| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In preparing for an upcoming session I was looking again at arcane writings, and realized that the rules changed, and I missed the errata. It used to be that if you failed a Spellcraft check to understand a spell you had to wait for another rank in Spellcraft to try again. That's subsequently been changed to waiting a week. That's a great change that I wish I had known about when it happened. Especially since it was something that came up in a thread I started a long time ago. As I was looking back over these rules, after realizing they'd been changed, it brought up something else from that previous thread that still has not been resolved.
The Spellcraft skill says learning a spell from a spellbook takes one hour per level of the spell.
Whilst the Magic section says that a character need only spend one hour studying a spell from a spellbook (that is not their own) and then they can make the DC 15 + spell level check to understand the spell.
I know that specific usually trumps general, and Spellcraft is more specific, but this seems to still bring up the debate in the previous thread I mentioned. Learning a spell means that you know it and if it were copied into your spellbook you could then prepare it.
So which section is right, Spellcraft or Magic? Or, is there still a difference between "knowing" a spell, and "understanding" a spell enough to copy it?
To make a long story longer, the processes for copying a spell into a wizard's spellbook look like this:
Decipher: Either cast Read Magic, or make a DC 20 + spell level Spellcraft check.
Learn: Either study for one hour per level, or just one hour, both with end with a DC 15 + spell level Spellcraft check.
Copy: Pay material costs, spend one hour per spell level writing, and use up one page per spell level in the spellbook.
Alternately, could the "learn" step be two separate checks? One just to "understand" (only one hour spent) a spell enough to copy it, with a separate check to "learn" (one hour per spell level) it enough to cast it?
Inquisitive minds want to know.
After over three hours and no replies, I'm going to go ahead and make an arse out of you and me by conjecturing about why no one has replied.
1. There is no good answer, thus, at least one person FAQ'd it.
2. Everybody who might try, normally, to answer such a question is busy today.
3. The answer is right in front of my face and nobody wants to take the time it would take to address such a stupid question.
4. After exhaustive looking, nobody could post anything intelligent to the discussion and decided to just leave it alone.
Told you I'd make an arse out of you and me. :P
You forgot reason 5 and 6.
5. This is a message board, not a chat room. Responses aren't instant, and could take a day or more.
6. This issue has been brought up many times already, and no further discussion is really needed.
Right, like I said, I was making an arse out of others and me. :)
Also, your response to my making an arse out of people was pretty darn instant. :P
By no further discussion is needed do you mean the issue has somewhere been resolved and I missed it, or everybody just acknowledges it's a problem and fixes it themselves with a house rule?
I'm going to give this a "Monday morning bump," as I realize that some of the regular posters whose opinions I value might be more available to peruse the boards. I'd still like to get people's takes on how they resolve this conflict, or if it is really a conflict at all. Is learning a spell so you know it different than understanding it enough to copy it into your a spellbook?
Everyone I know has always used the magic section. I think what happened was they had two ideas for how to do, and one section did not get updated to match the other section. I did FAQ it though, so they can fix it.
Thanks Wraith. This just came up at one of my tables, a player of a Magus asked which was correct. I've been in the habit of running the hour per spell level, as it fit with my notion that a wizard always has their nose in a book, and was more than likely a residual holdover from my 3.5 days where it took eight hours. Obviously the player would prefer just an hour. The group asked me to see how the community at large handles it, and we'll discuss from there. Your input is appreciated.
Learning a spell means that you know it and if it were copied into your spellbook you could then prepare it.
Is that what it means?
In order to copy a spell from another spellbook (or scroll) into your spellbook, you must do the following:
1. Decipher the magical writing
2. Spend 1 hour studying the spell
3. Spellcraft check to understand the spell (DC 15 + Spell Level)
4. Write the spell into your spellbook (1 hour per Spell Level)
Why not assume that the "Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll" task listed under Spellcraft is referring to steps 3 and 4? That sets the correct DC and the correct amount of time.
1. the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell's level) or read magic for auto-success
2. 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.
3. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
4. Time: The process takes 1 hour per spell level. Cantrips (0 levels spells) take 30 minutes to record.
It seems there is no conflict. Thanks Grick. I thought you were incorrect, but I see they just made us jump around parts of the book to get all the steps.
edit:This was copied and pasted from the PRD. I just did not put it in quotes like I normally would.
edit2: Not the numbered steps. I added the numbering, but the actual instructions.
I hear you loud and clear Grick, the problem is the Spellcraft skill says that DC 15 + spell level check can only be made after studying the spell for "an hour per spell level." Whereas the magic section says you make the check (same DC) after just an hour, but that section of the book is simply talking about the ability to copy it into your book. That's why I speculated that maybe understanding a spell enough to copy it into a spellbook is not the same as "learning" it enough to actually cast it.
The language difference is semantic and subtle, but still looks like a discrepancy between the sections of the rulebook to me.
Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes).
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).
I don't want this to rehash the old thread, but it is still, sort of, the same argument. Learning a spell to cast it, might be different than understanding a spell enough to copy it into a book. Which sounds just dumb, why make two checks to "understand" something. But if there aren't two checks, why the discrepancy in time allotted? (The most obvious answer is writer error--which I completely understand). If it is simply writer error, I'm just trying to get a bead on how the community at large most often handles it.
If there are two separate checks though the steps could look like this:
1. Decipher arcane writing (or use read magic)
2. Study the spell for an hour per spell level and make a DC 15 + spell level check. (Success = learning the spell)
3. If successful study the spell for another hour and make another DC 15 + spell level check. (Success = understanding the shorthand of the spell enough to write it)
4. Pay material costs and copy the spell using an hour per spell level.
If there aren't two separate checks the book needs to reflect which time frame for "understanding" the spell is correct. Regardless of when that fix comes, I'm trying to figure out how many members of this community that I trust do, or would, handle this situation.
Edit: Wraith, are you saying that "writing" the spell is equivalent to "learning" it, because I don't see that as being the case.
I've always interpreted it the same as Grick. This wouldn't be the only topic that has its rules scattered across the rulebook.
Edit: A wizard with a decent enough Int and Spellcraft ranks can essentially take-10 on all the checks and the GM can simply state "It takes [spell level * 2 + 1] hours to study, understand, and copy the spell into your spellbook" before moving on to the rest of the game.
The spellcraft check is made at step 2 Mended Wall. The time(hours per spell level) which is consistent with the spellcraft and magic chapter happens at step 4.
The problem is that the spellcraft section does not go into the detail that the magic chapter does, so it is not so clear.
Writing the spell is learning it because only spells written in a spellbook counted as "learned" spells.
So you're saying that a wizard hasn't successfully "learned" a spell (i.e. doesn't "know" it in game terminology) until such time as it has been completely written into their own spellbook?
Yes. That is correct.
Spells known=spells in your spellbook.
edit: "Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook"
Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods. A wizard can only learn new spells that belong to the wizard spell lists."
Not to belabor a tangent, but to chime in on what wraithstrike mentioned: In order for a wizard to cast a spell she knows, she has to prepare that spell; in order to prepare the spell, she must have the spell in her spellbook.
This is even true if the wizard is using a borrowed spellbook; in order to prepare a spell using a borrowed spellbook, the wizard must make a check to do so and the spell must already be recorded in her own spellbook.
So in a sense, recording the spell in her spellbook is a necessary part of 'knowing' the spell for a wizard.
Okay on first blush that seems to make an insane amount of sense, but there are a few reasons I don't see that argument as completely valid.
Emphasis mine throughout quotes.
1.
Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes).2.
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.3.
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured.
1. If learning a spell meant understanding and copying it into a book, the Spellcraft skill should read: "Learning a spell from a spellbook takes one hour plus an additional 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes). Since the spell isnt' learned until it's copied, and part of the learning process is the understanding check made on the initial read through.
2. The language here makes a clear distinction between understanding a spell and copying it. Again, this is really semantic, but in my estimation, understanding something means you've learned it.
3. This language also makes a clear distinction between knowing a spell and having it copied into a spellbook. Which is important because a wizard that loses their spellbook still knows all the spells that were written in it, and can prepare those spells from a borrowed spellbook at no additional time cost. It's also important because if "knowing" a spell automatically implies that it is written into their spellbook, why add the "and has recorded..." bit at all.
