes an hour per spell level) to learn... and THEN you can copy it into your spell book, which also takes an hour per spell level? Man that is A LOT of work to take a spell from a scroll or another wizard's book, and put it into yours so you can prepare it every day. I mean if you encounter a 3rd level spell you've never learned that's SEVEN hours of work just to get it "prepare-able" and copied in your book.
I'd say 6 hours if it's a spell you've never seen. You'll cast read magic, which auto-deciphers. Then 3 hours to learn, and 3 hours to copy into your spell book. That's not all that long honestly. You could do that in two days while traveling and adventuring normally (3 hours one day to learn, 3 hours the next to copy).
The Spellcraft section and the Magic section do not agree.
According to the Magic section, it takes three steps:
Decipher: (DC20+SpLv or Read Magic or Help from Author) No time
Study: (DC15+SpLv) 1 hour
Copy/Scribe: 1 hour per SpLv
Failing the Decipher check means you can't do it again for one day.
Failing the Study check means you can't try again until your next rank in Spellcraft.
But the Spellcraft section doesn't agree with any of this. It says the time is one hour per level instead of 1 hour, and it says if you fail, you must wait 1 week to try again instead of waiting for another rank. I assume that Spellcraft's "Learn" is equivalent to Magic's "Study" since that makes the DC match up.
To find out RAI, let's see what changed after 3.5:
3.5 Spellcraft: 8 hours, failure means waiting for another rank
PFRPG Spellcraft: 1 hour/lv, failure means wait 1 week
3.5 Spell Copy: 1 day to study, failure means waiting for a rank
PFRPG Spell Copy: 1 hour to study, failure means waiting for a rank
My opinion: The biggest changes were to the Spellcraft skill, while the Spell Copy section is mostly the same (just changing day to hour) so I would think the intent should point towards the Spellcraft skill. This means it takes longer to Learn/Study, but the penalty for failure is generally lower.
The Spellcraft section and the Magic section do not agree.
That's what I've been saying... :P
Alright, I understand the issue with the diction, but the actual rules are for me as I posted before and work with MDT. The basic rules are as i listed above. The reason copying is different is because you can copy spells that you cannot learn. You can copy a higher level spell than you can learn due to school or ability score restrictions. I know you are asking yourself "why would I want to do that?", but the game is there to allow it. Understanding is the step in the copying process that replaces learning, because learning has restrictions and understanding doesn't.The Spellcraft section and the Magic section do not agree.That's what I've been saying... :P
That makes total sense, except for the part where the game says a character can understand something, but they can't learn it. Isn't understanding the result of learning? Teachers teach so kids understand concepts. The process of understanding those concepts is called learning. Yeah, I know, it's a game and mechanics are not meant to recreate reality, but I still think that's funny that a wizard can understand something enough to copy it down, but can't "learn" it. :P
I could copy dense technical language, such as a medical journal, and have no idea what the meaning is of anything I'm copying. That's the same thing with a spell. If you're 1st level you could copy a wish spell into your book, but you can't figure out it's meaning until much later.
I'm going to have to argue with here, just purely for the sake of playing devil's advocate, and also to point out some of the ridiculousness of the applied mechanics here. Not that I don't like the system, for the purposes of tabletop RPG I LOVE Pathfinder, but I just find this particular small nuance to be a bit funny.
So first of all, you are right that a first level wizard can copy a Wish spell into his spell book. Because if he casts read magic he can auto decipher the script. Then of course he has to make a DC 15 + level of the spell check to "understand" the spell enough to copy it. For the sake of argument we'll say I have a 1st level half-elf wizard, who, using heroic dice rolls, got an 18 on his intelligence score. He then took the +2 ability bonus from being half-elven and put that in INT too, giving him a bonus of +5. When he takes his rank in Spellcraft, that puts his Spellcraft skill check bonus at +9, if I did my math right. +5 from INT, +3 from class skill, and +1 from the skill rank. So, he then just needs to roll a 15 or above (since it's a ninth level spell) on the d20 to understand the spell enough to copy it.
Here's where things get funny. You see, that's the exact same DC in Spellcraft to learn the spell. Yeah it takes a little more time (one hour per level of the spell), but it's entirely doable. BUT... what happens if I miss those checks? (Which is entirely possible, because I statistically only have a 25% chance to make them.) If I miss the "learn" check, I just have to wait a week and I can try again. If I miss the "understand" check though, I can't even try to "understand" the spell enough to copy it until I get another rank in Spellcraft. By that logic, I could "learn" the spell but not have "understood" it enough to have copied into my own spellbook. Buck-buck-brawk!?
