| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Would a wizard's spellbook (with spells inside) show up to someone casting Detect Magic?
The pages inside are basicly the same as scrolls
How do you figure that? You can't cast spells by sacrificing pages in your spellbook, and what could fit on one scroll requires several pages in a spellbook.
I don't think there's anything intrinsically magical about a grimoire.
Unless specifically modified spellbooks aren't magic items and don't radiate magic.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
a spellbook is a cookbook, not a chocolate cake
|
I guess it would depend on how you run your campaign. Pg 219 of the Magic section of the core makes me believe there is some magic involved in writing a spell into a book.
Besides that, you have to cast read magic to read magic. Remember to radiate magic an item need not be magical but just be exposed to magic. The longer you concentrate the more of an idea of the aura you will get.
I guess it would depend on how you run your campaign. Pg 219 of the Magic section of the core makes me believe there is some magic involved in writing a spell into a book.
Besides that, you have to cast read magic to read magic. Remember to radiate magic an item need not be magical but just be exposed to magic. The longer you concentrate the more of an idea of the aura you will get.
No you don't. You can read magical writing with a Spellcraft check. Read Magic just removes the need for the check. You can read magical writings without using Read Magic.
Besides that, the aura from Read Magic would not be on the book, but on the caster. Read Magic targets the caster, not the magical writing. And as a 0-level spell, the aura would fade within 1d6 rounds anyway.
If spellbooks were normally magical, they would have a listed caster level somewhere - just like every other magic item. But they don't, as spellbooks are non-magical. (Now, some of the defenses a caster puts in place to protect his spellbook probably are magical, and would detect. But the book itself wouldn't.)
|
|
No you don't. You can read magical writing with a Spellcraft check. Read Magic just removes the need for the check. You can read magical writings without using Read Magic.I guess it would depend on how you run your campaign. Pg 219 of the Magic section of the core makes me believe there is some magic involved in writing a spell into a book.
Besides that, you have to cast read magic to read magic. Remember to radiate magic an item need not be magical but just be exposed to magic. The longer you concentrate the more of an idea of the aura you will get.
Yes spellcraft or read magic. When do you use spellcrat? To determine magical effects correct? If it wasnt a spell why need spellcraft or and orision? A decent lvl wizard is just going to cast a cantrip not try to wrap his head around the runes every time he cracks open a book.
If its just equipment and there is no ritual involved then why the cost of special materials and time involved as listed on Pg 219?
No.
I ask because of two reasons:
1) The spells written in the spellbook are referred to as "arcane magical writings". Now, maybe the book itself isn't magical, but the writings inside are magical? (So, a blank spellbook isn't magical, whereas one filled with spells has magical writing.)
2) You use Read Magic on someone else's spellbook. Read Magic deciphers magical writing without a skill check. And you use read magic to decipher magical inscriptions, keyword magical. Heck, it's even in the name of the spell, Read Magic.
So what I assume is correct is that a spellbook is not magical, but the "arcane magical writing" (aka spells) inside the spellbook are magical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellbooks are considered "gear"/"equipment" (ie. not magic).
Not to be confused with scrolls, which are considered "magic items".
Well, so are everburning torches.
I'd say you don't detect the spellbook, but you might detect the defensive spells on the spellbook (many wizards will have something). Of course, if the wizard involved is smart enough to put lead foil covers on his spellbook, you might not detect anything inside them till you open it.
It is implied in some of the flavor text that a filled page on a spellbook does have some inherent magic, but nothing ever states they are truly magical in the same way as a scroll or potions. I would assume that since they never say what sort of information someone could gain from using detect magic on a spellbook (like caster level, school, etc.) it would be fair to say that the magic in the writings is so meager it doesn't even detect as "faint" with a detect magic spell. You can certainly house rule otherwise, but that is the implication I get from reading over it.
Nimon writes:
> A decent lvl wizard is just going to cast a cantrip not try to wrap his head around the runes every time he cracks open a book.
Not necessarily. A sorcerer may not have access to the Read Magic cantrip, because of their limited list of spells known. A wizard may might have Divination as one of their opposition schools and thus lack Read Magic in their spellbook (although they could have taken it). And it might just not have been one of the spells they memorized that day.
Reading magic using the Spellcraft skill is fundamental.
