A wizard can not use a cleric with scribe scroll to pad his spellbook.
In previous versions of the game, and presumably in PF, this is true, but not for the reason you are implying. Each spellcaster writes magic in their own way, which is why wizards need "read magic" to read spells written by other wizards.
I love how you simply assert your position and act as though there is no debate. LAZARX HAS SPOKEN!
LOLOL....
The RAW is not clear on this. A GM can go either way. There is support for both sides of the debate, as has been presented in this thread. Pick your side, but don't expect everyone to accept your decrees.
...1) The rules are pretty clear about the distinction between Arcane and Divine magic. It seems logical to carry that distinction through to scrolls....
Quoting this as a jumping off point for my argument.
There are many spells that are on lists of divine and arcane casters alike. Several people have said this. This fact alone blurs the line. Are a wizard and a cleric casting Endure Elements doing something differently? Does it matter if the result is the same?
The distinction between divine and arcane is anything but clear.
Consider a similar, real-world problem. Could a member of the clergy perform a scientific experiment, by carefully following the instructions? Of course, that is how experiments are designed--so that they can be duplicated. Now, can a scientist pick up a book of liturgy and perform a church service, by carefully following the directions? Of course. This is why they are written down.
Anyone with UMD can use a wand of CLW. Even a wizard. So a wizard can take a feat, spend some gold, and be an arcane cleric. He can find a scroll of CLW, read it, scribe it, but can't cast it. What?
The answer, of course, is because the distinction between arcane and divine is totally artificial, totally dissociated, and makes no logical sense whatsoever except that someone somewhere along the line decided that wizards shouldn't be able to cast certain divine spells, for no apparent reason.
I don't buy that it's for balance reasons. The limit on spells per day and spells per INT/WIS are restrictive enough. I challenge anyone to find a divine spell, or even a group of them, that would transform a wizard into an OP class by their inclusion in his repetoire.
You can't say "But if wizards can heal, why make a cleric?" As the rules are, rogues with UMD can heal. So why make a cleric? Because you want to be a cleric.
And what about bards? Is a bard an arcane caster, a divine caster, or both? What about multiclass characters who take a divine and arcane class? Where is the line drawn for them? A wizard could easily take one level of cleric and get access to every single divine spell for future scribing/casting purposes.
The line is arbitrary and nonsensical. There shouldn't even be a distinction between arcane and divine, it should just be magic, as someone said, but with different people believing different things about it.
TLDR: scribe what you want.
Can't cast, then can't copy.
Ask your GM is the real answer.
^ Important distinction, using Read Magic to decipher the magical energy doesn't necessarily mean you can copy it (see a wizard and all divine scrolls).
@hudax
Bards are arcane casters and need arcane scrolls.
Using a wand (which can only go up to level 4 spells) or scroll doesn't really replace a divine or arcane caster and drains monetary resources.
If you want to cast aside the Divine/Arcane Paradigms then you'll be going waaaay outside the Pathfinder rules and into the uber houseruling category.
This debate is limited to the pathfinder ruleset though.
@hudax
Bards are arcane casters and need arcane scrolls.
If this is the case, then just get a bard to scribe CLW on a scroll and then have the wizard copy and learn this "arcane" spell.
See what I mean about artificial distinction?
Using a wand (which can only go up to level 4 spells) or scroll doesn't really replace a divine or arcane caster...
This is part of my point, actually. You're absolutely right, it doesn't cut it as a substitute. So there is nothing OP about it. So the separation isn't a balance issue, it's an aesthetic one, and it's drawn along an arbitrary line.
If you want to cast aside the Divine/Arcane Paradigms then you'll be going waaaay outside the Pathfinder rules and into the uber houseruling category.
It's a small step outside the paradigm. It comes down to a philosophical distinction which can go one of four ways:
1) All magic is divinely created and supported, but arcane casters have a unique accessibility acquired through a scientific process.
2) All magic is part of the natural workings of the universe, but divine casters have an intuitive method of tapping these naturally occurring arcane energies.
3) All magic has the same source, granted to arcane casters through trial and error, and granted to divine casters through their faith as a gift from their gods.
4) Each type of magic has its own source and its own access method. Divine magic is acquired directly from the gods through faith, while arcane magic is derived from nature through the scientific method.
