If an arcane caster like a wizard finds a divine scroll of a spell on their class list (let's say as an example: a divine scroll of Obscuring Mist) can they learn the spell from that scroll?
If so, does it require more steps in the spell-learning process than learning the same spell from an arcane scroll would need? (Presumably some sort of Use Magic Device check)
And if so for that, what would the additional step(s) be?
This has been hashed out a few times on the boards already. The general consensus seems to be that if it's a divine scroll (meaning the scroll of obscuring mist was created by a divine caster) then a wizard can't learn it from the scroll.
But you can probably use UMD to get around that... Maybe...
If you want to record a divine scroll into your spellbook you need to get your GM to turn a blind eye.
Most GM's won't allow it.
Here's the relevant text:
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.
If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until one week has passed. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish.
In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells might cost significantly more.
The bulk of this reads as if it might be possible to use UMD and/or spellcraft to decipher the scroll... But the key word in this is probably "copy" to the spellbook. Most GMs would rule that you can't "copy" a divine spell into an arcane spellbook, or witch's familiar.
Hm, sounds like a no. Well, I'm the GM in this case, but I think the 'copy' wording makes sense to not allow it.
I suppose I'll have to pick out some scrolls that the paladin will be able to use to put in the evil cleric's stash then...
Do you have a quote for that BBT?
Not a bad idea on the diplomacy for an even swap BBT. I'll have to keep that in mind (could apply to future situations even more so than the current one)
It seems that in 3.5, it just had to be on your spell list. Then again, maybe that was a house rule. I don't have those books anymore.
In 3.5 it still had to be a certain scroll type. Most people just ignored it though. I have never seen it enforced in a real game.
AD's post says nothing about the scroll having to be an "arcane scroll" - just a scroll. The next sentence even starts with "No matter the source..." so I'm not sure where anyone is getting that a scroll of any type would not be sufficient.
The same text you are quoting here has this parenthetical: "see Arcane Magical Writings". Thus it appears that the source can be any arcane source.
But either way, if you believe you can "copy" a divine scroll into an arcane spellbook, how does the wizard then prepare a divine spell, even if it is in his book?
The game rules say the scroll has to be arcane or divine.
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.)
|
You are readingthe rules for using scrolls not adding to spell book. The pc is not using the scroll, you don't need weapon prof to craft a sword.
And you are a fast poster :)
To take on other posts: it's an arcane spell once converted into your book.
However, each character uses the system in his own way. Another person's magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until he takes time to study and decipher it.
Copy and paste is awesome. :)
Genetic. If you "copy" the spell, then it is copied, not translated or "converted."
Using your approach here, you end up with a divine spell written in your arcane spellbook.
Again I ask, as I did HappyDaze.
How does a wizard prepare a divine spell even if it is written in their spellbook?
You are readingthe rules for using scrolls not adding to spell book...
Though this is technically all correct, I'd probably rule that "ability to use" is a prerequisite for adding something to a spellbook.
Not true. Otherwise it would not matter if a scroll was divine or arcane. This is also alluded to by the fact that a Mystic Theurge can cast his divine spells in armor, but not the arcane ones without have to deal with "arcane spell failure".
So what would stop a wizard from scribing an arcane scroll of the spell, using UMD to cast the spell from the divine scroll during the scribing?
@Chobe, I agree, and to clarify I stated I believed RAW would not let a wizard enter a divine spell into their spellbook. But for those who insisted they could do so I was attempting to demonstrate that even if they could, they still would not be able to prepare it. Basically even if they could do this, the only result would be to waste the scroll and use up precious pages of their spellbook.
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.)
That show that the intent is for the creator of the scroll to be the person to cast the spell themselves when making a scroll, not copy it from one scroll to another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Throughout most editions of the game, the divine and arcane scrolls are not interchangeable between classes. The historical flavor of this is that arcane scrolls are complex math formulas and the divine scrolls are prayers that one with faith can manifest. There is nothing in the Pathfinder rules that seems to contradict this historical nature of the game and certainly could more easily be argued that this tradition stands rather than has been changed.
