That's what I thought.
I'm split on whether you can scribe a spell someone else casts for you or not. Its not that much to ask for a cleric wanting scrolls to pay full price or take the feat themselves. On the other hand, why not let the feat be more useful for the wizard anyway.
"All writing implements and materials used to scribe a scroll must be fresh and unused. A character must pay the full cost for scribing each spell scroll no matter how many times she previously has scribed the same spell.
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."
"These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed)."
Taking those together, both from the magic item creation rules, I think you can RAW supply the spell for someone else to scribe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is Sean the "rules guy" or the "designer guy"?
He's currently neither, since he left Paizo in early 2014. Back in the day he was a member of the Roleplaying Game design team, which also handles FAQs. He's listed under "additional design" and "editing and development" in the Core Rule Book.
Wizards don't "know" any spells. Only bards/sorcerers/other spontaneous casters know spells. Wizards have spells in a spellbook and choose which to prepare. By your logic, wizards cannot scribe any spells.
The specific rules for creating a scroll in the magic item creation section (which scribe scroll references for additional rules) state exactly what I quoted above. Creator must prep spell or know spell. And the prerequisite of knowing the spell can be bypassed by another magic item/caster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards actually do know spells, but it pretty much only comes up when they try to prepare spells from a borrowed spellbook:
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. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). 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. However, as explained above, he does not need to repeat a check to decipher the writing.
If, for example, the wizard's spellbook is destroyed, he can still use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell that he previously knew and recorded in his own (now destroyed) spellbook. He could not, however, prepare a spell he had never learned.
This is, of course, mostly irrelevant to the scroll discussion. : D
If his spellbook is destroyed, then the spell is no longer recorded in the spellbook, and so the wizard cannot prepare the spell from a borrowed spellbook.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since we've covered the rules at this point, how do you folks run it in practice? I find it far easier to ignore the arcane/divine distinction for scrolls and just treat the spell as a spell. At first I thought it'd seem weird from a flavor standpoint, but arcane/divine doesn't come into play when deciding whether someone can use a wand, and nobody seems to mind that. So, I figure, what the hell.
Where this gets a bit iffy is if Bob the Cleric wants to scribe summon monster i, so that Tim the Enchanter can transcribe it into his spellbook. I don't really mind this; it's (usually) more expensive overall than finding an NPC wizard with the spell in her spellbook.
Completely different kind of items: spell completion VS. spell trigger.
And the usual quote:
"It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may even be necessary."A wizard and a cleric cooperating to craft a scroll of cure light wounds are, between the two of them, meeting all of the prerequisites for the item's creation. Thus, the "you cannot create this if you don't meet all the prerequisites" rule on page 549 does not apply, [b]because "you" in the case of cooperative crafting is "the people involved in crafting the item."[b]
So yes, a wizard cam scribe a scroll for his sorcerer or cleric or witch or whatever friend.
What you can't do is to change the spell list for which the spell come, as you write exactly the spell memorized/know by your friend, not another spell.
So your sorcerer friend shocking grasp is an arcane spell that can be read by any arcane spellcaster with shocking grasp in his spell list, your cleric friend CLW spell is a divine spell and it can't become a arcane bard or witch spell.
- * -
There is a curious corollary: if you use a wand to cast the spell* you can choose to make a divine cleric/paladin/whatever scroll or a arcane bard /witch scroll.
*I am not completely sure that it is possible to use a magic item get the spell needed to make a scroll, wand or potion but I haven't found a specific rule disallowing that.
This rule seem to allow that:
"Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed)."
and it is illogic to allow only the "spellcaster" part and disallow the "magic item part" when making potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items.
|
|
If his spellbook is destroyed, then the spell is no longer recorded in the spellbook, and so the wizard cannot prepare the spell from a borrowed spellbook.
A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell he already knows and has recorded in his own spellbook,
Has recorded, not is recorded.
The requirement is to have comprehended and recorded the spell, not to have the recording available.
So wizards have to keep another list of what spells they have ever recorded into any spellbook in their lifetime?
So wizards have to keep another list of what spells they have ever recorded into any spellbook in their lifetime?
Technically, yes, but only if the situation comes up--which is extremely rare unless the wizard is careless to a fault. The upkeep is no more difficult than keeping up with extant spellbooks;--just don't throw the paper away if your spellbook gets destroyed--mark it "destroyed" instead.
