| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There are many abilities that allow characters without the "spellbook" class feature to benifit from spellbooks. The way the rules for scribing in spellbooks are written, only wizards (or those with abilities specifically allowing it) can scribe spells into spellbooks.
In a normal campaign this would not be much of an issue because players could pay an NPC wizard to scribe for them. Or they could purchase a spellbook with spells already in it.
The issue is it is not clear if this could be done in PFS and many are prone to say no, because it is not specifically authorized (a decent point).
This would be less of an issue if chronical sheets contained the spellbooks found in the adventure, sadly almost none do.
I would like to ask for an official clarification on how this could work.
Three main questions:
Can a PC/NPC in the scenario scribe spells into your book for you, provided you pay the cost?
Can you purchase spellbooks with spells already in them? If so, at what cost?
Can you pay an NPC to scribe spells into your spellbook between scenarios, if so what is the cost?
If the answer to all three is no, can we start having spellbooks added to chronical sheets when they appear in the scenario?
This thread was started based off of this thread
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt this will happen, unless in some splat book they add a feat that would give a character the Spellbook class feature. Otherwise it would trivialize the class features of the classes that have it.
Without it class features like Arcane Archivist revelation for Lore Oracle and feats like Bookish Rogue don't work. Both are legal for play and one is even a class feature (albeit, an optional one).
|
Actually, they work if you find a spell book in the current adventure.
Or if you have another PC in your group with a spellbook (who is willing to loan it to you). For example, I have a Blessed Book with a lot of spells in it... I sold my original spell book though, so I only have one copy of most spells...
|
Would Formula Books be included in that too?As far as I can see they'd be treated the same (whichever way it goes). I don't know of a game ability that would benefit a non-alchemist who owned a formula book, which wouldn't also work with a spellbook.It would let non-alchemists spread alchemist spells faster.
Alchemists can learn formulae by copying from spellbooks (not vice versa). edit: there are a few "spells" that only exist as alchemists' extracts: the bomb admixtures, alchemical allocation, orchid's drop .. It's a pretty slim advantage.
|
|
How about a proviso that you can only scribe spells into a spellbook if you have Spellcraft trained, and have a class feature/ability/feat/magic item that allows you to use said spellbook as more than just fluff?
So, Joe Genero, Fighter, cannot just write up a spellbook willy nilly; but Kevin Backstabber, with Minor Magic and the Bookish Rogue feat, can write cantrips into his spellbook. Add first level spells when he takes the Major Magic talent. But only able to scribe what he can actually use.
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
How about a proviso that you can only scribe spells into a spellbook if you have Spellcraft trained, and have a class feature/ability/feat/magic item that allows you to use said spellbook as more than just fluff?
So, Joe Genero, Fighter, cannot just write up a spellbook willy nilly; but Kevin Backstabber, with Minor Magic and the Bookish Rogue feat, can write cantrips into his spellbook. Add first level spells when he takes the Major Magic talent. But only able to scribe what he can actually use.
A wizard isn't limited to only the spells they can use. There are plenty of times where I've scribed spells into a spellbook that were higher level than I could use.
Is it really worth the extra complications?
|
|
How about a proviso that you can only scribe spells into a spellbook if you have Spellcraft trained, and have a class feature/ability/feat/magic item that allows you to use said spellbook as more than just fluff?
So, Joe Genero, Fighter, cannot just write up a spellbook willy nilly; but Kevin Backstabber, with Minor Magic and the Bookish Rogue feat, can write cantrips into his spellbook. Add first level spells when he takes the Major Magic talent. But only able to scribe what he can actually use.
A wizard isn't limited to only the spells they can use. There are plenty of times where I've scribed spells into a spellbook that were higher level than I could use.
Is it really worth the extra complications?
It's more of an answer to those who feel that this would allow Wizards to break Core even more than they already do.
|
|
How about a proviso that you can only scribe spells into a spellbook if you have Spellcraft trained, and have a class feature/ability/feat/magic item that allows you to use said spellbook as more than just fluff?
The proposed response covers the first part. The person scribing the spell into his spellbook (and the rules make a clear distinction that it is his spellbook) must make a Spellcraft check and Spellcraft can't be used untrained.
I'm undecided on the second, but more inclined to keep it simple and to follow most PFS precedent. Generally a character can acquire items that he can't actually use, for vanity or for the benefit of others he expects to adventure with. Poisons are an exception.
|
|
I hadn't considered the impact on Core. And I am one of those people who wants to keep Core as simple as possible.
After thinking about it I don't believe it's that big of a deal. Very few rogues are going to want to invest in the ranks in spellcraft and the money for books and ink to promulgate a few spells between the wizards in his gaming circle it's just a few spells. Instead of carving out yet more exceptions and "only ifs" I think it's better to have one simple guideline.
The new FAQ makes it clear that other classes can write in spelbooks (at least for PFS purposes)
FAQ
|
|
Is there any chance someone has put together a list of what character classes/archetypes/etc. would have "character's abilities" that "reference using a spellbook"? just so we know?
Cause I can see issues with this ahead...
Player: "I have a rank in spellcraft, so I can write spells in my spellbook..."
Judge: "Isn't your Goblin barbarian archetype illiterate? "
Player: "Yeah, but that's not a problem - and the rank in spellcraft gives him the "character ability"...
