| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes).
If you fail to learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll, you must wait at least 1 week before you can try again.
Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll 15 + spell level
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). 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. 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.
If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until one week has passed. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish.
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
So, where does that leave us? The only general rules for learning a spell are from a spell that is written.
There are no general rules for learning a spell that is not from a written source.Then we have that the Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section directly references that you use the procedure for learning a spell.
Do you have anything in the Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section that provides an exception? Anything at all?
The rules are clear, you cannot write a spell down until you learn it.
Without a stated exception to the contrary, you cannot learn it unless you have a written source to study.
This really seems like a case of 'starting with and ending in mind and trying to make the rules fit'. This is appears to be an attempt to sidestep the normal process of learning a spell.
You're missing the main fact that just because a spell is on both the cleric and wizard lists doesn't mean the other can use it.
A DIVINE spell of Dispel Magic is UNUSABLE by a wizard. Likewise, an Arcane spell of Dispel Magic is unusable by a divine caster.
So if Imbue with Spell Ability can only grant divine spells, the wizard is in effect trying to put a divine spell into his spellbook.
It is entirely possible he could do so. And then he'd have a clerical prayer in his spellbook that he can't use, because he's not a divine caster.
===Aelryinth
Amen Aelryinth! Arcane is arcane, divine is divine and never the twains should mix. Unless you like headaches!
As I read Imbue with Spell Ability, the recipient temporarily gains the ability to cast the spell, not the ability to understand it. If you don't understand it, you can't scribe it into a spellbook. After all, you could imbue a spell into a troll...
Maybe this would work if the recipient were an arcane/divine multi-class, but then it would go among their divine spells. I've played under DMs in the past that rule such a character has two separate spell lists, and that they could have both the arcane and divine versions of a particular spell present. Sometimes such a spell is available at a lower level in one class than another, and this might benefit a prepared caster.
The Inner Sea Gods citation above leaves a bit out. The section goes on to say " Nethys's followers are, however, forbidden to use spells that grant spellcasting to share magic with those normally unable to cast spells or use spell-like abilities." Would Nethys want his followers to give divine spell ability to those without it?
Another related problem, the Imbue with Spell Ability spell says, "Once you cast Imbue with Spell Ability, you cannot prepare a new 4th-level spell to replace it until the recipient uses the imbued spells or is slain, or until you dismiss the Imbue with Spell Ability spell." I can easily imagine a DM interpreting "uses the imbued spells" as casting them, NOT copying into a spellbook. The imbued spell is copied into a spellbook (not used), the original Imbue with Spell Ability cannot now be dismissed, and the cleric is left with a permanent 4th level spell hole is his head.
Plotting such DM evil is fun! ;)
I don't even think the Divine vs Arcane issue comes up. That is primarily a division for scrolls and how spells are designed.
This is an issue that the person with the borrowed spell has not learned (understood) the spell and has nothing with which to learn it from.
Personally, I think this makes total sense. You have a borrowed power which is gibberish in your head. You can use it but you don't understand it. However, if you saw this power written down and took the time to understand the spell in it's written form you would be able to understand it. (Try having someone walk you through a page long complex equation without using a written medium.)
_Ozy_, I am not ignoring the words in Replacing and Copying spellbooks, you are.
I have cited several times the rule IN that section that states you use the learning a spell rules. It doesn't state an exception.
So, you have no exception. Until you provide one you cannot write down a spell you have not learned and the only general rules for learning a spell are for learning written spells.
However, since you keep ignoring the quote and it is your game (unless PFS), do what you want.
Edit1: do you think that this is even the intent of the rules to use Imbue with Spell Ability this way?
Edit2: Do you think that a learn check is even required or is that bypassed altogether?
No, this has nothing to do with Imbue Spell Ability. That doesn't work because of the divine/arcane barrier, though it of course would allow our wizard to scribe a divine scroll. Furthermore, it's not clear when Imbue Spell Ability says:
You transfer some of your currently prepared spells, and the ability to cast them, to another creature.that it means the recipient has a truly 'prepared spell' since you cast prepared spells using spell slots, and the recipient doesn't have any actual divine spell slots.
A learn check is required to learn a spell from a written source, that's right in the rules. Since a prepared spell isn't a written source, those rules do not apply. There are no rules in the section you point at that describe how to 'learn' spells from a non-written source, therefore clearly those particular rules are not what they are referring to when they say it follows the learn a spell procedure.
These are the words you are ignoring:
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.Those are specific rules governing the situation. Just what do you think the word 'directly' means in that situation? And what is required to do that? The previous phrase identifies it: 'If he already has a particular spell prepared'.