This would be a house-rule, but if you, as GM, wished a wizard, witch or magus to be able to scribe a divine scroll into her spell book (or feed it to her familiar), you could stipulate that two casters, one divine, one arcane, could collaborate to scribe an arcane scroll of the same spell, by having the divine caster cast the spell from the divine scroll in the item-creation process. So, craft arcane scroll together, then arcane caster copies the arcane scroll into his spellbook (or feeds it to his familiar).
This is entirely against RAW, but if you wished to house-rule it, I think this is expensive, time-consuming, and complex enough to not unbalance your game.
Moderators: please do not move this thread to home-brew forum just because of my off-topic post. This is definitely a rules question thread that I have slightly derailed.
What you're missing is this rule:
A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.
So, again, there doesn't appear to be anything stopping a wizard with Scribe Scroll from scribing a scroll using an existing scroll.
The only remaining question is whether the scroll he scribed would itself be arcane or divine. As the nature of the scroll seems to depend on the nature of the spell rather than the class used to craft the scroll, the resulting scroll may still be divine (which would defeat the purpose of the whole process).
They don't move threads for one post or even a few. The opening post normally determines if it gets moved.
What you're missing is this rule:
A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.So, again, there doesn't appear to be anything stopping a wizard with Scribe Scroll from scribing a scroll using an existing scroll.
The only remaining question is whether the scroll he scribed would itself be arcane or divine. As the nature of the scroll seems to depend on the nature of the spell rather than the class used to craft the scroll, the resulting scroll may still be divine (which would defeat the purpose of the whole process).
I just posted that rule about 20 minutes before you post, and it show why it can't be done, not why it can be done.
I just posted that rule about 20 minutes before you post, and it show why it can't be done, not why it can be done.What you're missing is this rule:
A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.So, again, there doesn't appear to be anything stopping a wizard with Scribe Scroll from scribing a scroll using an existing scroll.
The only remaining question is whether the scroll he scribed would itself be arcane or divine. As the nature of the scroll seems to depend on the nature of the spell rather than the class used to craft the scroll, the resulting scroll may still be divine (which would defeat the purpose of the whole process).
That's not a specific rule for scrolls; variants of that exact same language are used in the crafting rules for every other magic item.
In other words, the rule you quoted doesn't contradict the rule I quoted -- you have to expend the spell to scribe the scroll (or make the wand or the ring or the armer or whatnot), but you can use a spell-completion or spell trigger item in order to expend the spell.
Some other examples...
Having a spell with a costly component as a prerequisite does not automatically incur this cost. The act of working on the ring triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the ring's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the rod, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the rod triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the rod's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
The creator must have prepared the spells to be stored (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focus the spells require as well as material component costs sufficient to activate the spell 50 times (divide this amount by the number of charges one use of the spell expends). Material components are consumed when he begins working, but focuses are not. (A focus used in creating a staff can be reused.) The act of working on the staff triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the staff 's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the item's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
So, if you imply that you can't use spell-completion or spell-trigger items to scribe a scroll but you can do so from any of the above, please provide the rule or reason that explains the difference. Else you're basically arguing that a rule explicitly in RAW doesn't actually work ever, since every single item creation rule has this language in it.
|
|
Divine and arcane are casting methods, they don't change the spell. For a scroll the divine casting has been started so you can only finish it that way. If you are not trying to cast the spell it doesn't matter since you are not trying to casting it. They are the same spell, it say this on every spell. Cleric x, sorc/wizard y
Obscuring Mist
School conjuration (creation); Level cleric/oracle 1, druid 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1; Domain air 1, darkness 1, water 1, weather 1
This may or may not be relevant to non-Organized Play but this question is addressed in the PFSOP Guide, p19.
For the sake of simplicity, there is no difference between an arcane and divine scroll or wand in Pathfinder Society Organized play. Thus a bard and cleric may both use the same scroll of cure moderate wounds.