How's that for wacky? I could keep trying until I learned the spell, a week at a time of course, but if I fail that "understand" check, just once, I have to wait to level up, or until some other thing provides me a way to take a skill rank in Spellcraft, before I can try again. All the while holding on to that original source for the spell, be it a scroll or another caster's spell book, because I don't actually have it copied into my own personal book yet.
To go back to your analogy, that would mean I "learned" all the jargon from the medical journal enough to practice it (whatever that may mean) but I didn't "understand" it enough to copy it. That is, at least, until such time as I finished that quarter of school and entered all new classes (read: leveled up/got a new rank in Spellcraft.)
Do you see where I'm coming from with the wackiness?
You can easily learn (i.e. memorize) the quadratic formula (the roots of ax^2 + bx + c = 0 are x = (-b +/- sqrt(b^2 - 4ac))/(2a) ) without understanding it (i.e. knowing why it works/how it's derived).
(although, that doesn't solve the problem of being unable to copy it into your notebook...)
Exactly! Except that from a game mechanics standpoint, I have the capability of "learning" the quadratic formula (read:high level spell) but not "understanding" it enough to put into my spell book. Which also means, by the way, that I can't "prepare" that spell, becauseYou can easily learn (i.e. memorize) the quadratic formula (the roots of ax^2 + bx + c = 0 are x = (-b +/- sqrt(b^2 - 4ac))/(2a) ) without understanding it (i.e. knowing why it works/how it's derived).
(although, that doesn't solve the problem of being unable to copy it into your notebook...)
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook...
Now as mentioned above, some GMs will just handwave that and say, "If you can learn a spell, and have it in your "repertoire," certainly you know it enough to copy it into your book. Which really brings me to the point of this whole thread. I think that "understand" part of the copying spells seems MORE important than the "learn" part. Because you can't "prepare" a spell unless you already have it in your own book. Thus the "learning" a spell becomes a moot point, if you failed the "understand" check and have to wait to level up before you put it into your book. Of course that's different for scrolls. You could still cast the scroll, assuming you meet all the requirements, but then you've permanently lost the ability to cast that spell again if you failed to "understand" it enough to copy it into your own spellbook. The key here is that the mechanics say you have to "know" (read: successfully learned) a spell, AND have it copied in your book (read: deciphered it, and "understood" it enough to copy it). At that point "understanding" the spell is much, much more important than learning it, because you can just try again to learn the spell in a week.
I learned the quadratic formula. I can quote it from memory.
Doesn't mean I know how to apply it to a problem to get the solution I want.
I totally get this, and it is very logical, and very applicable to the argument. The problem is that as you've continued to study the quadratic formula you've committed it to memory, but haven't learned its applicable use. The game mechanics are bassackwards on this. Because if you fail that DC 15 + spell level "understand" check, just once you have to wait until you gain another rank in Spellcraft before you can try to "understand" it enough to right it down. Yet you can continue to "learn" it every week, until you've fully figured out how to apply it. There needs to be some type of reconciliation between these two. Some kind of... if one is accomplished, then so is the other, or get rid of one all together. Just get rid of the "understand" language and replace it with the "learn" language from the Spellcraft skill. Then it makes perfect sense, because then the caster has studied the spell long enough to not only copy it, but also apply it to real world use.
I learned the quadratic formula. I can quote it from memory.
Doesn't mean I know how to apply it to a problem to get the solution I want.
I would argue if you can't apply it then you really don't know it -- you have no functional knowledge of what it is, how it is applied or what it means. You have no means of knowing if what you are parroting is correct or not other than someone else telling you so.
That isn't 'learning' that's parroting or recitation -- not quite the same thing.
I learned the quadratic formula. I can quote it from memory.
Doesn't mean I know how to apply it to a problem to get the solution I want.
I would argue if you can't apply it then you really don't know it -- you have no functional knowledge of what it is, how it is applied or what it means. You have no means of knowing if what you are parroting is correct or not other than someone else telling you so.
That isn't 'learning' that's parroting or recitation -- not quite the same thing.
I have a Master's in mathematics, I learned the quadratic equation.
I understand it, can take it's derivative, understand what that means, and what it's second derivative represents.
