Hey all...
I am currently a 10th Level elven conj. specialist wizard.
I am trying to copy a necromancy spellbook, and my GM made a ruling that i don't 100% agree with.
Pg. 219 of Replacing and Copying Spellbooks...
The very last paragraph of that section on page 220 says..
"Duplicating an existing spellbook uses the same procedure as replacing it, but the task is much easier. The time requirement, and cost per page are halved."
My GM points out the previous paragraphs and says, that does not apply to spells you had no knowledge of previously, hence copying a new spell, even though it may be from another spellbook, is just as exausting and costly, as any other spell.
Either way, I'm just looking for some clarity on the subject.
TL;DR
What is the money / time cost of copying another mages spellbook, into my Blessed Book magic spellbook.
You must still learn the spells you didn't know previously, but that has no cost associated with it. Once you've learned them, copying them over uses the normal rules, so you should get the half-cost deal.
Except that scribing in a blessed book is free. So it will actually cost nothing.
Except that scribing in a blessed book is free. So it will actually cost nothing.
This.
That is the main benefit of a blessed book.
but... that still doesnt clarify how much time it will take, which is my primary concern.
|
but... that still doesnt clarify how much time it will take, which is my primary concern.
I think this it what you are looking for...
CRB under magic wrote:Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
Time: The process takes 1 hour per spell level. Cantrips (0 levels spells) take 30 minutes to record.
So in your case 30 minutes per spell level. Cost= Free.
Unless someone else has another understanding of this, from the research that I've done, this is how it stands as of right now.
To Learn a Spell from a spellbook, and copy it into your own.
First - You must read the spell, which requires a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell's level).
This lets you "decipher" what you are reading.
Second - You must then spend 1 hour studying how the spell functions. At the end of the hour you make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level).
Being successful on this check, allows you to now write the spell into your book
Third - You now follow the chart on page 219. You then spend 1 hour per spell level to write the spells, into your spellbook.
The stipulation is if and only if you are replicating your own spellbook, for purposes of safety or backup, THEN and only THEN are BOTH the time requirement, and cost per page are halved. If i am mistaken or it is meant to be interpreted in some other way, please clarify with text sourcing your reasoning. Otherwise this seems to be the way its supposed to be done.
Thanks to all who responded to this post your help is greatly appreciated :)
That is the main benefit of a blessed book.
I missed that detail. That kinda trumps everything else in terms of cost (though time is still a valid consideration)
The stipulation is if and only if you are replicating your own spellbook, for purposes of safety or backup, THEN and only THEN are BOTH the time requirement, and cost per page are halved.
I don't see any explicit requirement for it to be your own spellbook. The section on duplicating an existing spellbook (as opposed to replacing a lost one) does not say anything to the effect that the spellbook actually has to have been scribed by you.
So long as you know the spell and can understand the script the spellbook is written in, you're fine.
Dasrak,
Im not certain that is being understood as RAI. The devs, i think, created that as a way to be able to copy your own spellbook at a faster rate, so you wouldnt have to be left out in the dark if something happened. Also any wizard worth his weight knows how precious their spellbook is, and a prepared wizard as most wizards are, would make a copy. That being said the devs, I think, where trying to ease that process expecially for heavy handed DMs, that really want to screw unprepared PCs.
That being said the devs, I think, where trying to ease that process expecially for heavy handed DMs, that really want to screw unprepared PCs.
I try not to presume the intentions of the developers unless something is very odd or nonsensical with the RAW. The rules that were written had no such limitations as you describe. The section reads "replacing and copying spellbooks", with no stipulation that they must be your spellbooks.
The wording in question is "duplicating an existing spellbook uses the same procedure as replacing it, but the task is much easier" with no qualifiers on what kinds of spellbooks can be duplicated.
So the real question is, does it make sense that a wizard can perform a mass-copy from another wizard's spellbook into his own? Yes it does, the rules explicitly state he can copy one spell, so why can't he copy many and gain the same efficiency bonus? Given this, I see absolutely no reason to question the RAW.
First - You must read the spell, which requires a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell's level).
This lets you "decipher" what you are reading.
Or you could just cast Read Magic and not have to worry about this use of the Spellcraft check.
Hendelbolaf
It's not a worry. :) Im a level 10 elven mage, with full ranks in spellcraft. Total my Spellcraft is a 20, then my roll. :P If I take 10, i can decipher even 9th level spells without an issue. :)
Dasrak,
I agree with you. Hence, why I placed this post. My GM and I had a difference in view, and I wanted outside sources. While you are correct that there isn't anything that says you can't then if you can please explain under which circumstances does the normal time to copy a spell to your spellbook apply?