The last, persistent example is actually the broken one, because of the simple fact that arcane and divine casters share so many of the same spells. It is also the worst from a philosophical point of view, because it suggests an inexplicable lack of relationship between the gods (the creators of everything) and nature (what they created). The only way this example could be resolved acceptably is if the gods in the game are the lesser creations of a meta-god, who created them along with everything else, and is the original source of both types of magic. But where is the evidence of such a being in the game? And, this bandaid fix would support the theory that the two types of magic are actually, metaphysically, the same.
Wizards being able to cast healing spells (as the prominent example of the arcane/divine schism) is hardly unprecedented in other games and literature. It also is intuitive from a real-world perspective. We have faith healers and alternative medicine, yet we also have doctors and surgeons and pharmacists. Both appear to work, albeit in different ways and with different areas of strength.
I could be satisfied with options 1, 2, 3, or the qualified 4th, but the 4th option as it stands is arbitrary and incomplete.
It's fairly simple logic. Leaving UMD out of this, what can a wizard do with a divine scroll? Can he cast it? No. If he can't cast a spell off the scroll (without cheating through UMD), he certainly can't add it to his spellbook.
Again, what you see as "fairly simple logic" is not seen the same way by other people. Hudax's comment just above yours (which you either didn't read, didn't understand, or didn't feel up to rebutting) explains this very nicely.
Your opinion is simply your opinion. My opinion is different. The RAW is not clear. You can assert what you like. That doesn't make it so.
To be fair, his comment came seconds after my post.
But, the very existence of UMD is proof that the distinction is purely artificial.
To be fair, his comment came seconds after my post.
But, the very existence of UMD is proof that the distinction is purely artificial.
There have been plenty of other posts on the same subject but perhaps not with as much clarity, which he has also ignored.
Not to mention that nowhere in the RAW does it list a "Protection from Evil" scroll as "divine" or "arcane" when you are purchasing one from a magic shop. If there was such a clear distinction, you'd think the game developers would have listed them separately.
There is wiggle room in the RAW. As it stands, barring a Paizo errata on the subject, (and even after one, really) it is up to each GM to make their own call on this issue. I go with the idea that all magic comes from one source and scrolls are spell storing devices which tap the underlying magical energy. Divine casters are granted spells through prayer (the prayer is NOT the spell) and arcane casters access spells through arcane rituals.
Why there are some spells that divine casters can cast but arcane casters can't and vice versa is open to interpretation. It could easily be that the Gods just don't grant certain spells to divine casters and the magical energy of some spells can't be accessed without divine intervention. That's all that's needed to "explain" the situation. A dozen other equally valid interpretations could be created.
The Spell Design Guidelines in Ultimate Magic would argue the opposite of that assertion.
Could you quote it? I don't have it, core only.
Looks like I did well not buying that.
I have zero tolerance for the argument that "Class A should do more damage than Class B because."
MAJOR question after actually READING all the question... (provided that it IS on his spell list)?
ARE there spells that cross over cleric/wizard? If so, would there actually be anything saying that THIS is a divine scroll and NOT a wizard scroll? For that matter do they even differentiate divine and Arcane spells anymore? I thought it was all one big appendix, and each class got their 'lists'. I'm honestly not sure... I would think 'Spell XYZ' would be mechanically listed as Wiz 1, bard 1, druid 1) or however they list it.. if it's part of HIS thing... I would probably allow it...
Metal and Wood Elementalist Wizards get some Druid spells. In particular, you get a grip of them at level 1 (in fact, all of the ones you get are entered at level 1, even the level 9 spell you can't cast) and you could theoretically lose your spellbook.
Patryn:
For the purposes of this discussion, which is about the fundamental nature of magic and the potential differences or lack thereof between "divine" and "arcane" magic, whether it is more difficult to cast a scroll than a wand is completely immaterial. You can do it. This whole "wizards can't use cleric scrolls" thing is bogus, they can. And clerics can use wizard scrolls. All they have to do is make a "Use Magic Device" check.
This strongly implies that the underlying magic is the same.
There are many, many spells which are on both divine and arcane lists. Not just a few. Some of them are basic staples like "Protection from evil". Nowhere in the RAW have I ever seen it stated that a Protection from Evil scroll you pick up in a magic store has to be identified as "divine" or "arcane." It's just a scroll. It's on the character's spell list. They buy it. They use it. Happens. All. The. Time.