Clearly, already having a spell prepared trumps the process of learning and copying a spell from someone elses spellbook. Frankly, I can't see how it gets any more clear than that.
A learn check is needed to decipher the writing in another person's spellbook. If you already have the spell prepared, you comprehend it well enough to 1) scribe a scroll, or 2) write it in your spellbook.
I think I see your problem. You are glossing over the rule regarding you having learned the spell in order to write it into your book. The recreating a spellbook section does not provide an exception to get around this.
Having a spell prepared does NOT trump the rules especially when the rules for writing down a prepared spell specifically call out the section stating you must have understood (learned) the spell.
For an exception to be provided it must state it is. You are treating it as an exception without it being stated as one.
Until you show an exception (which you have failed to do) you cannot prove your case.
In any case, until someone comes in with something different to say I think you and I are at an impasse.
Except that is not an exception to the fact that you must have learned the spell.
It is an exception to the source of the spell to be copied.
You have repeatedly shown an exception that is an exception to the wrong thing.
Lets put this another way:
1) It lists that it follows the rules of learning a spell.
2) It lists an alternate method for providing the spell to be copied.
1 has no exception, 2 has an exception. Until you provide for #1 then what you are attempting does not work.
Declaring that it is 'self contained' does not work either because it is not self contained. It specifically references rules outside of itself. Thus it violates the very definition of 'self contained'.
Pathfinder has specific exceptions. Until you provide an exception to the fact that you must have learned the spell you have failed to prove your case.
And to put it in your phrasing: The words tell you explicitly that it follows the rules for learning a spell. Then it explicitly tells you of an alternate means for copying a spell. Those are two separate (but related) rules.
Your argument is circular and irrational. A method has been found to prepare a spell you have not understood (learned). Thus, you have not understood (learned) it.
Nowhere in the rules does it state that having prepared the spell via Imbue with Spell Ability means you have understood (learned) the spell. Please show us where it means this.
Note: finding that you must learn a spell before preparing it is not the same thing as preparing it = learning it.
Your arguments thus far have been:
1) The section on Replacing and Copying Spellbooks is self-contained.
This argument has been shown to be false because the section on Replacing and Copying Spellbooks references rules outside of it's section thus showing it is not self-contained.
2) That to prepare a spell you must already understand it.
This argument is circular and is clearly not true in all cases. There is at least one method of preparing a spell (Imbue with Spell Ability) which do not require you to have learned/understood the spell.
_Ozy_, why have you been debating Imbue with Spell Ability (IwSA) this entire time if you don't even think it is prepared?
The ONLY thing that is being debated in this thread is the effects of Imbue with Spell Ability and writing into your spellbook a spell granted by IwSA.
My stance:
IwSA does not allow you to sidestep the 'learned spell' requirement when writing a prepared spell into a spellbook.
Your stance (as perceived until your last post):
The writing a prepared spell into a spellbook clause allows you to sidestep the learned spell requirement thus allowing you to use IwSA to write a prepared spell into a spellbook.
Your stance (as perceived via the last post):
IwSA is not prepared so you cannot write it into a spellbook.
Which of your stances (if either) is correct?
Why have you been arguing for IwSA writing into a spellbook if stance 2 is correct?
Note: if your stance #2 is correct, then we have been debating for nothing. I am not aware of any other method of granting a prepared spell (that is not learned) to a person in which case (by your second stance) there is no method for having a prepared spell that is not already learned.
So, _Ozy_, which is your stance regarding IwSA? You evaded answering the questions in my last post. This thread is discussing IwSA, I have not been discussing any Magus abilities.
Your response to my last post was: "Gauss, the level 7 magus ability. There might be other methods as well that I'm not aware of, or future abilities." so, no, you did not answer the questions in my last post.
If you will actually read my last post I was asking which stance was correct and I was trying to figure out why you have been arguing in favor of IwSA doing this.
Ok, so we have now established that for other reasons than the ones I have been discussing you do not believe IwSA works. We can now move on to your issue, the Magus ability.
Knowledge Pool (Su): At 7th level, when a magus prepares his magus spells, he can decide to expend 1 or more points from his arcane pool, up to his Intelligence bonus. For each point he expends, he can treat any one spell from the magus spell list as if it were in his spellbook and can prepare that spell as normal that day. If he does not cast spells prepared in this way before the next time he prepares spells, he loses those spells. He can also cast spells added in this way using his spell recall ability, but only until he prepares spells again.
Ok, one simple question, do you believe it is the intent of the Devs to allow a Magus to learn learn every magus spell in existence for FREE just by spending arcane pool points?
