|
Looking at p219 of the Core Rulebook:
"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."And in the following paragraphs they seem to take great pains to always say, "The Wizard..."
And I'm pretty certain that any other class that has a spellbook as a class feature says something on the order of, "...Uses a spellbook like a Wizard..."
Sorry if I missed someone saying that already in the thread... I got curious and had to check for myself.
It has been said before, but it's still a fair point. The only real counter I can offer is that, at the time, wizards were the only class with any kind of interest in a spellbook. This is no longer the case, as a result of various new options introduced since the CRB was written. So the question is whether the original writing ought to be reexamined now that the assumption it was based on no longer holds true.
And as far as other spellbook-using classes referencing wizard spellbooks, that's certainly true. But any number of classes refer to other class's features to simplify explaining a long and complicated ability. (Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge, Bardic Performance, etc.)
On a different note—if scribing in a spellbook can't be done normally without the appropriate class levels, is there any way we could get a (feat/magic item/archetype/trait/other) which allows it? There's a very distinct lack of such things right now, which is odd, considering how very useful and flavorful it would be. (Although, of course, it ceases to be odd if we assume that non-wizards can scribe spells. >.>)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Apologies for the thread necro, as best I can tell this topic could still use some clarification.
Specifically, has it been clarified if non wizards/magi can inscribe spells into spellbooks using read magic and spellcraft, or any other means?
As a tangential question if this does get FAQed, if a class has an ability that requires a spellbook, such as lore oracles, are they capable of inscribing their own?
|
There are no rules that enable it to happen, so you can't do it. Spellbooks are class features, which can't be used unless you have that class feature.
No, spellbooks are an item in the equipment section of the CRB.
Whether anyone with Spellcraft and/or Read Magic can scribe spells in them is a different matter.
And, given that there are items and/or class abilities for various spellcasters who are either non-Arcane or non-prepared spellcasters, raises a question as to whether the item or ability is the new Prone Shooter, or actually uses something that exists, but is unwritten because there is no need to write that anyone who can read a spellbook or scroll can copy that spell into another spellbook.
Can a Sorcerer train Spellcraft? Yes
Can a Sorcerer cast Read Magic? Yes
Can a Sorcerer cast a spell from a scroll? Yes
|
Can a Sorcerer get any use out of a spellbook? Aside from swatting flies with it, No.
Sure they can.
Price 5,000 gp; Aura strong transmutation; CL 17th; Weight 1 lb.
The surface of this delicate-looking blue silk robe is adorned with tiny embossed runes across its entire surface. If the wearer is a spontaneous caster, once per day she may use a spell slot to cast a spell from a written source (such as a scroll or spellbook) as if she knew that spell. The spell must be on her spell list, the same spell level or lower than the expended spell slot, and the same type of spell (arcane or divine) as the spell slot expended. The caster must also understand the written source (such as using Decipher Script or read magic) and be carrying it. Activating the robe is not an action, but casting the spell otherwise works as normal, including casting time, providing components or foci, and so on. Using a mnemonic vestment's properties does not consume the written source.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Cost 2,500 gp
Craft Wondrous Item, mnemonic enhancer, creator must be able to spontaneously cast spells
|
Specifically, has it been clarified if non wizards/magi can inscribe spells into spellbooks using read magic and spellcraft, or any other means?
This is what I answered, kinevon. There are no rules to enable what MichaelCullen asked, so it can't be done. Extrapolating based on specific items and wishing that read magic was also write magic doesn't change that. If you don't have a spellbook as part of your "spells" class feature, or have an item that specifically allows it, then you can't.
|
|
Per RAW, spellbooks and formula books are class abilities (or part of a class ability). Without these class abilitities, there is nothing to indicate that members of other classes can scribe spells and formula -- regardless of the Spellcraft or Craft Alchemy checks made.
You sure of that, and that they just aren't a feature allowing the preparation of most of the caster's spells?
Again, all skills referenced for using spellbooks, other than having to prepare spells, are available to anyone, caster or non-caster, prepared or known.