To correct my own mistake, I just realized that ALL Wizards know Read Magic, even if Divination is an opposition school. Having Divination as an opposition school means it's not in their spellbook, but all wizards know Read Magic "from memory" even without a spellbook.
That being said, the points about Sorcerers and about simply having taken other cantrips for that day still apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not in my experience.
|
|
Nimon writes:
> A decent lvl wizard is just going to cast a cantrip not try to wrap his head around the runes every time he cracks open a book.Not necessarily. A sorcerer may not have access to the Read Magic cantrip, because of their limited list of spells known. A wizard may might have Divination as one of their opposition schools and thus lack Read Magic in their spellbook (although they could have taken it). And it might just not have been one of the spells they memorized that day.
Reading magic using the Spellcraft skill is fundamental.
Nice job cherrypicking something I wrote out of context. Fact remains, Read Magic or Spellcraft both imply that the subject is of magical nature.
I agree with your take, and that is how I run it. Blank pages are not magical, but writing a spell imbues the pages with magic, ergo there is a faint aura when looking at a spellbook full of spells.I ask because of two reasons:
1) The spells written in the spellbook are referred to as "arcane magical writings". Now, maybe the book itself isn't magical, but the writings inside are magical? (So, a blank spellbook isn't magical, whereas one filled with spells has magical writing.)
2) You use Read Magic on someone else's spellbook. Read Magic deciphers magical writing without a skill check. And you use read magic to decipher magical inscriptions, keyword magical. Heck, it's even in the name of the spell, Read Magic.
So what I assume is correct is that a spellbook is not magical, but the "arcane magical writing" (aka spells) inside the spellbook are magical.
That's how we run it as well. But as others have said, I don't believe it holds up to RAW though.
There are exceptions, magically trapped books, Blessed Books and various other reasons can make it radiate though.
Does spellbook suffer for lingering in an Antimagic field?
Can wizard read pages in an Antimagic field?
Can wizard copy spells from one spellbook to another within the confines of an Antimagic field?
Current RAW answers seem to be no, yes and yes.
I ask because of two reasons:
1) The spells written in the spellbook are referred to as "arcane magical writings". Now, maybe the book itself isn't magical, but the writings inside are magical? (So, a blank spellbook isn't magical, whereas one filled with spells has magical writing.)
2) You use Read Magic on someone else's spellbook. Read Magic deciphers magical writing without a skill check. And you use read magic to decipher magical inscriptions, keyword magical. Heck, it's even in the name of the spell, Read Magic.
So what I assume is correct is that a spellbook is not magical, but the "arcane magical writing" (aka spells) inside the spellbook are magical.
What may be confusing is the way English works. Saying something is "magical" can mean either magic is involved in its construction/operation... or in this case, that it is describing the topic of the writing. You can tell someone you have an encyclopedia on the subject of magic, or you can say you have a magic encyclopedia. Both are accurate, but the second can be misleading and disappointing.
Because of the RAW answers to the above questions, it seems that the writings themselves simply describe magic instead of having a magical essence, and the English language is simply confusing the issue.
@TimrehIX - Yes, scrolls and spellbooks are different. You can't cast spells from a spellbook's pages, although that doesn't mean it isn't magical.
Can you use Dispel Magic on a scroll? What would happen? I'd imagine, if anything, the same thing would happen with a spellbook.
------
@Parka - Good points... but switch spellbook with scroll for your questions.
Does a scroll suffer for lingering in an Antimagic field?
No.
Can a wizard read a scroll in an Antimagic field?
Yes, when deciphering.
Yes, when reading to cast, although nothing will happen.
Can a wizard copy a scroll into a spellbook within the confines of an Antimagic field?
Yes.
Same situation. The scroll is still magical. The magical writings on the spellbook are still magical.
But you still need to use Read Magic. And I'm sure Read Magic isn't used to comprehend a book on the subject of magic. There's magic in them there books.
Or to put it another way, would you use Read Magic on a normal nonmagical book?
To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in another's spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell's level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.
Okay, so a spellbook is at least an Arcane Magical Writing in the same way a scroll is. Got it.
You can decipher magical inscriptions on objects - books, scrolls, weapons, and the like - that would otherwise be unintelligible. This deciphering does not normally invoke the magic contained in the writing, although it may do so in the case of a cursed or trapped scroll. Furthermore, once the spell is cast and you have read the magical inscription, you are thereafter able to read that particular writing without recourse to the use of read magic.