However, I have no practical ability to use it in real life. I can look at a softball tossed in an arc, and I know that there is a formula to describe that arc, that I can take the two derivatives and find out acceleration and such about it, but.. f me if I know how to figure out that formula! :)
So, I have learned the quadratic formula. But I have no applicable use for it.
That better? :)
I learned the quadratic formula. I can quote it from memory.
Doesn't mean I know how to apply it to a problem to get the solution I want.
I would argue if you can't apply it then you really don't know it -- you have no functional knowledge of what it is, how it is applied or what it means. You have no means of knowing if what you are parroting is correct or not other than someone else telling you so.
That isn't 'learning' that's parroting or recitation -- not quite the same thing.
I have a Master's in mathematics, I learned the quadratic equation.
I understand it, can take it's derivative, understand what that means, and what it's second derivative represents.
However, I have no practical ability to use it in real life. I can look at a softball tossed in an arc, and I know that there is a formula to describe that arc, that I can take the two derivatives and find out acceleration and such about it, but.. f me if I know how to figure out that formula! :)
So, I have learned the quadratic formula. But I have no applicable use for it.
That better? :)
Would you say you could probably successfully copy that into a book somewhere in, say... an hour per spell level?
Would you say you could probably successfully copy that into a book somewhere in, say... an hour per spell level?
LOL,
I could probably copy down the formula, how to take a derivative, how to take a second derivative, what each means, and give an example using made up numbers.Wouldn't tell me or anyone else how to analyze the arc Abraham Spalding's Holy Handgrenade of Antioch makes when he tosses it at the vorpal bunnies, nor how long it will take to land, nor what it's speed and acceleration were at any point along the arc. ;)
So, I have learned the quadratic formula. But I have no applicable use for it.That better? :)
Kind of but it is much different that what magicdealer stated.
You know the formula and how to apply it -- you simply lack the processing power, speed of measurement and ability to use it in actual practice.
That is not the same as being able to quote it without understanding what you are parroting.
Magicdealer was on the exact opposite end of the spectrum -- he can parrot the formula but tell you nothing about it or if it is even the correct one (from his post, not saying this is actually true or not of him as a person).
And that's a 'simple' math formula -- getting a much more complex magical formula wrong has much more dire consequences than simple "oh I was wrong about where the ball was going to go."
Would you say you could probably successfully copy that into a book somewhere in, say... an hour per spell level?LOL,
I could probably copy down the formula, how to take a derivative, how to take a second derivative, what each means, and give an example using made up numbers.Wouldn't tell me or anyone else how to analyze the arc Abraham Spalding's Holy Handgrenade of Antioch makes when he tosses it at the vorpal bunnies, nor how long it will take to land, nor what it's speed and acceleration were at any point along the arc. ;)
So what you're saying is that it's easier to "understand" something enough to maybe even tell somebody else how to write it down, but more difficult to apply (read: learn, prepare, and cast) it to a given problem?
That makes total sense. The application of a one time failure to "understand" something into waiting for another rank in Spellcraft before you can even attempt to "understand" it again, does not.
Would you say you could probably successfully copy that into a book somewhere in, say... an hour per spell level?LOL,
I could probably copy down the formula, how to take a derivative, how to take a second derivative, what each means, and give an example using made up numbers.Wouldn't tell me or anyone else how to analyze the arc Abraham Spalding's Holy Handgrenade of Antioch makes when he tosses it at the vorpal bunnies, nor how long it will take to land, nor what it's speed and acceleration were at any point along the arc. ;)
So what you're saying is that it's easier to "understand" something enough to maybe even tell somebody else how to write it down, but more difficult to apply (read: learn, prepare, and cast) it to a given problem?
That makes total sense. The application of a one time failure to "understand" something into waiting for another rank in Spellcraft before you can even attempt to "understand" it again, does not.
Actually, it sort of does.
I've been sitting in the class room before, going over example after example the teacher has. And just not getting it.
Then all of a sudden, something clicks, and the world shifts, and everything makes sense suddenly.
In other words, I gained another rank in Knowledge (Mathematics), made the learn check again, and succeeded.
The sad part is, the strongest 'Eureka!' moment I've ever had, where I literally got dizzy as my brain shifted paradigms, is when I was trying to teach myself how 1st edition Shadowrun worked. Those stupid d6 dice checks took me weeks to figure out what they were talking about. Then one day, after I'd given up and picked it up after 2 months of ignoring it, I nearly fell off the couch as my whole world shifted.