So there still seems to be a discrepancy, because Spellcraft says a wizard hasn't learned a spell, seemingly, if your take on the steps is correct, until it's written down in their spellbook (and it has a clear time discrepancy), but the Magic section says a wizard understands a spell before they can copy it into their book, and they still know it even if their spellbook has been lost. If a wizard's spellbook is destroyed, they don't suddenly "unknow" the spells that were written in it.
Not to belabor a tangent, but to chime in on what wraithstrike mentioned: In order for a wizard to cast a spell she knows, she has to prepare that spell; in order to prepare the spell, she must have the spell in her spellbook.
This is even true if the wizard is using a borrowed spellbook; in order to prepare a spell using a borrowed spellbook, the wizard must make a check to do so and the spell must already be recorded in her own spellbook.
So in a sense, recording the spell in her spellbook is a necessary part of 'knowing' the spell for a wizard.
If the spell is from a borrowed book, the spell does not have to be in the wizard's own book, but each time the borrowed book is used the spell must be deciphered again no matter how many times it was used before.
If you can find language to say the borrowed spell must also be in the wizard's own book I would like to see it.
The language difference is semantic and subtle, but still looks like a discrepancy between the sections of the rulebook to me.
What is it that your player actually wants to do?
Does he want to just know what the spell is on that page?
Does he want to prepare the spell so he can cast it?
Or does he want to scribe it into his own spellbook?
To figure out what spell is on that page you decipher the magical writing. This is called "Decipher a scroll" in Table: Spellcraft DCs and the magic chapter has more detailed information, such as the ability to use read magic, or have whoever wrote it tell you about it.
To prepare the spell, you decipher it, then make a spellcraft check. This is called "Prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook" in Table: Spellcraft DCs and the magic chapter has more detailed information, such as what happens if you fail.
To scribe the spell into your own spellbook, you decipher it, then study it, then make a spellcraft check, then write it. The second half of this is called "Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll" in Table: Spellcraft DCs and the magic chapter has more detailed information, like the other steps, costs, pages, etc.
All three activities are mentioned in Table: Spellcraft DCs, and all three have more detailed information in the magic chapter.
3. This language also makes a clear distinction between knowing a spell and having it copied into a spellbook. Which is important because a wizard that loses their spellbook still knows all the spells that were written in it, and can prepare those spells from a borrowed spellbook at no additional time cost. It's also important because if "knowing" a spell automatically implies that it is written into their spellbook, why add the "and has recorded..." bit at all.
You have a quote to support that?
At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards' spellbooks to his own (see Magic).
This goes in hand with.
Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook
Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods. A wizard can only learn new spells that belong to the wizard spell lists.
Spells Gained at a New Level: Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, he gains two spells of his choice to add to his spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels he can cast. If he has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from his specialty school.
The learned spells are the ones in the book. Maybe they should have used a different word than know, such as availible, but that does not change the fact that you can't use a spell that is not in your book without deciphering it first. In other words, if its not in your book you don't own(know) it.
Not to belabor a tangent, but to chime in on what wraithstrike mentioned: In order for a wizard to cast a spell she knows, she has to prepare that spell; in order to prepare the spell, she must have the spell in her spellbook.
This is even true if the wizard is using a borrowed spellbook; in order to prepare a spell using a borrowed spellbook, the wizard must make a check to do so and the spell must already be recorded in her own spellbook.
So in a sense, recording the spell in her spellbook is a necessary part of 'knowing' the spell for a wizard.
If the spell is from a borrowed book, the spell does not have to be in the wizard's own book, but each time the borrowed book is used the spell must be deciphered again no matter how many times it was used before.
If you can find language to say the borrowed spell must also be in the wizard's own book I would like to see it.
From Wizard Spells and Borrowed Spellbooks:
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured.
The player wants to know how long it takes to learn a spell from a borrowed spell book. Which is why the semantics become important, because if a caster has learned it before they've copied it, there is a clear discrepancy, but if they haven't learned it until it's copied, then Spellcraft needs to have the additional language "one hour plus an additional hour per spell level" added to it.