Okay, well there's a lack of consistency. Now we are either assuming (or not) that a magical inscription is an arcane magical writing simply because all of the same rules appear to apply. This may or may not be true and slightly confuses the term. Notice the bolded section above. If a spellbook is also a magical inscription, there may be another odd clause about invoking the magic contained in the writing.
This isn't proof, but it is intriguing. Continuing:
Once a spell from another spellcaster's book is deciphered, the reader must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level) to prepare the spell. If the check succeeds, the wizard can prepare the spell. He must repeat the check to prepare the spell again, no matter how many times he has prepared it before. If the check fails, he cannot try to prepare the spell from the same source again until the next day.
Wait, exactly what is preventing you from trying to prepare the spell from the same source each day? Obviously it's not a limit on magical slots, as another spellbook would work.
More intriguing.
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.
Hmm, exactly why does a spell copied from a magic scroll disappear from the parchment? It's a spell completion item, has the spell been completed? What additional magical element just occurred?
If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbook. The process wipes the prepared spell from his mind, just as casting it would.
Oho! Now we see that writing a prepared spell into a spellbook wipes it from your mind! Just like casting it? That's also quite peculiar. What is happening here with the magic that not only can writing it turn a scroll into parchment, but also pull a magical pattern directly out of a caster?
I think the rules on this are not exactly as cut and dry as many believe. There's certainly a great deal of wiggle room for interpretation!
Spellbooks do not radiate magic and are not detected my Detect Magic any more than a wizard, cleric or sorcerer is.
You know, it's always bothered me that Detect Magic doesn't radiate for a sorcerer. A Wizard or Cleric are not innately magical but merely conduits for magic when they finally cast. Technically I've always considered that using Detect Magic to identify a spell before it is cast as part of counter-spelling was radiating from the caster in a sense.
However, a sorcerer has magical energies in their BLOOD! I wish they did ping on magical radar. Perhaps the whole answer to this is that wild magic is simply too unruly to show up on a simple spell such as Detect Magic? It would explain the spellbook.
|
|
But you still need to use Read Magic. And I'm sure Read Magic isn't used to comprehend a book on the subject of magic. There's magic in them there books.
Or to put it another way, would you use Read Magic on a normal nonmagical book?
You don't need Read Magic to read a spellbook.
There is no magic in them there books. Only notes which are so complex only the author can understand them without assistance from the author or by making a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell's level). Of course, casting Read Magic eliminates the need for either of these, but is not at all required.
Okay, maybe you don't "need" Read Magic to read a spellbook, but it doesn't matter. The point is, you can still use it on a spellbook. Why? Because there's some magic there to read.
Does a wizard who has a full load of memorized spells, but no current active spells, show up on detect magic?
No. Only functioning spells and magical item detect with Detect Magic.
The Arcane Sight spell, however, can detect a spellcaster.
|
|
Does a wizard who has a full load of memorized spells, but no current active spells, show up on detect magic?No. Only functioning spells and magical item detect with Detect Magic.
The Arcane Sight spell, however, can detect a spellcaster.
So, I believe that a spell book would not show up either. But I would allow it to show up with Arcane sight.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The following is my interpretation of how spellbooks are meant to work.
The reason you cast Read Magic to read a spellbook is not because the writing is "magical" but because the "language" used in writing the spells into the spellbook is of magical origin. Like it's a set of runes only used by those knowledgeable in the ways of the arcane that has variances from caster to caster requiring the need for the spell. You also do not "need" Read Magic. You can do the same thing with Spellcraft, it just requires a check to do it. You don't need to be a "caster" to use Spellcraft either. It's the equivalent to taking the time in your life/career to learn the "language" of magic.
Again, this is just my interpretation. I agree that there should probably be a more official ruling as to whether or not it radiates magic. Based on my interpretation and whats actually written I would be inclined to believe that they don't radiate magic or that it's so faint that it wouldn't be detected.
|
Okay, maybe you don't "need" Read Magic to read a spellbook, but it doesn't matter. The point is, you can still use it on a spellbook. Why? Because there's some magic there to read.
You can use Comprehend languages or the skill Linguistic to comprehend something written in a foreign language.
That make it magic?
Okay, maybe you don't "need" Read Magic to read a spellbook, but it doesn't matter. The point is, you can still use it on a spellbook. Why? Because there's some magic there to read.You can use Comprehend languages or the skill Linguistic to comprehend something written in a foreign language.