LazarX claims that the magic descriptions in Ultimate Magic "prove" that divine and arcane magic are incompatible. His argument seems to be that when you are researching a spell that divine casters have a lower guideline for their damage than arcane casters do. To say I find that argument to be less than compelling is a serious understatement. I've read through the same sections that he is referencing and I see nothing in Ultimate Magic that clarifies this debate. If you already believed it was one way before Ultimate Magic, you almost certainly will find nothing there that changes your mind.
Personally I think it needlessly complicates the magic system to have an arbitrary barrier between divine and arcane magic. People can run their games the way they like. But as it stands right now, I continue to be convinced that the RAW does not settle this debate, and that's fine. This is not remotely the ONLY debate that the RAW does not settle.
I think at this point I'm going to start encouraging people to FAQ my first post.
It is obviously unclear.
Looks like I did well not buying that.
I have zero tolerance for the argument that "Class A should do more damage than Class B because."
You want to mush arcane and divine together that's your lookout.
The Homebrew rules section is that way --------->
Personally I think the somewhat greater damage for arcane is justified given how many aspects of the divine the arcane is shut out of. The Arcane can not raise the dead, or cure the way the divine can, the divine also has easier access to binding friendly outsiders. (Don't bring up miracle/wish spells :)
Let me rephrase your statement LazarX: "Don't bring up the very spells that obviously repudiate my argument entirely." Sure, why would I want to do that?
If arcane and divine magic are so completely incompatible LazarX, why can a rogue use BOTH equally proficiently using the ONE SKILL of "Use Magic Device?" If they are so different why aren't there TWO SKILLS, one for "Use Divine Device" and one for "Use Arcane Device."
Again, you can continue to assert that your position is the only correct, true, right-thinking way of viewing things and make snide comments about where the Homebrew rules section is.
That doesn't make you right. It only makes you pedantic.
You're right Lazar, I'm backing my house rules. I'm doing so because I think they are the simplest explanation to the problem in question. I won't say whether I think my comments belong here or there, but I will say I think my comments answer the question better than the RAW or RAI.
We can agree to disagree. You certainly don't have to play by my rules.
What I would prefer to see over what is currently implemented is either:
1) a definitive, exclusive set of spells for each class, or
2) a free exchange of spells.
Either one works for me.
It' simple... the rogues like everyone else who uses UMD "cheats", "fudges" etc. That's also why it's not automatic they can fail to do so.
If arcane and divine magic are so completely incompatible LazarX, why can a rogue use BOTH equally proficiently using the ONE SKILL of "Use Magic Device?" If they are so different why aren't there TWO SKILLS, one for "Use Divine Device" and one for "Use Arcane Device."
So what tickles my funny bone is that the RAW which lists one skill ("UMD") as sufficient to address both divine and arcane items seems to me to be FAR MORE compelling argument than the idea that divine spells have slightly less damage than arcane spells when being researched, and yet you present this minor difference between damage guidelines as PROOF that divine and arcane are mutually incompatible, and then shrug off the UMD skill working on BOTH as some sort of a "fudge."
I mean I certainly hope your obvious bias is as clear to the readers of this thread as it is to me. I don't have a bias. I just think it's not clear.
Divine and arcane scrolls can only be used by practitioners of the respective magic types.
Support:
The following quotes come from the Paizo PRD.
A spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers).
Whether a spell is arcane or divine, and whether a character prepares spells in advance or chooses them on the spot, casting a spell works the same way.
Wizards, sorcerers, and bards cast arcane spells. Compared to divine spells, arcane spells are more likely to produce dramatic results.
To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture.
Once a character deciphers a particular piece of magical writing, he does not need to decipher it again. Deciphering magical writing allows the reader to identify the spell and gives some idea of its effects (as explained in the spell description). If the magical writing is a scroll and the reader can cast arcane spells, he can attempt to use the scroll.
A wizard can only learn new spells that belong to the wizard spell lists.
Clerics, druids, experienced paladins, and experienced rangers can cast divine spells. Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. Clerics gain spell power from deities or from divine forces. The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells, and the divine forces of law and good power paladin spells. Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells.
Divine spells can be written and deciphered like arcane spells (see Arcane Magical Writings). A Spellcraft check can decipher divine magical writing and identify it. Only characters who have the spell (in its divine form) on their class spell list can cast a divine spell from a scroll.