I've always kind of felt I wasted my one 'Eureka!' moment on Shadowrun 1st edition (which was replaced by second edition a month later) instead of saving it for college chemistry and inventing the next liquid fuel source. :(
Actually, it sort of does.
I've been sitting in the class room before, going over example after example the teacher has. And just not getting it.
Then all of a sudden, something clicks, and the world shifts, and everything makes sense suddenly.
Yep, that's it. That's the argument all boiled down. So here's my continued problem. The "understand" mechanic should be the "learn" mechanic. I think there should be multiple checks to learn something, up to a point, and then after that point you should have to wait for another rank in Spellcraft to attempt to learn it again. To reflect exactly what you are saying here. As far as "understanding" something enough to copy it down goes, that should be able to be done unlimitedly, with maybe a time interval break in between attempts to let your brain "cool down."
It's a crapton easier to copy something into a book after a little bit of devoted study, than to know how to apply that same thing to a real life situation.
Regardless, the mechanics as written, do not reflect reality. Does that really matter? Probably not. Honestly, as a GM I don't even really give two coppers about it. I just found it so ridiculously bassackwards as far as logic is concerned I couldn't let it go.
|
I would argue if you can't apply it then you really don't know it -- you have no functional knowledge of what it is, how it is applied or what it means. You have no means of knowing if what you are parroting is correct or not other than someone else telling you so.That isn't 'learning' that's parroting or recitation -- not quite the same thing.
I would then argue that you're incorrect in this instance. You can know the english language, and still be unable to write grammatically correct sentences.
You're getting into arguments about the phrasing of what I wrote instead of the intent of what I wrote. You can do that all day, and in fact it is a very important skill to possess when it comes to evaluating the rule books. But sometimes you need to step back and examine the concept of the argument.
The ability to effectively apply knowledge is separate from the ability to conceptually understand knowledge, which is separate from the ability to memorize knowledge. All of these fall under a general understanding of learning.
Actually, dictionary.com defines learning as: The acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, practice, or study, or by being taught.
Based off of this definition, memorizing the quadratic formula is learning it. Then, when you figure out how to use it, you've learned it again. And when you figure out how to apply it to real-world events, you've learned it a third time.
Of course, now we're getting into the "what is the quadratic formula" meta-area. Have you learned a cube by examining just one face? Can you ever learn it since you can't examine within the interior of that space? Ect., ad nausium.
Actually, it sort of does.
I've been sitting in the class room before, going over example after example the teacher has. And just not getting it.
Then all of a sudden, something clicks, and the world shifts, and everything makes sense suddenly.
Yep, that's it. That's the argument all boiled down. So here's my continued problem. The "understand" mechanic should be the "learn" mechanic. I think there should be multiple checks to learn something, up to a point, and then after that point you should have to wait for another rank in Spellcraft to attempt to learn it again. To reflect exactly what you are saying here. As far as "understanding" something enough to copy it down goes, that should be able to be done unlimitedly, with maybe a time interval break in between attempts to let your brain "cool down."
It's a crapton easier to copy something into a book after a little bit of devoted study, than to know how to apply that same thing to a real life situation.
Regardless, the mechanics as written, do not reflect reality. Does that really matter? Probably not. Honestly, as a GM I don't even really give two coppers about it. I just found it so ridiculously bassackwards as far as logic is concerned I couldn't let it go.
The difference in difficulty makes a decent amount of sense to me, I'll try and put the process into a bit of a scenario(started writing it straight but got bored, so it gets a little sillier part way through:) )
I'm a third level wizard who just picked up another wizard's spell book and want to learn a spell from it, so I sit down and start reading. First I need to figure out what sort of arcane language he is using (what programing language is this code in?) to do this I either cast Read Magic or do a Spellcraft. As a trained wizard I've got a pretty good grounding in arcana, and most schools use a similar logical structure so I can keep puzzling away at it until I get the gist of what the spell does, it's a Fireball.
Next I need to translate the whole thing into my own school's language. To do that I need to fully understand the formula so I start studying it, I roll my spellcraft to understand it. Rats! I failed. I can't figure out what that phrase means, and I can't figure I out by context and it's essential to the spell. I guess I'll need to learn more about the language before I can translate the spell (Need another rank in spellcraft).
OK, now I've adventured and learned more about magic (hit level 4 and added a rank of spellcraft), I'll give that spell another go. I roll spellcraft and succeed. Ah that phrase is a variation on that formula I learned from that hedge wizard after we cleared the rats out of his cellar, I can see what the sequence of incantations and gestures is and write it down in my own book, but I haven't mastered the inflection on that incantation and my hand position isn't quite right on that gesture so I can't cast it yet.