That make it magic?
Comprehend Languages actually specifically says it doesn't allow the reader to read "magical" writing, though it will reveal the magical nature of the writing to the caster. Read magic is for specifically reading writing that is in some way magical, such as spell books and scrolls.
I still think it wouldn't register, personally. I would consider the written spells in a spellbook to be CL 0 effectively, meaning they don't have even a faint aura.
Okay, maybe you don't "need" Read Magic to read a spellbook, but it doesn't matter. The point is, you can still use it on a spellbook. Why? Because there's some magic there to read.You can use Comprehend languages or the skill Linguistic to comprehend something written in a foreign language.
That make it magic?
No.
You're trying to prove a point here somewhere...
|
|
Okay, maybe you don't "need" Read Magic to read a spellbook, but it doesn't matter. The point is, you can still use it on a spellbook. Why? Because there's some magic there to read.You can use Comprehend languages or the skill Linguistic to comprehend something written in a foreign language.
That make it magic?
No.
You're trying to prove a point here somewhere...
Compare it with your argument:
Both instances you can use magic to read something
or
you can use a skill to read the same thing.
So exactly what make one magic and the other not magic?
|
|
Magical beasts do not detect as magic (nor any other type of creature, though any active spell-like or supernatural abilities may), yet they are very magical. I'd say many creatures are far more magical than any normal spellbook, but if they don't detect as magic then I don't see why a spellbook would regardless of how magical the writing may be.
Of course, when it really comes down to it, by RAW the spell Detect Magic only does what its description says it does, which is detect the auras of functioning spells and magic items, neither of which a spellbook is.
Magical beasts do not detect as magic (nor any other type of creature, though any active spell-like or supernatural abilities may), yet they are very magical. I'd say many creatures are far more magical than any normal spellbook, but if they don't detect as magic then I don't see why a spellbook would regardless of how magical the writing may be.
Of course, when it really comes down to it, by RAW the spell Detect Magic only does what its description says it does, which is detect the auras of functioning spells and magic items, neither of which a spellbook is.
Ooo, good one. I like this. Brings up some interesting things.
I picture a wizard creating a magical beast by casting spells on it and altering it, like experimenting on it in a lab. What spells the wizard casts create auras, but they will fade over time (unless a permanancy spell is involved, who knows with those crazy experimenting wizards).
So, if magic is invovled by making "arcane magical writings" in a book, those inscriptions may (or may not) create some magical auras.... But, those auras, like all auras, fade away.
This also makes me think of magical traps. Would Detect Magic detect a magical trap? I say, with a weak 50% confidence, ...yes (?). Okay, maybe 55%...
You can't dispel a magical beast with Dispel Magic (throws the Permanent ongoing spell theory out the window).
You can't dispel a spellbook with Dispel Magic... well, there's no ongoing spell or magical effect to supress.
Is a magical beast magical? Yes, or was created by magic or something. Unclear. Does Detect Magic detect a magical beast? I don't think any GM ever said it does.
Is a spellbook magical? Unknown, the "arcane magical writing" inside a spellbook could be an ongoing effect of magic, or was magical when writen but that was done a while ago and the aura has faded. Does Detect Magic detect a spellbook? I don't think any GM ever said one does.
I guess this one goes to GM interpretation. I'm guessing most GMs say "No" to a spellbook showing up with Detect Magic. I'm still unclear on this, but if my GM said it does, I wouldn't argue.
If my players ever ask me, I'd probably say "No" to keep it simple so I wouldn't have to say "you detect the wizard's spellbook" ever time Detect Magic was used. And if they come across the enemy wizard's spellbook, I'd tell them, "Yeah, you can tell that's a spellbook."
People have brought up good points for and against the subject of this topic. I appreciate that. Thanks.
For reference, the sample spellbooks in Ultimate Magic do not list an aura of any sort (even though some have preparation rituals, which is weird).
Although, if this is so a wizard might find a spellbook and get it as loot, you should make it magical. :)
Spell books are not magical and the writing inside is also not magical. The fact that you need read magic to decipher a spell from a book does not change that, nor the fact you are using spell craft. The best real world example I can think of is computer programming.