Again, all spells needed to be able to understand a spell from a spellbook are available to spellcasters, both prepared and known.
Again, spellbooks are available as a purchasable item from multiple sources, both CRB and UE.
Can non-Wizards, of any sort, use a blessed book?
And, as pointed out, there are class features and magic items for non-prepared spellcasters to use a spellbook as a source for those features and items. So, what is the source for said spellbook?
Equally, if you do, indeed, limit the scribing of spells into a spellbook to only prepared casters, can anyone just provide a spellbook and the scribing (and access, if appropriate) costs to have such a spellcaster scribe spells into their spellbook for them?
There is no transfer of funds, the person who owns the spellbook pays all expenses associated with getting spells inscribed in it, so how would it be different than, say, providing a spellcaster 50 gp worth of ruby dust to cast continual flame on your desired target item?
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey All - I have been searching for similar answers and noted the extended and animated discussion here and also in various other threads. I am GMing for a great player who would like to have a spellbook as a non-wizard and has used the retraining method described previously in this thread by nosig.
Specifically, he took a level in Wizard, got a spellbook, inscribed it with around 75 spells of levels 1-3, then retrained out of Wizard, supposedly leaving him with a spellbook filled with spells, which he plans to use with the Versatile Spontaneity Feat and also Mnemonic Vestment.
I ruled as follows with regrets:
1. Retraining out of the level of Wizard will also cause loss of the spellbook, since it is granted as a class feature (whether or not you can purchase blank spellbooks separately). The purchase option is there mostly for Wizards who have their spellbooks stolen, destroyed or who lose them and have to buy a new one, rather than for rule-bending techincal discussions. Further, the fact that items like Mnemonic Vestment include the word "spellbook" does not constitute granting spellbooks to a particular spontaneous class, in my reading.
2. Obviously, if he keeps the Wizard level, then OK. No issue.
3. Alternately, I suggested he do the same thing, except using scrolls. The cost to get the retrained spellbook in gold and prestige (@750/2PP) was 8015gp. The cost to get the equivalent spells in scrolls is 9700gp, less the prestige equivalent and gp cost since he doesn't have to retrain, or a net total of 5950gp (much cheaper and more flexible, since scrolls can be from any class) and covered by existing rules for his sorcerer character. In addition, he or someone can use the scrolls, as needed in a pinch.
4. I said he could do it with a view towards hoping for a positive ruling from Paizo, but that he should expect table variation. The scroll method is a safer and a sure win, with the only losses being spellsharing and maybe subtle prerequisites where the character has to own a spellbook to do certain things - not sure on the latter.
5. I said that in a strict interpretation of the rules, if he were to move forward and had to sell it later because of an eventual clarification against retrained spellbook acquisition, he might be subject to a 50% resale penalty.
6. I suggested that it really needs a formal ruling, since it is a significant deviation/manipulation of existing RAW/RAI rules.
So...like my immediate experience, it looks like this thread has covered all of the territory multiplle times over and it seems to be a hot and contemporary topic, perhaps also because of CORE and the fact that spellbooks are not included on Chronicle Sheets as treasure items.
Paizo - any chance of a ruling or FAQ? I am aware of the FAQ that already exists about losing the class and losing items related to the class (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gn#v5748eaic9r9e). Perhaps it could be extended to include a brief statement about special items, like spellbooks to help resolve the long-standing debate. Thanks.
ps. I don't have any ambiguity in my ruling, but would appreciate any new insights. I try to be fair, but cannot allow it in my PFS games until there is a formal rules change or clarifying FAQ. If it were homebrew, however, I would probably allow it. Thanks for reading.
|
|
Linkified
And that has nothing to do with spellbooks, battered muskets/pistols, or any other item granted by having levels in a class. That FAQ is for retraining out of base classes into PrCs, and using PrC levels to qualify for the same PrC.
As stated somewhere, an FAQ only deals with the subject matter of the FAQ.