I've spent more time adventuring, and my incantations are getting pretty good! (I've hit level five and can cast third level spells) I've got the instructions on how to cast a Fireball, and I can do all of the incantations and gestures, let's see if I can put it all together. I roll spellcraft to learn the spell, fail, and lose my eyebrows. Hm, well that wasn't quite right... well, I guess I'll keep practicing...
Well, I've been at this for a week now and I think I've pretty much got it. I roll spellcraft, fail, and roast my familiar's hair off. Well, on the bright side, Fluffy's hypoallergenic now... Sigh, practice makes perfect...
Another week has gone by, and fireballs would've been really handy against those nasty twig creaures... but I've been practicing! I roll spellcraft,Success! That spoony bard's tent is a crater! That'll teach him not to write limericks about poor Fluffy. Now let me at 'em, I'll burn them all to cinders! Wait, what? We've been hired to save the granaries from invading salamanders?
A really detailed, humorous, and realistic scenario...
Did you ever get the feeling people weren't actually listening to what you're saying?
Problem is Froze, the mechanics don't go along with your scenario. There is nothing stopping your wizard from continuing to study that Fireball and "learning" it even though he can't cast it yet (because he doesn't have a slot high enough for it). Even after he's failed to understand it enough to copy it into his own spellbook, he could continue every week to "learn" it, until he "knows" it. Yet, he still has to wait until he levels up before he can try again to copy it down, and the real crapper there is, if he fails that again, he has to wait until he levels up again to give it another go. So your scenario is perfectly logical, and were it backed up by the letter of the mechanics I would have shut my yapper (read: twitching trigger fingers) a long time ago. I get how it should look, and how it should work. Fact is, the mechanics need a fixing. Either take away the "understand" part of copying Arcane Writings and replace it with the learn part, and let the wizard study it till he learns it with one week breaks. Or, take away the "learn" mechanic under Spellcraft, replace it with the "understand" mechanic in the Arcane Writings section, and make the wizard wait, level after level until he can get a Spellcraft bonus high enough that success on that Spellcraft check to "understand" is all but certain.
Honestly, after all this discussion, I'm probably going to just houserule it, and get rid of the "understand" language in Arcane Writings, and just replace it with the "learn" mechanics in Spellcraft, and never make the wizards in my campaigns have to wait very long to copy things into their own books.
You're getting into arguments about the phrasing of what I wrote instead of the intent of what I wrote. You can do that all day, and in fact it is a very important skill to possess when it comes to evaluating the rule books. But sometimes you need to step back and examine the concept of the argument.
No... I'm arguing that your statement doesn't mean you've learned anything.
You stated that you 'learned' the quadratic formula -- but you didn't. You learned a phrase you could repeat, that you have been told is the quadratic formula.
It's as different as saying, "I have been in the military my whole life" and "I have lived with the military my whole life" -- both suggest experience with the military, but on completely different levels.
Knowing how to write out a formula and knowing what that formula means are completely different points.
You don't really know the formula until you can use it. Basically you have no real knowledge or skill that has been taught to you other than the recitation.
Recitation is not the same as learning something.
Webster's Definition is close to the one you posted:
"to gain knowledge or understanding of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience <learn a trade> (2) : memorize <learn the lines of a play> "
So yeah on one level I will agree that you have learned something in that you have memorized it -- but you still have no understanding or skill. So you can't use or really even know what the thing is.
Again this is a simple math formula too -- not the same as a magical formula (written in a short hand that is not universal at that) that must be translated and understood before it is copied over.
There is the problem -- it must be understood -- which is not simple memorization or recitation, but to be able to apply what you have supposedly learned.
If you have never seen the spell before it is:
1 spellcraft to understand the short hand.
1 spellcraft to learn the spell +1 hour
Copy the spell at 1 hour per spell level and gold cost (1/2 hour for a cantrip with it still taking a full page).
I don't get that from any of the language. The "copying" section in the back of the book only says "1 hour" not Spellcraft check to learn plus one hour. It does say:
But that is copying the spell, not learning it. I still see a discrepancy between those two parts of the book.Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
Time: The process takes 1 hour per spell level. Cantrips (0 levels spells) take 30 minutes to record.