And from the PRD on Scrolls
To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements.
• The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)
• The user must have the spell on her class list.
And finally, the Use Magic Device skill
You can use this skill to read a spell or to activate a magic item. Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class, as if you were a different race, or as if you were of a different alignment.
Skills like UMD and spells like Wish and Miracle allow you to circumvent these rules, but those are the rules nonetheless. Anything else is house rules. There's nothing wrong with house ruling it; I think pretty much any non-PFS game has house rules, but it doesn't make it an argument for what the actual rules are. To suggest otherwise is to be deliberately obtuse.
It's not my position. The argument was by rules that there is no difference between arcane and divine. It's Paizo's spell design guidelines that put in structural differences between both branches of magic.
Again, you can continue to assert that your position is the only correct, true, right-thinking way of viewing things and make snide comments about where the Homebrew rules section is.
That doesn't make you right. It only makes you pedantic.
Let's try to nail this down because I think this response indicates a difference of your interpretation of the discussion and my interpretation.
There is clearly a "difference" between the "structure" of divine and arcane magic. Divine spellcasters pray for their spells. The spells are granted by deities, natural forces or ineffable sources. Arcane spellcasters access magic directly, with no intercession from deities.
So clearly there are structural and execution "differences" between the two.
The question that was posed was not "Are arcane and divine spells identical in every way?" The qquestion that was posed was "Can a wizard write a spell from a cleric scroll on his spell book?"
That's a different question. And it drives to a different fundamental issue. That fundamental issue is "at root, when you get past the obviously different structural differences between how divine and arcane magic is utilized, is the underlying magic itself really the same? so that if a wizard can comprehend a divine scroll, they can then write the spell into their book (assuming it is on their list)?"
Let me use a real world metaphor.
Magnetism is a real world phenomenon that is used and manipulated in very specific ways.
Electricity is a real world phenomenon that is used and manipulated in very specific ways.
But in reality there is no difference between magnetism and electricity! They are part of the SAME PHYSICAL PHENOMENON, called, interestingly "electro-magnetism."
Of course this will drive all the "you put your physics in my fantasy!" trolls out of the woodwork because they don't seem to understand the use or power of metaphors... but what the heck, this thread needs more contention. :)
...Divine and arcane scrolls can only be used by practitioners of the respective magic types.
Support:** spoiler omitted **
So, we'll just put you in the same "my interpretation is the only interpretation" bucket as Lazarx, Mark. And I'll make the same response. Your assertion of your opinion is not sufficient to promote your opinion to fact.
To repeat. There is RAW support for BOTH SIDES OF THIS DEBATE. Continually repeating the same quotes as if they invalidate the opposing quotes is simply a waste of time. I counter your RAW example with the RAW example of UMD allowing a rogue to access both "types" of magic from one skill. Does my RAW trump your RAW? No, they conflict. They exhibit an inconsistency. Which is what we've been saying all along.
Here's basically the proposition that's argued (my paraphrase abbiet) and my response.
1. The argument has been made since wizards can use divine spell scrolls via UMD that they can use cleric spell scrolls to pad their spellbooks, assuming the spell is on the list.
2. My argument to the counter if the scroll can't be used by the wizard to cast the spell without resorting to fudging it with UMD. (or lets say the wizard does not have the skill at all), then how is he supposed to adapt it to his own personal spellbook?
LazarX, that is certainly not what I have been debating.
Here is the proposition that's being argued, and my response as I see them.
1. The argument has been made that if a spell is on both a cleric's and a wizard's spell list then if the wizard can read the spell and understand it, then he can write it in his spellbook.
2. My argument is that there is nothing in the RAW that tells players to distinguish divine from arcane scrolls when scrolls are sold and purchased in magic stores. There is no "divine Protection from Evil" or "arcane Protection from Evil" There is simply "Protection from Evil." On top of that, the Use Magic Device skill makes no distinction whatsoever between divine and arcane magic. There are classes which are defined as "arcane" which can read and cast "divine" spells. Etc.
The UMD thing is just one corner condition of the larger debate.
|
I was on the other side of this topic but markofbane's quotes solidified my position:
RavingDork's original question:
"But can a wizard add a spell from a divined spell scroll into his spellbook (provided that it IS on his spell list)?"