Note that, IMO, a spellbook that has been modified by scribing additional spells in it is more like a partially used wand than anything else.
|
|
You're right, but the FAQ is in the same conceptual domain and includes the following sentence from retraining rules, which I could have just used as the base reference:
"If retraining a class level means you no longer qualify for a feat, prestige class, or other ability you have, you can't use that feat, prestige class, or ability until you meet the qualifications again."
Presuming that a spellbook is an ability or feature of a class, then this text would conceptually limit the one-level-wizard-retrain trick. That was really the main point of my referring to the FAQ (in addition to it also discussing what happens with respect to features of a class that have a prerequisite, prestige or not...and what happens when the enabling class goes away).
Also, I don't really think it matters what you do to the spellbook. If the supporting class isn't there, it gets sold as part of retraining and you get back 1/2 of the scribing fees. To me, it's unlike a partially-used wand, which any character can legally own as supported by the rules.
|
|
Hi James - thanks - I appreciate the reply and I understand the rationale for the retraining loop-hole surrounding the spell-book item. It attempts a logical end-run around a character not being granted a spellbook that wants one via the path of abuse of the retraining rules.
The problem I have with it is that it seems like a huge loop-hole that is purely mechanical and allows any PC to take a class (by not taking or retaining it) and reap the primary benefit of the class. Or, in other words, I do not see it as RAI and would like to see a formal ruling. The debate has gone on long enough and while there is a RAW way to do it through clever rules parsing, I don't think it makes any sense.
If it were up to me, I would probably rule that classes that do not use spellbooks cannot purchase them. Spellbooks are a purchasable item to replace ones that have been lost, etc. And, hypothetically, spellbooks are a specialized resource obtained through class channels - like a master or guild, rather than a general store, 3 shelves over from the climbing rope and trail rations.
The only ways to get (and retain) one should be to belong to the class offering spellbooks as a class feature (RAI) or to kill an NPC/BBEG that has one and take it (but, in that case, it couldn't be modified by non-spellbook-using PCs and would only contain what it has at the time of capture...but PCs could have multiple captured books).
So, the parts where I think PFS needs clarification and improvement are:
1. Making captured spellbooks treasure items that appear on Chronicle Sheets. This could be retcon'd across all existing scenarios by offering a spellbook PDF template for adventures that contain captured spellbooks. It's very straightforward and would begin to make chronicle sheets more useful. Right now, they are mostly filled with common stuff that nobody needs, will ever buy, and/or can't afford anyway.
2. FAQing retraining and spellbook rules interactions to remove the afore-mentioned loophole.
Fixing #1 supports the clarification in #2.
Or, if Paizo really wants to permit a PFS character to say: "OK, I paid my 8000gp - now I have a cool spellbook and a huge number of spells from an arcane class that I don't have to keep, even though my primary class doesn't grant access to that item" then that permission should be spelled out clearly instead of players deriving it through rules loopholes. What's the difference between that, and just listing filled spellbooks of various types with price tags on them that any character can purchase? Wait - I think the filled ones are over near the grappling hooks. ;-)
Ah yes...here they are!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised that the people who wrote the spellbook and prepared spellcaster rules (which are largely unchanged conceptually since Basic set) didn't foresee that players would want to break the WBL rules by allowing wizards to gain spells for free in an organized play campaign forty years later. Pretty shoddy design work, if you ask me.
|
|
Ha. Well...obviously Moore's Law at work. Just think what the next 40 years will bring for PFS. I'm really hoping that my genie-blooded red dragon animal companion will have Wish 3x/day, which is just about as ridiculous as using retraining rules to game a spellbook because they are not offered as PFS treasure items on chronicle sheets.
|
|
From what i have read, page 219 of the core book only has rules for wizards coping spells into spellbooks, with magus having a section on his spellbook section saying he may copy spells found in other spellbooks into his on pg. 9 of ultimate magic... so per RAW, i'd have to say no, you cannot have a class without the spellbook class feature copy spells into a blank spellbook you have bought. however nothing stops you from finding another PC to copy his spells into it for you.
|
|
From what i have read, page 219 of the core book only has rules for wizards coping spells into spellbooks, with magus having a section on his spellbook section saying he may copy spells found in other spellbooks into his on pg. 9 of ultimate magic... so per RAW, i'd have to say no, you cannot have a class without the spellbook class feature copy spells into a blank spellbook you have bought. however nothing stops you from finding another PC to copy his spells into it for you.