So, because wizards can write down spells prior to their being able to cast them, can I state that my wizard studied at a wizard college in his early life and was forced to copy spells into spellbooks for the library and has therefore "previously recorded" every wizard spell in existence but no longer has access to those spellbooks?
|
|
So, because wizards can write down spells prior to their being able to cast them, can I state that my wizard studied at a wizard college in his early life and was forced to copy spells into spellbooks for the library and has therefore "previously recorded" every wizard spell in existence but no longer has access to those spellbooks?
If your GM is willing to accept that, sure. You can use the same explanation to say that your wizard will start playing as a level 10 character.
Or you can say that he is a genius child and have a 7 years old wizard.If the GM allow that.
Rule wise: "A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his prohibited schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice. The wizard also selects a number of additional 1st-level spells equal to his Intelligence modifier to add to the spellbook. 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)."
Yes, and in his backstory, he has written every spell that exists into a spellbook. It is not his spellbook, and he does not own it. So he does not start with it. Therefore, as long as he can borrow a spellbook, he can prepare spells from it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and in his backstory, he has written every spell that exists into a spellbook. It is not his spellbook, and he does not own it. So he does not start with it. Therefore, as long as he can borrow a spellbook, he can prepare spells from it.
Conclusion does not follow from premise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and in his backstory, he has written every spell that exists into a spellbook. It is not his spellbook, and he does not own it. So he does not start with it. Therefore, as long as he can borrow a spellbook, he can prepare spells from it.
Backstory has no mechanical significance in Pathfinder unless you take mechanical options--traits, race, class, feats, and son on--that support it. The section on preparing from borrowed spellbooks adds mechanical significance to whether you've transcribed a spell before, so you're at the mercy of the GM as to how much leeway you get here.
This comes up a lot with Knowledge skills. Even if you come up with a character that grew up in a zoo and thus knows everything there is to know about animals, if you don't make your Knowledge (nature) check it won't hold water when you come across a wild capybara--unless you GM says it does. Similarly, my goblin gunslinger grew up as the son of a high-ranking goblin noble (goblins are relatively civilized in this campaign), but I still have to make a Knowledge (nobility) or Knowledge (local) roll to recognize Chief So-and-so's banner unless the GM handwaves it based on my background.
The other situation that comes up occasionally is druid wild shape, which only lets you turn into animals that you are familiar with. That's started a few threads in the past.
Scribe Scroll is the only crafting feat that mentions you must know the spell ...
Not true. Brew Potion and Craft Wand use the same language. And ALL magic item crafting feats also say this:
See the magic item creation rules in Magic Items for more information.
The other situation that comes up occasionally is druid wild shape, which only lets you turn into animals that you are familiar with. That's started a few threads in the past.
So if you have a druid who never takes ranks in knowledge(nature) then he can't wildshape into any animals ever?
Has recorded, not is recorded.
The requirement is to have comprehended and recorded the spell, not to have the recording available.
I agree that the record does not have to be available, otherwise, what would the point of borrowing a spellbook to prepare it be?
I read "and has recorded in his own spellbook" as still has it in his spellbook. Not at one time ever wrote down the spell in a spellbook.
Definitions:
has: a 3rd person singular present indicative of have.
have: to possess; own; hold for use; contain.
Has is a present tense verb. Not past tense as you are trying to make it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you can take 10 on a knowledge check. If you are in immediate danger or distracted (ie in combat or in hazardous terrain), you can't take 10 unless you have an ability that specifies that you can.
That means that you can take 10 to recognize Thassilonian architecture, but you can't take 10 to identify the Neolethid charging at you.
At least that's how I read it.
Who defines what a "common" plant or animal is? Common to where? In a jungle, common animals might include dire apes, but in a tundra it might be dire wolves. Why can't any animal listed be "common" (to somewhere)?
Who defines what a "common" plant or animal is? Common to where? In a jungle, common animals might include dire apes, but in a tundra it might be dire wolves. Why can't any animal listed be "common" (to somewhere)?
I think that should kind of work like exotic and martial weapons. In certain campaigns or for certain characters from specific regions, what is martial and what is exotic changes. At least I've seen that be a successful houserule.
Makes more sense than a Japan-expy soldier needing to take a trait to use a Katana.
I'd say that bears are probably common creatures in most areas, and so qualify for the 5 + monster CR ruling.
As for "what defines common" - I think this part of the rules is intentionally left vague. That way it's up to each GM to decide exactly what "common entails".
For example I'd say that a polar bear is a common animal for someone from Irrisen, and an uncommon animal for anyone from Quadira. If an Irrisen character and a Quadiran character met a polar bear, I'd probably use different knowledge check DCs depending on the character.
anything that is below a CR 1 making this check a DC 10 would qualify for common. More than likely a bit higher as things like bears would probably be a common animal to know about.