It is clear in RAW that a wizard using UMD and a decent roll could cast any spell via any restricted magic item (scroll, staff, wand etc). This includes casting divine spells from a scroll.
The real question is if a wizard could take a divine scroll of a spell on his spell list and then copy it into his spellbook for later use. i.e. memorization and casting.
The relevant quotes from a section of the PRD (as quoted by markofbane above)
A wizard can only learn new spells that belong to the wizard spell lists.
snip
Divine spells can be written and deciphered like arcane spells (see Arcane Magical Writings). A Spellcraft check can decipher divine magical writing and identify it. Only characters who have the spell (in its divine form) on their class spell list can cast a divine spell from a scroll.
It is clear that:
1) Divine spells are written onto scrolls in a fashion similar (if not identical) to Arcane spells
2) Wizards can decipher these spells and learn (i.e. copy into spellbook) new spells that belong to the wizard spell list.
3) For some reason they cannot actually cast from the scroll even if the spell is on their spell list.
I was on the other side of this topic but markofbane's quotes solidified my position:
RavingDork's original question:
"But can a wizard add a spell from a divined spell scroll into his spellbook (provided that it IS on his spell list)?"It is clear in RAW that a wizard using UMD and a decent roll could cast any spell via any restricted magic item (scroll, staff, wand etc). This includes casting divine spells from a scroll.
The real question is if a wizard could take a divine scroll of a spell on his spell list and then copy it into his spellbook for later use. i.e. memorization and casting.
The relevant quotes from a section of the PRD (as quoted by markofbane above)
A wizard can only learn new spells that belong to the wizard spell lists.
snip
Divine spells can be written and deciphered like arcane spells (see Arcane Magical Writings). A Spellcraft check can decipher divine magical writing and identify it. Only characters who have the spell (in its divine form) on their class spell list can cast a divine spell from a scroll.
It is clear that:
1) Divine spells are written onto scrolls in a fashion similar (if not identical) to Arcane spells
2) Wizards can decipher these spells and learn (i.e. copy into spellbook) new spells that belong to the wizard spell list.
3) For some reason they cannot actually cast from the scroll even if the spell is on their spell list.
Thank you Karkon, I think you have positioned this quite nicely. I am in pretty much the same position as you except that I would also add:
4) For some reason a wizard could write "cure light wounds" into his spellbook, but could not cast it.
It is clear that:1) Divine spells are written onto scrolls in a fashion similar (if not identical) to Arcane spells
2) Wizards can decipher these spells and learn (i.e. copy into spellbook) new spells that belong to the wizard spell list.
3) For some reason they cannot actually cast from the scroll even if the spell is on their spell list.
1)This is a reference so they don't have to repost all the text where the process is the same (i.e. Spellcraft DC 20 + spell level roll, etc.). They do it all the time, referencing another section where the mechanics are the same so they don't have to repeat it.
2) Wizards can decipher divine spells (part of the Spellcraft skill). They cannot cast them and they cannot learn them. I believe it is implied they can't write them in their spellbook, but since they didn't waste time spelling out the obvious, let's see what that looks like. A wizard deciphers a scroll and discovers it is a divine cure light wounds spell. He could then write it into his spellbook spending 10gp on an ink and ruining the scroll for scribbles on one page of his spellbook that do him or no one else any good.
3) They cannot cast it from a scroll because it is not an arcane spell.
To repeat. There is RAW support for BOTH SIDES OF THIS DEBATE.
No, I get it. Based on your postings here, I'd guess you're the kind of person that would argue with a cop about a jaywalking ticket because "the law says you cannot walk across and I was clearly jogging."
I posted the element of the UMD Skill because I thought any reasonable person reading it would get what the skill accomplishes.
You can use this skill to read a spell or to activate a magic item. Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class, as if you were a different race, or as if you were of a different alignment.
It lets you use the item as if you actually met the requirements to use it. You don't have the requirements to use it, but this skill will let you use it anyway.
I have yet to see anything rules posted that contradict the rules on the arcane/divine division. I've seen attempts to show that the rules aren't explicitly supported in every element of the book, but I believe the authors of the game system assume a certain level of ability to interpret the rules so they don't have to put in the UMD skill "This doesn't allow a wizard to write divine spells into his spellbook and memorize them and cast them." Because that is really just silly.
|
I'd allow it with a successful UMD check, DC equal to that of casting it from the spell.