Even if you have Spellcraft trained up to +14?
Note that that number is the one required for a Wizard to copy a Level 9 spell ionto his spellbook using a Take 10.
It is also high enough to Take 10 to be able to decipher a scroll of up to 4th level. Note, also, that any spellcasting class can use appropriate spells from scrolls, not just the spellbook classes.
Also note, does Arcanist include any sort of rules stating that they can write spells into their spellbooks? It does, but, RAW, it can only copy from Wizard's spellbooks, not other Arcanists, not Maguses.
At any time, an arcanist can also add spells found in other wizards' spellbooks to her own.
|
|
James - our interpretations of spellbooks differ. I think spellbooks are a primary class feature, since without them, wizards (mostly) cannot learn spells (with some exceptions) and would fail as wizards. That's about as primary as it gets.
If any class could and should be able to purchase, own and augment spellbooks despite not being a wizard, then the PFS rules should say so. That's what this phantom class retraining loophole allows and it constitutes abuse.
The fact that various items such as Mnemonic Vestment (or even the Versatile Spontaneity feat) work with scrolls is not justification to say that any class may own a spellbook. Further, the fact that the items work with scrolls, which are usable by other classes - either because that class can use scrolls or the PC has UMD ranks - means that there is also no justification for handing out spellbooks for everyone through retraining abuse. Those classes have a way to use the item(s) and feat(s).
If a PC wants or needs the benefit of a class, then that PC should take a level in the class and keep it as a fair trade for the primary abilities (and items) that have been granted by the class, rather than trying to use a distorted mechanic to compensate for the fact that chronicle sheets fail to indicate spellbooks as treasure items.
And, these aren't hard problems to fix, despite perhaps requiring a one sentence change in a couple of places, albeit where any change has implications for FAQs, rules, errata, and source changes.
Hypothetically, I suggest the following wording:
"After retraining a class level, nothing granted by that level (or class if no levels in that class remain) may be retained."
-> It seems like common sense to me
"Only a class that grants spellbooks may purchase them. However, any class my own a captured spellbook."
-> Treasure is fair game and belongs on chronicles. It's not unreasonable to assume that wizards get their spellbooks through guilds and/or masters and can't get one if they aren't a wizard, maybe not conceptually unlike the fact that PCs can't learn druidic unless they're druids.
"Any PC who owns a spellbook may purchase spells for it."
-> if a PC can obtain a (captured) spellbook, then they should be able to modify it by hiring someone to write in it - again, common sense.
[But, there might be implications - such as if, by virtue of hiring NPC scribes, others find out that PC X has the spellbook that belonged to Wizard Z, since all spellbooks are unique and personal items. Wizard Z's allies might find out through gossip and seek retribution, or PC X might become known as Slayer of Wizard Z and their deeds might be recorded by those who follow events in the world of wizardry. It's obviously flavor and of minimal import for PFS, but fun to think about for other reasons. The more powerful the defeated wizard, the greater the chance for gossip and rumors if their spellbook ever surfaces and is seen by indiscreet NPCs.]
|
|
Yes - I agree that spellbooks are valid loot (and should be on chronicles), but obtaining one by killing a wizard and taking it, for example, is different from trying to buy and/or make & own one as a non-wizard, implying that they are just commonplace items.
And, I agree that various classes could use a spellbook via items or feats if they can obtain one - that issue is not in dispute. The challenge is in obtaining one (perhaps through combat and defeating the owner), rather than retraining rules exploits or other mechanistic means.