Also, since I think it is entirely germane to this conversation I went back and looked at this particular item in my 3.5 rulebook. There, in the Spellcraft skill section it says learning a spell requires 8 hours, in the Magic section it says a "day." I'm guessing that most 3.5 players would say that "day" equates to 8 hours and there is no discrepancy. This would lead me to believe that the discrepancy in Pathfinder was unintended. Since that is the case, I would also say that the intended time to study a spell before you "understand" it enough to copy it, is, in fact, 1 hour per spell level, not just 1 hour.
Spellcraft Skill wrote:
Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes)
Note that this requires a DC 15+spell level check.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Do we not learn by studying(how the magic section writes it).
Is it a coincidence studying is also a DC are 15+spell level?
Is it a coincidence that the next step is writing the spell into the book at a rate of 1 hour per level of the spell?
The player wants to know how long it takes to learn a spell from a borrowed spell book. Which is why the semantics become important, because if a caster has learned it before they've copied it, there is a clear discrepancy, but if they haven't learned it until it's copied, then Spellcraft needs to have the additional language "one hour plus an additional hour per spell level" added to it.
Also, since I think it is entirely germane to this conversation I went back and looked at this particular item in my 3.5 rulebook. There, in the Spellcraft skill section it says learning a spell requires 8 hours, in the Magic section it says a "day." I'm guessing that most 3.5 players would say that "day" equates to 8 hours and there is no discrepancy. This would lead me to believe that the discrepancy in Pathfinder was unintended. Since that is the case, I would also say that the intended time to study a spell before you "understand" it enough to copy it, is, in fact, 1 hour per spell level, not just 1 hour.
There is no discrepancy. Both the spellcraft and magic chapter say 1 hour per level.
I guess I have to show the learning the spell also equaled copying into the book in 3.5.
I shall see what I can find. :)
You have a quote to support that?
Sorry that's a bit misleading, in that I'm assuming the wizard made their decipher check or cast read magic, but if they did then:
Preparing a spell from a borrowed spellbook does not add any time to your spell preparation.Edit:
I guess I have to show the learning the spell also equaled copying into the book in 3.5.
I shall see what I can find. :)
You'll be hard pressed to do that. Under copying the spell it says it takes 24 hours regardless of the level.
The player wants to know how long it takes to learn a spell from a borrowed spell book.
Does he want to prepare the spell, or write it in his book?
I have developer input from someone that helped write 3.5 and PF.
These terms mean different, very specific things:* wizard spell list (all spells that have "wizard" in the Level line, which a wizard could potentially learn)
* wizard spells prepared (a subset of the above category, consisting of the wizard spells known that wizard has prepared that day)
A wizard can use a wand if its spell appears on the wizard spell list. :)
The player wants to know how long it takes to learn a spell from a borrowed spell book.Does he want to prepare the spell, or write it in his book?
Unless I'm reading incorrectly, he can't do the former if he hasn't already done the latter.
But I do admit that I could be reading that incorrectly. Not sure how, but...
You don't need to know a spell to prepare it Xar. You just have to have access to a spellbook that has it. If the spell is not in your spellbook you need to decipher it first, which is not difficult with read magic.
You don't need to know a spell to prepare it Xar. You just have to have access to a spellbook that has it. If the spell is not in your spellbook you need to decipher it first, which is not difficult with read magic.
I just quoted above exactly where it says that you can only prepare a spell with a borrowed spellbook if it is already copied in your own spellbook.
I actually responded to your request for a quote stating that that was a restriction, and provided that quote, and a link to the SRD from whence I quoted it.
You don't need to know a spell to prepare it Xar. You just have to have access to a spellbook that has it. If the spell is not in your spellbook you need to decipher it first, which is not difficult with read magic.I just quoted above exactly where it says that you can only prepare a spell with a borrowed spellbook if it is already copied in your own spellbook.
I actually responded to your request for a quote stating that that was a restriction, and provided that quote, and a link to the SRD from whence I quoted it.
Opps. I missed that post. Good to know even though I hope I am never in that situation.
Does he want to prepare the spell, or write it in his book?Unless I'm reading incorrectly, he can't do the former if he hasn't already done the latter.