Ok, one simple question, do you believe it is the intent of the Devs to allow a Magus to learn learn every magus spell in existence for FREE just by spending arcane pool points?
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but if he were to use the rules as outlined under writing a prepared spell to his spellbook in the magic section, it would not be free. It specifically calls out that scribing costs are still required.
If by free you are ignoring the scribing costs and referencing
In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook
If the ability works that way (not saying it does though I would be inclined to allow it) the Magus is saving 50% cost at most, sometimes less (wizard doesn't always pay that cost, finds spellbooks on enemies etc)
I thought I was pretty clear. I did not state 'write every magus spell in existence for free' I stated 'learn every magus spell in existence for free'. Ie. free = you do not have to purchase the spell like normal.
Also, you do not have to find access to the spell like normal. Many GMs control when/where people can buy spells, such as towns etc, this would bypass that entirely.
Your statement of 'finding spellbooks on enemies' is completely irrelevant. A spellbook on enemies has a monetary value equal to the cost to purchase the spells and scribe them plus the cost of the book itself. Ie: not free. It is treasure as much as a +1 sword is.
So now that we understand my question, how about answering it. Do you believe it is the Devs intent to bypass the cost to purchase spells?
I thought I was pretty clear. I did not state 'write every magus spell in existence for free' I stated 'learn every magus spell in existence for free'. Ie. free = you do not have to purchase the spell like normal.
If when you said learn you didn't mean scribe into the spellbook, than I apologize that is what it seemed you meant.
Also, you do not have to find access to the spell like normal. Many GMs control when/where people can buy spells, such as towns etc, this would bypass that entirely.
I do see how this would bypass the Magus needing to be in a town of sufficient size, wizard to learn from etc. This ability already allows the Magus to do exactly that, gain access to any spell regardless of where he is. The question seems to revolve around if they can scribe it in permanently after it is prepared.
Your statement of 'finding spellbooks on enemies' is completely irrelevant. A spellbook on enemies has a monetary value equal to the cost to purchase the spells and scribe them plus the cost of the book itself. Ie: not free. It is treasure as much as a +1 sword is.
Once again I think maybe I was just unclear. If a Wizard/Magus finds a spellbook on an enemy, he gets to add any spells he finds in it (assuming correct spell list, passed spellcraft check, and ink costs) into his own spellbook, without using up the enemy spellbook, which can be sold after using the formula you mentioned. The reason I brought it up, was to illustrate that the Wizard/Magus doesn't always spend the additional 50% to gain access to a spell, sometimes he gets it free while adventuring.
So now that we understand my question, how about answering it. Do you believe it is the Devs intent to bypass the cost to purchase spells?
I didn't answer this earlier because your question seemed directed at someone else, but I will give my opinion now.
I don't know. Maybe they did, maybe it is an unintended consequence of this ability, and maybe this ability doesn't allow it to work. I mentioned earlier I wasn't positive, but I would be inclined to allow it.
There are several components to putting a spell in a spellbook. Two of them are learning and scribing. These are two different steps to the rules and to learn a spell you must first purchase access.
Yes, they can temporarily gain access to a spell...for a cost. This completely bypasses even that.
Finding a spellbook on an enemy is similar to purchasing spells. Finding spellbook = money the GM gave you (ie, money he is not giving you otherwise because of treasure limits).
Purchasing spells = money you spent (ie, money you are not spending on other things because of treasure limits).
See how they are similar?
Finding a spellbook on an enemy is similar to finding a wizard to buy spells from.
Finding spellbook = GM has given you the 'wizard' in the form of a book.
Finding wizard = GM has allowed you to find a wizard to buy spells from.
Again, this ability if interpreted this way removes the cost of purchasing spells and the GM control over you finding the spells.
However, you are correct, my initial question was to _Ozy_ but since you answered the rest of my post I figured you should answer that question too. :)
Eh, I was halfway through a longer post asking how you would value a spellbook to your party if you were gming... but I just don't care enough about this subject lol
I will say, as a GM, I don't think it is that overpowering and would probably allow it. It saves the Magus a bit on gold (not crazy much though) while getting him to prepare spells that he might otherwise not.
As a player, I would ask my GM before taking the ability, and if he ruled against it working, I would probably pick something else.
For PFS, I would stay away from it unless it was ruled officially one way or the other as I do see how it could be read both ways. I can get most of the spells I would use on an average day without spending too much, this would just be fun to play around with.
_Ozy_, again, you didn't answer my question that I directly put to you.
Again: Do you feel that the Devs intended that Magus can ignore the cost of learning (not writing) spells and the GM control over how a level 7+ Magus acquires spells?