From my perspective, there is no supportable case (given that spellbooks are a specific, primary class feature) for making them standard adventuring gear for all other classes that would be as easily obtainable as rope, albeit more expensive. Also, making them a commonplace, non-class item would significantly de-value them.
Spellbooks are admittedly cool and useful, and if a PC wants one, they should become a wizard (or maybe kill one, assuming the chronicles improve at some point).
What rules source are you referring to for the expanded properties? Ultimate Magic has a dedicated spellbook section and talk about expanded uses, but it's for Wizard, Magus, and Alchemist (formula book) with implied Arcane class restrictions.
|
|
@Zan: Note that the items do not just call out scrolls, but at least one of the items actually calls out spellbooks as a valid source, as well.
And, in either case, it is a lot more expensive than a slightly less flexible but easier to use option from the ACG: Spell Lattices.
A spell lattice can only hold a specific spell, but you only need to hold it to have that spell as an effectively known spell to be able to cast it.
Two bandoliers, if filled with nothing else, would allow 12 spell lattices. (Lattii?)
Each spell lattice's cost is based on the level of the spell, squared, times 1,000 gp. About the same as a +X for armor or shield. And cheaper, for once, than a Pearl of Power for the same level.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the argument against purchasing spellbooks. Gunslingers have a class feature that provides them with a free starting firearm -- their "primary class feature" -- but that doesn't prevent other characters from purchasing a firearm. The only thing that prevents that purchase is a specific rule in the Guide that *says* they cannot buy firearms.
So short of a specific prohibition against buying spellbooks, I would have to assumet that they are purchaseable, as they are listed in legal resources as available for purchase.
|
|
One argument against it is that spellbooks are not on the Chronicles, and not in a book, so you can't buy them. A second argument against it is that it allows PCs to benefit from scenarios they never played, just because someone brought along a spell book despite not having any ability to use or understand it.
Unless, of course, you're just talking about empty ones? Sure, buy all of those you want, but unless you're a wizard or another class that uses spell prepared from a spellbook, you can't put spells into it. You could copy all the runes, you could write all the details you want, but unless you are a spellbook-using class all you have is a book *about* spells, not a spellbook.
And really: gunslingers have their special rule because a big chunk of the community *hates* guns, and the widespread use of firearms in PFS would cause mass exodus. Spellbooks don't have the same rule because, frankly, no one ever thought people would be so rules-lawyer-y to try and squeeze this ridiculous benefit out of the system.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A second argument against it is that it allows PCs to benefit from scenarios they never played, just because someone brought along a spell book despite not having any ability to use or understand it.
I don't see this argument, at all. Other characters can benefit the same way from any other item. You can buy something on a chronicle sheet specifically to hand to other players, like trusty buddy. Half the wands my druid carries are for other people.
|
|
A second argument against it is that it allows PCs to benefit from scenarios they never played, just because someone brought along a spell book despite not having any ability to use or understand it.I don't see this argument, at all. Other characters can benefit the same way from any other item. You can buy something on a chronicle sheet specifically to hand to other players, like trusty buddy. Half the wands my druid carries are for other people.
But you have to give it back at the end. If you can copy spells from someone else's spellbook, you keep that forever. That is the key difference.
|
|
But you have to give it back at the end. If you can copy spells from someone else's spellbook, you keep that forever. That is the key difference.A second argument against it is that it allows PCs to benefit from scenarios they never played, just because someone brought along a spell book despite not having any ability to use or understand it.I don't see this argument, at all. Other characters can benefit the same way from any other item. You can buy something on a chronicle sheet specifically to hand to other players, like trusty buddy. Half the wands my druid carries are for other people.
I'm trying to think of a chronicle specific spell i've seen and i've got nothing. If this isn't a null set its not something common enough to worry about.
|
|
But you have to give it back at the end. If you can copy spells from someone else's spellbook, you keep that forever. That is the key difference.A second argument against it is that it allows PCs to benefit from scenarios they never played, just because someone brought along a spell book despite not having any ability to use or understand it.I don't see this argument, at all. Other characters can benefit the same way from any other item. You can buy something on a chronicle sheet specifically to hand to other players, like trusty buddy. Half the wands my druid carries are for other people.