Worst comes to worst, you can: scribe an Arcane version of the scroll by activating the Divine scroll by UMD, then scribe the Arcane scroll into your spellbook.
This seems incredibly roundabout, thus my simplicity above.
YMMV
EDIT: Seems I need to specify that I'd only allow this if the spell is on the Wizard spell list already. ANYTHING that's not on the Wizard's spell list needs to be researched through the proper channels.
Mark: I'd say that based on your posts you are clearly the sort of cop that would write a jaywalking ticket if someone stepped off the curb to pick up a nail, but that would be rude.
I hope the devs respond to the FAQ requests and provide some actual guidance on this.
No, I get it. Based on your postings here, I'd guess you're the kind of person that would argue with a cop about a jaywalking ticket because "the law says you cannot walk across and I was clearly jogging."
Mark: I'd say that based on your posts you are clearly the sort of cop that would write a jaywalking ticket if someone stepped off the curb to pick up a nail, but that would be rude.
*happily munches on a bucket of popcorn*
|
|
It is clear that:1) Divine spells are written onto scrolls in a fashion similar (if not identical) to Arcane spells
2) Wizards can decipher these spells and learn (i.e. copy into spellbook) new spells that belong to the wizard spell list.
3) For some reason they cannot actually cast from the scroll even if the spell is on their spell list.
1)This is a reference so they don't have to repost all the text where the process is the same (i.e. Spellcraft DC 20 + spell level roll, etc.). They do it all the time, referencing another section where the mechanics are the same so they don't have to repeat it.
2) Wizards can decipher divine spells (part of the Spellcraft skill). They cannot cast them and they cannot learn them. I believe it is implied they can't write them in their spellbook, but since they didn't waste time spelling out the obvious, let's see what that looks like. A wizard deciphers a scroll and discovers it is a divine cure light wounds spell. He could then write it into his spellbook spending 10gp on an ink and ruining the scroll for scribbles on one page of his spellbook that do him or no one else any good.
3) They cannot cast it from a scroll because it is not an arcane spell.
Point 1 is irrelevant. By referencing the section without changing it they do not affect my point. Point 3 is the same point I made although worded differently.
MoB, the selection of the PRD the you provided does not create a limitation on scribing scrolls when comparing divine and arcane. If you can find a section of the rules that does so then that changes my conclusions. In fact the only specific limitation on learning spells is the requirement that the spell appear on the wizard spell list.
Divine scrolls are not noted as using a different universal notation than is described in the arcane section. In fact by just referencing the arcane section they strengthen the idea that scroll notation is universal across arcane and divine.
If the notation is universal and wizards can learn any spell on the wizard list it follows that if a divine caster writes a scroll of a spell that is also on the divine list then wizards can learn the spell from that scroll.
|
|
To be honest posts like these that seem to try to find loopholes in the game aggravate me. Most of RD's posts are of this type.
By RAW, yes, this idea is correct. By RAI or even rules as best played it is not. Unfortunately, I have a real rules lawyer streak in me sometimes and cannot help myself, especially in the rules forum.
MoB, the selection of the PRD the you provided does not create a limitation on scribing scrolls when comparing divine and arcane. If you can find a section of the rules that does so then that changes my conclusions.
Sure, if that will help. I believe this might cover what you are referring to. PRD rules on scroll creation.
The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. A material component is consumed when she begins writing, but a focus is not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)
*happily munches on a bucket of popcorn*These sorts of posts need to die in a fire.
They add absolutely nothing to the discussion at best, and cause a cascade of "Passes RD some butter" me-too posts cluttering up the thread at worse.
Actually, such threads do serve a purpose: they point out the absurdity of the arguing poster's behavior and, by publicly showcasing it in a humorous fashion, shames them into stopping such ridiculous behavior without having anyone feel like they've been personally attacked.
In other words, I was attempting to diffuse the situation with humor so we wouldn't need to bother the mods.
Get over yourself.
To be honest posts like these that seem to try to find loopholes in the game aggravate me. Most of RD's posts are of this type.
I take offense to that. I am merely trying to learn the game's rules better. That's a world of difference from "actively looking for loop holes."