Below is a snippet of code from a program I wrote for a class.
mov cur_speed, 0800h
mov c_comp_x, 225
mov n_comp_x, 226
mov c_player_x, 225
mov n_player_x, 226
mov c_ball_y, 8
mov n_ball_y, 9
mov x_direction, 1
mov y_direction, 1
mov si, c_comp_x
mov dx, 05h
mov al, 0fh
call dpaddle
mov si, c_comp_x
mov dx, c_ball_y
mov al, 0fh
call dball
mov si, c_player_x
mov dx, 475
mov al, 0fh
call dpaddle
Can anyone tell me what this does? Unless you are a programmer familiar with the language it is written in it is gibberish. Even a programmer familiar with the language is going to have trouble seeing exactly what is does.
Spells in a book are like uncompiled programs. They allow a wizard to save the spell in format that is more easily understood and that can be shared with other people who want to use it. It is not the spell it is the code for the spell.
Read magic acts like a compiler that allows you to step through the program without actually compiling it. A spell needs to be memorized just like a program needs to be compiled.
Interesting way to look at it Mysterious Stranger.
I think I like this idea.
Spell books are not magical and the writing inside is also not magical. The fact that you need read magic to decipher a spell from a book does not change that, nor the fact you are using spell craft. The best real world example I can think of is computer programming.
Below is a snippet of code from a program I wrote for a class.
mov cur_speed, 0800h
mov c_comp_x, 225
mov n_comp_x, 226
mov c_player_x, 225
mov n_player_x, 226
mov c_ball_y, 8
mov n_ball_y, 9
mov x_direction, 1
mov y_direction, 1mov si, c_comp_x
mov dx, 05h
mov al, 0fh
call dpaddlemov si, c_comp_x
mov dx, c_ball_y
mov al, 0fh
call dballmov si, c_player_x
mov dx, 475
mov al, 0fh
call dpaddleCan anyone tell me what this does? Unless you are a programmer familiar with the language it is written in it is gibberish. Even a programmer familiar with the language is going to have trouble seeing exactly what is does.
Spells in a book are like uncompiled programs. They allow a wizard to save the spell in format that is more easily understood and that can be shared with other people who want to use it. It is not the spell it is the code for the spell.
Read magic acts like a compiler that allows you to step through the program without actually compiling it. A spell needs to be memorized just like a program needs to be compiled.
Well off hand I would guess part of the code for a pong style game.
Assembly?
Correct.
That is a good example of using programming(Spell craft) decipher the code(spell). It is from a pong game but the from top to bottom instead of from the sides.
Now can you tell me how big the paddles are going to be on the screen? What color are they? How fast the ball moves? Without running the program visualizing it is somewhat difficult. I realize that I did not post the full code but the point remains that running the program is the best way to see what it does.
The compiler I used at the time did not have a step through function so every time I made a change I had to compile the program and see if the change worked. Read Magic is like a compiler that allows you to step through the code so you can see what it really does.
mov cur_speed, 0800h
mov c_comp_x, 225
mov n_comp_x, 226
mov c_player_x, 225
mov n_player_x, 226
mov c_ball_y, 8
mov n_ball_y, 9
mov x_direction, 1
mov y_direction, 1mov si, c_comp_x
mov dx, 05h
mov al, 0fh
call dpaddlemov si, c_comp_x
mov dx, c_ball_y
mov al, 0fh
call dballmov si, c_player_x
mov dx, 475
mov al, 0fh
call dpaddle
For the love of god man, comment your code and use better variable names! If it doesn't physically burn your fingers to type badly commented code, you haven't trained hard enough. =^.^=
At the very least you could have called your methods drawpaddle and drawball to get their meaning across.
mov cur_speed, 0800h
mov c_comp_x, 225
mov n_comp_x, 226
mov c_player_x, 225
mov n_player_x, 226
mov c_ball_y, 8
mov n_ball_y, 9
mov x_direction, 1
mov y_direction, 1mov si, c_comp_x
mov dx, 05h
mov al, 0fh
call dpaddlemov si, c_comp_x
mov dx, c_ball_y
mov al, 0fh
call dballmov si, c_player_x
mov dx, 475
mov al, 0fh
call dpaddleFor the love of god man, comment your code and use better variable names! If it doesn't physically burn your fingers to type badly commented code, you haven't trained hard enough. =^.^=
At the very least you could have called your methods drawpaddle and drawball to get their meaning across.
I removed the comments and change the variable names to make it more dificult to read for this example. The code was fully commented and variables standards were set by the instructor. The variables you suggested was what I actually used.