Not at all. Anyone knows what a lion, tiger, or bear is.... but I suspect that the number of non-biologists who could successfully identify an axolotl or even a titmouse is fairly small.
Common has nothing to do with challenge rating.
|
For monsters, remember that there are two things that determine the actual knowledge DC to figure out what and who might know about them.
First, if they are common (base DC 5), normal (base DC 10), or particularly rare (base DC 15); then you add the creature's CR to the base.
So, common creatures, up to CR 5, can be something a commoner knows about and can, possibly, recognize on sight. That same commoner might recognize some of the weaker less common creatures (CR under 1), but has no hope of recognizing what one of those rare beasties is, if he is unfortunate enough to encounter one.
It is, of course, GM call as to which creatures are common, normal or rare, although some creatures and creature types tend to be assumed to be common, like goblins, skeletons, zombies, maybe kobolds, etc.
How common creatures are is going to be setting specific. So it is up to the GM.
I wouldn't mind having a guide to creatures on Golarion though as to how common they are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who defines what a "common" plant or animal is? Common to where? In a jungle, common animals might include dire apes, but in a tundra it might be dire wolves. Why can't any animal listed be "common" (to somewhere)?
At this rate, we're going to get to every absurdity in the game by next weekend. : D
Short answer: The GM.
Long answer: Ttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhe GMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Seriously, it's going to vary based on campaign setting and whether the GM interprets commonality on a local or global scale (and how a local scale maps to an individual PC's experiences). Like I said, it's spawned some threads, and it'll spawn some more. I don't think I've played in a game that didn't have a certain amount of on-the-spot "well, not sure, let's make something up" when it comes to Knowledge DCs. I don't mind it that much.
The other thing is that if your character is from an area where a creature is common, it should be common for that character even if the creature is found in a region where the creature is rare.
The whole thing is a bit messy, so the GM normally has to wing it.
|
|
The other thing is that if your character is from an area where a creature is common, it should be common for that character even if the creature is found in a region where the creature is rare.
The whole thing is a bit messy, so the GM normally has to wing it.
It is like Knowledge (Local).
If I live in Korvosa it is reasonable that even with a +4 in the skill I know where I should go to buy gray items and in which area of the city I should go to have a good chance of meeting a black marketeer or a fence.
I would know at least the most notorious back alleys, some criminal name and some gang color of Korvosa .
But if I am teleported at Port Stetven in Brevoy at most my Knowledge (local) will allow me to recognize the sign of a good or bad neighborhood or that someone is probably part of a gang. It will not give me the name of the local gang lords or prominent merchants.
My solution for that has been to treat knowledge (local), (geography) and similar skills as linguistic: every rank give you a new territory that you know intimately. When you make a check you suffer a modifier based on the relevant territory with a modifier based on how far away it is from the areas you know.
You have 2 ranks in Knowledge (local) and know Korvosa and Kaer Maga. You want to know who sell legal magic items in Magnimar.
It is a easy information, DC 10 at most but Magnimar isn't one of your know locations. It is reasonably close to Korvosa, it trade with it and it is in competition with it, all good reasons to have a good flow of information, so I apply a +1 or +2 modifier to the Dc.
You want the same information about some city in Cheliax. Korvosa has strong ties with Cheliax, so a +5.
Quadira? +10, maybe even more.
As with linguistic, there are other uses that work without this modifier, like using it to gather informations.
The other thing is that if your character is from an area where a creature is common, it should be common for that character even if the creature is found in a region where the creature is rare.
The whole thing is a bit messy, so the GM normally has to wing it.
It is like Knowledge (Local).
If I live in Korvosa it is reasonable that even with a +4 in the skill I know where I should go to buy gray items and in which area of the city I should go to have a good chance of meeting a black marketeer or a fence.
I would know at least the most notorious back alleys, some criminal name and some gang color of Korvosa .But if I am teleported at Port Stetven in Brevoy at most my Knowledge (local) will allow me to recognize the sign of a good or bad neighborhood or that someone is probably part of a gang. It will not give me the name of the local gang lords or prominent merchants.
Except that the skill was specifically modified from 3.0/5 not to work that way, because it was felt by the design team to be less fun. (Once again, "realism" == "screw the rogue.") Knowledge (local) explicitly covers all humanois anywhere, even on distant worlds like Earth. Otherwise, it ends up being an infinite skill point sink, and a well-travelled rogue would be impossible at PFS levels.