This isn't even me trying to figure something out for once, it's me trying to help a friend. It's posts like yours that don't contribute anything to the thread and, in fact, endanger the odds that my friend gets an answer to his question.
So, to sum up...
Can a wizard learn a spell from a divine scroll?
RAW: No.
Houserule: Yes.
How much sense does this make?
RAW: -1
Houserule: +1
(PS: Nice electro-magnetism metaphor, Brass.)
(PPS: Finding loopholes is how you close loopholes. Provided they exist. In this instance, none exists. However, do not say that arguing mechanics is pointless, because that is precisely what improves games.)
So, to sum up...
Can a wizard learn a spell from a divine scroll?
RAW: No.
Houserule: Yes.
True.
How much sense does this make?
RAW: -1
Houserule: +1
In your opinion. I don't happen to share that opinion.
PPS: Finding loopholes is how you close loopholes. Provided they exist. In this instance, none exists. However, do not say that arguing mechanics is pointless, because that is precisely what improves games.)Sorry, I'm going to answer this with another quote. James Jacobs wrote in another thread here in the rules area
It seems to me like asking, "Can I make a smart fighter?" The answer is yes. And I'm not sure why you'd need to ask the question in the first place—I would think the answer is obvious.
In so many places, the rules call out that there is a divide between divine and arcane magic. So I guess I'm puzzled as to why someone would go through so much trouble to dissect every bit of verbage for a place to drive a wedge. How many thousands of pages do you want the basic rule book to be so that all these possible interpretations are covered? I think it is okay that the developers avoid delving into that much minutia and make the assumption that questions that come up could be answered with a bit of common sense.
*happily munches on a bucket of popcorn*These sorts of posts need to die in a fire.
They add absolutely nothing to the discussion at best, and cause a cascade of "Passes RD some butter" me-too posts cluttering up the thread at worse.
Actually, such threads do serve a purpose: they point out the absurdity of the arguing poster's behavior and, by publicly showcasing it in a humorous fashion, shames them into stopping such ridiculous behavior without having anyone feel like they've been personally attacked.
In other words, I was attempting to diffuse the situation with humor so we wouldn't need to bother the mods.
Get over yourself.
To be honest posts like these that seem to try to find loopholes in the game aggravate me. Most of RD's posts are of this type.I take offense to that. I am merely trying to learn the game's rules better. That's a world of difference from "actively looking for loop holes."
This isn't even me trying to figure something out for once, it's me trying to help a friend. It's posts like yours that don't contribute anything to the thread and, in fact, endanger the odds that my friend gets an answer to his question.
** Happily munches a bag of karmel korn **
In so many places, the rules call out that there is a divide between divine and arcane magic. So I guess I'm puzzled as to why someone would go through so much trouble to dissect every bit of verbage for a place to drive a wedge. How many thousands of pages do you want the basic rule book to be so that all these possible interpretations are covered? I think it is okay that the developers avoid delving into that much minutia and make the assumption that questions that come up could be answered with a bit of common sense.
I'll tell you what amazes me mark. When people post page after page of quoted rules which support both sides of an argument and both sides of the argument get clear support from several people...
People like you still cannot seem to recognize that there is a debate. You still think it is so obvious that a gnat could see it when clearly there are a number of intelligent people who hold a different view.
That's what amazes me, since we're talking about what is amazing.
You see I'm not arguing that your position is wrong. You are arguing that there is no wiggle room in a game's rules that spreads across multiple 300 page books, written by dozens of designers.
I don't think there's much doubt whatsoever which is the more amazing observation.
** Happily munches a bag of karmel korn **
Touche :D
I'll tell you what amazes me mark. When people post page after page of quoted rules which support both sides of an argument and both sides of the argument get clear support from several people...
While I did read through the thread before posting, I haven't replied to every post that cites rules and then goes on to theorize why it may support blurring the lines because I believed others adequately refuted those positions.
When I read the posts in favor of blurring the divine/arcane scrolls, it effectively amounts to this: Under Dying, it says "A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions."But under Orc Ferocity, it says "Once per day, when a half-orc is brought below 0 hit points but not killed, he can fight on for one more round as if disabled. Ahah!"
To me, that is no different than stating "it says a wizard can't use divine scrolls, but under UMD it says they can! Ahah!"
I don't think there's much doubt whatsoever which is the more amazing observation.
And on that, we can certainly agree.