That would seem to imply that normally a bard (Arcane) and cleric (Divine) can't use the same scroll. Therefore I'd say scrolls are typed as "Arcane" or "Divine" by the scriber's class.
UMD would allow for casting from the scroll, since that would suggest it isn't in your spell list, you can't scribe it to a spellbook.
I see that is not in the magic item creation chapter which is why I did not see it, but since scrolls specifically call out divine or arcane versions of the spell the crossover is still questionable.
Divine and arcane are casting methods, they don't change the spell. For a scroll the divine casting has been started so you can only finish it that way. If you are not trying to cast the spell it doesn't matter since you are not trying to casting it. They are the same spell, it say this on every spell. Cleric x, sorc/wizard y
Obscuring Mist
School conjuration (creation); Level cleric/oracle 1, druid 1, magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1; Domain air 1, darkness 1, water 1, weather 1
If a spell was a spell was a spell, then there would not be two different scroll types or arcane spell failure which I mentioned in an earlier post.
|
|
I don't think gods would let wizards cheat the whole faith part and annoy their faithful followers like that.
If they had different names it wouldn't be confusing, they would be different spells.
Arcane failure has nothing to do with the spell, it is how the spell is cast. Clerics ask their god to cast the spell while wizards do the work themselves. I can take still spell and ignore the spell failure.
Wands don't care about the source. a bard can use a clw wand made by a cleric, scrolls are different because it is a spell completion item. The difference doesn't matter for learning the spell. How a spell is cast does not matter, the final outcome is all that is important, since you learn the spell not the style of the caster.
I just dropped the Arcane-Divine aspect of scrolls from my games entirely. PFS does the same.
I think it's needless complexity.
The one problem with eliminating the difference is wizard spell lists.
Since clerics can pick any spell out of the air, the party cleric can scribe any cleric/wizard spell in existence to give it to the party wizard to write in his spellbook.
Keeping the arcane-divine distinction eliminates this possibility; the only sources the wizard has for new spells are things produced by other arcane casters with equally limited spell selections.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I just dropped the Arcane-Divine aspect of scrolls from my games entirely. PFS does the same.
I think it's needless complexity.
The one problem with eliminating the difference is wizard spell lists.
Since clerics can pick any spell out of the air, the party cleric can scribe any cleric/wizard spell in existence to give it to the party wizard to write in his spellbook.
Keeping the arcane-divine distinction eliminates this possibility; the only sources the wizard has for new spells are things produced by other arcane casters with equally limited spell selections.
True, but that means the cleric has to spend a feat on Scribe Scroll and then spend time crafting, and someone has to pay for the scroll's creation costs. It's a discount, sure, but it's not free.
Of course I don't worry too much about giving wizards lots of spells to begin with. If they're in town and they want a particular spell, I usually assume there's someone around willing to charge them to let them copy it from their spellbook, as per the rules under Arcane Magical Writings (at least, for lower level spells).
Yeah, if you allow all the spells in the book to be readily available to the wizard, then this is not a big deal at all.
Making arcane spell selection a little spottier, or at least requiring them to work for it, is one way to make the magics feel more different in some games. The cleric can get any appropriate spell just by asking for it; the mage has to actively work to uncover the particular spell he wants. But this is of course game dependent.
If a spell was a spell was a spell, then there would not be two different scroll types or arcane spell failure which I mentioned in an earlier post.
This.
While both arcane learning and divine providence may enable someone to cast a particular spell, and the metaphysic of the game includes scribing spells into semi-permanent stored form on scrolls, the way in which each type of caster accesses and inscribes said spell is entirely alien to the other type of caster. Just because "animate dead" is available to both clerics and wizards doesn't mean that the clerical version and the wizardly version are the "same spell." They're listed in a single description because it'd be ridiculous to reprint every shared spell.
It is just barely within the realm of possibility that a Mystic Theurge could manage such a transposition. By extension, MAYBE a cleric/wizard could manage it.
But we're not dealing with "the same spell;" we're dealing with two entirely different means of getting to an expression of power that both divine sources and arcane sources allow... in vastly different ways.