Yep. And both of them are pretty explicitly laid out as to how exactly you do each of them, and neither of them really conflict with the Spellcraft section, unless you're reading the Spellcraft table entries as meaning something else entirely. IE: MendedWall's player might be trying to do something crazy, like figure out a spell from a scroll, use up that scroll by casting from it, then scribe the spell later after the scroll is used up.
From a house-rule perspective, I might allow a wizard to grab up a different spellbook and use spells in it with just the deciphering\spellcraft preparation check - but that particular page in the spellbook would be treated as a scroll at that point, and would be rendered inert.
Heck, I'd let a player do it if for no other reason than using it as a plot hook to throw another wizard at them, angry for destroying his spell. ;)
So just to sort of clarify here:
1. Without the aid of a wand or scroll or some other magical device, a wizard can only cast spells that she has already written into her own spellbook at some point.
2. A wizard can use another's spellbook to prepare spells, but only spells that already exist in her own book, and only after making two skill checks; this preparation does not take any longer than normal.
3. The hour-per-spell time period only applies when you are attempting to decipher a spell in order to transcribe it into your own spellbook.
Grick, I feel like we're arguing in circles. I get that your reading of the rules is that Spellcraft's hour per spell level is equated by the actual copying of the spell into a wizard's spellbook. I will admit that this seems like a very common sense way to reconcile these rules, and as I take advice back to my group this will more than likely be the very idea we use.
It doesn't change the fact, though, that I still see a discrepancy between the two sections. Especially as I look back at 3.5 and see that, there, the Spellcraft DC to learn a spell from a scroll or borrowed book requires 8 hours, but copying a spell requires 24 hours (regardless of spell level). To me that shows a distinct difference between learning a spell and copying it. That does not of course change the fact that a wizard couldn't even prepare a spell until they had copied it into their book (even from a borrowed spell book). So learning a spell is only half as important as copying it anyway. Using your interpretation is clearly the easiest for the "adventuring" wizard, and looking back at the 3.5 rules I'm really glad Pathfinder made the switches they did. It seriously cuts down on the time a wizard needs to update their spellbook.
MW I made a post(with developer input) showing where spells known=spell in spell book.
spells in spellbook=spells copied.
Did you miss the post?
No, I saw it.
I know that spells known requires them to be in your book. That doesn't really change what I see as a perceived discrepancy. In order to "know" a spell you must learn and copy it. This might just be one DC 15 + spell level check, for the entire process, but it doesn't change the fact that the amount of time listed in the two places is off by 1 hour. "Learning" a spell, as laid out in the Spellcraft Skill, in my estimation, should include the 1 hour of study as listed in the Magic section, as that is part of the requirement to "know" it. In which case the complete learning of a spell, by that I mean accomplishing all of the necessary steps to "know" it in game terms, requires 1 hour of study, and then 1 hour per spell level to copy/learn the spell. Like I said earlier, it's nit-picky, but still something I think needs to be fixed.
ok..but we do agree on the RAI?
I think understand your complaint now, MW12.
You're saying that in order to both comprehend a spell (which is a prerequisite for being able to scribe the spell into her own book) and then actually copy the spell into her book, a wizard must spend 1 hour (to first 'understand' the spell, per the Magic rules) + 1 hour per level of the spell (per the Spellcraft rules on writing a new spell into a spellbook)?
Whereas if you only read one section, it appears to only take 1 hour per level of the spell.
I think understand your complaint now, MW12.
You're saying that in order to both comprehend a spell (which is a prerequisite for being able to scribe the spell into her own book) and then actually copy the spell into her book, a wizard must spend 1 hour (to first 'understand' the spell, per the Magic rules) + 1 hour per level of the spell (per the Spellcraft rules on writing a new spell into a spellbook)?
Whereas if you only read one section, it appears to only take 1 hour per level of the spell.
That, and the Spellcraft section doesn't say "writing" it, it says "learning" it. I just think if they were referencing the writing of a spell, that should have been made clear. Of course, if learning really does mean "understanding it, and having it copied into your spellbook," then they're still missing that extra hour in the Spellcraft section. Partially I'm just a little irritated that it takes such an in depth look at the two different sections to try and piece together the RAI. That's my own fault, and clearly not the only place the rules do that.
Also, yes wraith, we are in agreement on the RAI.