A little off subject but kinda not really how does a druid prepare a spell?
|
|
Webster's Definition is close to the one you posted:"to gain knowledge or understanding of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience <learn a trade> (2) : memorize <learn the lines of a play> "
So yeah on one level I will agree that you have learned something in that you have memorized it
Sadly, it's right there in the quote you posted. "to gain knowledge of"
Ta da. Gaining knowledge of = learning.
Gaining knowledge of the formula, memorizing it, is learning.
See, this is what you're either missing or trying not to address. Despite the fact you want learning to mean a total understanding of a concept, it doesn't. Learning means any understanding gained of a concept, even if it is a rote formula.
Put another way, given your draconian argument revolving about what true learning is, it is pretty much impossible for anyone to learn anything.
Have you learned how to use your remote? By your argument, just learning how to change channels with it isn't enough. You have to understand it completely, which means you're going to need a detailed understanding of how the remote transmits signals, how it utilizes the power from the battery, how the little green board with the metal bits on it makes it function in a particular way. Every section of knowledge there leads into something else and in order to understand how to use a remote, you have to understand everything about everything.
Nope, sorry, doesn't work that way. When you learn a foreign language, you can get certified in different degrees of understanding. Depending on your level of mastery of the language, you can get better certifications. However, even the very basic one certifies you for understanding the language.
Learning, understanding, knowledge, these things are not all or nothing, they are degrees. And any degree at all, even rote memorization, constitutes learning.
Did you ever get the feeling people weren't actually listening to what you're saying?Is this meant to be ironic?
[Rant] Seriously, I don't understand how you can understand this concept so clearly but still be so adamant about the rules being broken. So, let me try to point things out. TIME is the constraint which perplexes you, and it is the fundamental nature of this issue altogether.
Boy, I didn't realize wizards and their learning meant so much to people. Pobbes, it's only ironic if you perceive it in the opposite manner of which it was intended.
Also, I get the difference between cramming so I can copy something into a book (or take a test), and taking the slow long process to learn something. What I don't get is a mechanic that says if I haven't successfully crammed something on the first try, I don't even get to try and "cram" it again for what could amount to a lengthy period of time. Yet I could take the time, when it is available, to slowly and methodically learn that self same thing. If I can take the time to learn something, when all that time is available, it should replace, or forgo the necessity to "cram" that same information. I get all the mechanics, I'm not trying to say the idea of "understanding" is broken. What I am trying to say is that the penalty for failing to "understand" something on the first try, doesn't mesh with the fact that there is only a one week penalty for failing to "learn" something. That's the part of the mechanics that I think is broken. Not the two different types of "learning."
1st edition, once you learned a spell and were of the correct level to cast it, you could. Hence learning was a big deal.
Ok, I think I'm gonna try one more time to see if I can make this make sense, but it is gonna take an annoyingly lawer'y fine touthed comb.
There is nothing stopping your wizard from continuing to study that Fireball and "learning" it even though he can't cast it yet (because he doesn't have a slot high enough for it).
Even after he's failed to understand it enough to copy it into his own spellbook, he could continue every week to "learn" it, until he "knows" it.
First of all, if he fails his roll to understand and copy a spell, he can not learn it until he has gained a spellcraft rank.
Emphasis Mine
If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until he gains another rank in Spellcraft.
So if you fail the roll you can't learn the spell.
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.
This passage denotes a clear order that must be followed to understand and copy a spell.
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook
That cuts off the other method of adding a spell to your book(you can copy a spell you have prepared into your spellbook)
Now putting that all together:
- While it does not explicitly say that you can not attempt to learn a spell without succeeding in understanding and copying a spell, it does explicitly say that you can not if you fail.
- Barring specific exceptions(such as spell mastery) you can not prepare a spell that you have not copied into your spell book at least once
RAW you can't cast a spell without deciphering, understanding/copying, and learning it.
Now I don't like to presume RAI on the forums, but given that there is a passage stating that you must Decipher before you can copy, and that you can not learn after a failed roll to understand/copy I feel fairly comfortable in assuming that the order is Decipher>Understand/Copy>Learn
Like I said in my previous post, the understand stage makes more sense if you treat it more as a knowledge check: either you have learned enough about magical theory to understand the way the spell is written or you haven't, and need to learn more. If you have an issue with being able to learn a spell before you can cast it, maybe try thinking of it as if you have mastered the technique behind the spell, but have not gained the mental discipline/mana/alar/strength in the force to fuel it.