As long as you pay the correct price, I don't see your issue. It is not a transfer of wealth,m you are playing the same amount of gold to scribe a spell into a spellbook no matter what class you are.
Except that some spellbook users can actually scribe it cheaper, using some feats that require being a prepared caster, IIRC.
|
|
Unless, of course, you're just talking about empty ones? Sure, buy all of those you want, but unless you're a wizard or another class that uses spell prepared from a spellbook, you can't put spells into it. You could copy all the runes, you could write all the details you want, but unless you are a spellbook-using class all you have is a book *about* spells, not a spellbook.
I was thinking about the empty one, and assuming one would then pay the scribing cost for someone else to write it in. As for a non-spellcaster not being able to actually write a spell, I figured that was what the scribing cost was *for* -- paying a wizard/magus to write the spell down for me.
One of the first adventures I ran in PFS was a PFS sanctioned portion of an AP where the antagonist was a divine caster who carried a spellbook he couldn't use because he was pretending to be an arcane caster. So this never seemed like something considered to be outside the bounds of the rules.
|
|
To come at this from a slightly different angle. Is there a price to buy a spell book from an NPC caster for PFS? Or a price to hire an NPC caster to scribe into a book for you (similar to hiring one for a spell cast)?
There is not a price listed for an NPC to scribe for the character.
The spellbooks from Ultimate Magic are not legal for play.
The two methods in question are:
Can a non-wizard (or magus) arcane casting character scribe spells into a spellbook? Allowing this would allow such characters as sorcerers and bards to use spellbooks where applicable.
Can a wizard (or magus) player-character scribe spells for another character, if that other character pays all the costs involved? (Purchasing a spellbook or traveling spellbook and paying the access and scribing costs). For this one, we know that sorcerers and others can use a spellbook they have somehow acquired with the magic item Mnemonic Vestments. link, but scroll down to 'M'
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, with the improvement to the Minor Magic and Major Magic Rouge Talents for the Unchained Rogue, and the existence of the (PFS Legal) Bookish Rogue feat in the ACG, this becomes much more of an issue.
The implication is that a Rogue should be able to find a way to get a spellbook.
Thanks to your preparation, your arcane ability is more varied than most.
Prerequisite: Minor magic rogue talent.
Benefit: By studying a spellbook for 10 minutes, you can change one spell you are able to cast using your minor magic or major magic rogue talent to one sorcerer/wizard spell of the same level contained in the spellbook. This change is permanent until you take the time to change it via this feat again.
Option 3: Buy a Spell Book. Write your favorite poems/affirmations/quotes in whatever fashion you want. Case Secret Page on the pages and have the pages say "This Page Intentionally Left Blank." You can review the book every morning and enjoy your poems/affirmations/quotes. Anyone else that looks won't see anything. Any caster can detect the Secret Page and "know what's happening." Until someone looks at it with True Seeing, no one will know the difference. (In non-PFS, you may have the poems/affirmations/quotes look like any spell you can cast, pending GM approval - not a strict rules-as-written interpretation, but probably will not have most GMs worried. Of course, non-PFS, you could just use Scribe Scroll to enter into the book.)
As always, just my two coppers...
-Doomn
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
By the way, with the improvement to the Minor Magic and Major Magic Rouge Talents for the Unchained Rogue, and the existence of the (PFS Legal) Bookish Rogue feat in the ACG, this becomes much more of an issue.
The implication is that a Rogue should be able to find a way to get a spellbook.
Thanks to your preparation, your arcane ability is more varied than most.
Prerequisite: Minor magic rogue talent.
Benefit: By studying a spellbook for 10 minutes, you can change one spell you are able to cast using your minor magic or major magic rogue talent to one sorcerer/wizard spell of the same level contained in the spellbook. This change is permanent until you take the time to change it via this feat again.
Unless they decide that a Rogue with either version of the Minor Magic talent, and this feat, has become a spellbook caster....