Judge: "well, as long as you do it in crayon..."
The DC to put spells in spellbooks is 15 + spell level.
Plus it costs gold as well, it's not free.
If Hrraggert the illiterate goblin Barbarian wanted to invest the money and skill points to make it possible. Then cool for him. It would take 6 skill ranks for a 10 int barbarian to reliably scribe first level spells. That's not a small investment for a 10 int barbarian.
I'm not saying that spellcraft is intended to make it work. I think it's not. But if it does, I don't see huge issues.
I'm fairly certain that the sorcerer with the mnemonic vestments would be "ok".
It's a lot less dubious than the illiterate goblin mentioned above.
The FAQ states
I'm not a wizard, but one of my character options references using a spellbook. Can I acquire my own spellbook?
Yes. If any of your character's abilities reference using a spellbook, you may purchase a spellbook and scribe spells in to it as per the standard rules in the Magic chapter of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook for adding new spells to a spellbook. For example, an oracle with the Lore mystery and the arcane archivist revelation could purchase and fill her own spellbooks (Advanced Player's Guide 49).
An item can certainly give your characters options. I think it was left intentionally broad. If they wanted to limit it to class abilities they would have said "class abilities" instead of "any of your characters abilities".
Any should mean Any, regardless of source (class, feat, item, etc)
If you want to be super sure, grab the feat versatile spontenaity. It's amazing in its own right.
|
|
and as I don't think Mnemonic Vestments would add this to your "your characters abilities"... which is why I said:
"Is there any chance someone has put together a list of what character classes/archetypes/etc. would have "character's abilities" that "reference using a spellbook"? just so we know?"
This FAQ just opens more issues...
and it would only require 1 rank for a 10 int barbarian to reliably scribe first level spells - it would just require other items to give him a bonus to the rolls. Assuming that the judge will allow you to Take 10 on this check (most would), the DC is 15 plus the spell level (which can be 0), - so a Masterwork Tool would drop by 2 and we are down to a 13 plus spell level. A cracked Ioun Stone drops it another point (200gp) and we're down to 12 plus spell level... or 2+ ranks. I'm sure we can come up with other bonuses to this roll...
|
|
Does any of the following count as "character's abilities" that "reference using a spellbook"? :
1) a rank in Spellcraft
2) having Spell Like Abilities
3a) & 3b) wearing Mnemonic Vestments owned by yourself or someone else
4) owning a spellbook
5a),5b) & 5c) having the trait Magical Lineage or Magical Talent or any other Magic Trait
6) the ability to cast the spell Identify
7) having elvish blood
|
|
Does this hypothetical barbarian gain some benefit by having a spellbook?
this hypothetical barbarian could... would it matter more if she did?
If she does, would it be cause to ban it? (we only ban things that benefit the PC)
If she doesn't, would it be cause to allow it? (It's a "waste of money" which "hurts the PC so is ok for her to do it")
|
1) Unclear, but probably not by itself.
2) No. I don't think Spell Like Abilities mention a spellbook anywhere. Why would they?
3) Unclear, but I'm hoping yes, as this is one of the major instances that was brought up in the discussion.
4) Probably not by itself.
5) Non of those things mention a spellbook, do they? I think no.
6) I don't think that makes use of spellbook in the way the FAQ is describing, so probably no by itself. Same category as 1, essentially.
7) No. Having elvish blood and a bonus to identify magic items has nothing to do with scribing spells or a spellbook (the elven bonus doesn't apply to scribing).
Michael - I hope you're right. I'll consider versatile spontaneity. It may require retraining, as the character I use the vestments on is 14th level and not eligible for a feat until next level. I'd be looking to gear up for All for Immortality. He also has a Ring of Spell Knowledge, which mentions encountering a "written... version of the spell," but doesn't not specifically say spellbook. Right now I've got a handy haversack full of scrolls. It would be great to get those all into one place. I think I could retrain Uncanny Concentration, as I took that after misunderstanding how a carpet of flying works (GM initially ruled it to work like a mount, but further research makes it seem like it just gives you a fly speed while you're piloting it).
Is there any chance someone has put together a list of what character classes/archetypes/etc. would have "character's abilities" that "reference using a spellbook"? just so we know?
Cause I can see issues with this ahead...
Player: "I have a rank in spellcraft, so I can write spells in my spellbook..."
Judge: "Isn't your Goblin barbarian archetype illiterate? "
Player: "Yeah, but that's not a problem - and the rank in spellcraft gives him the "character ability"...
Judge: "well, as long as you do it in crayon..."
Strawman the barbarian.
Because that character would not want to write in any book.|
|
Is there any chance someone has put together a list of what character classes/archetypes/etc. would have "character's abilities" that "reference using a spellbook"? just so we know?
Cause I can see issues with this ahead...
Player: "I have a rank in spellcraft, so I can write spells in my spellbook..."
Judge: "Isn't your Goblin barbarian archetype illiterate? "
Player: "Yeah, but that's not a problem - and the rank in spellcraft gives him the "character ability"...
Judge: "well, as long as you do it in crayon..."
Strawman the barbarian.
Because that character would not want to write in any book.
so, you are saying that a player could NOT have a illiterate barbarian (who happened to be a goblin) with a rank in Spellcraft? or if they HAD one, then that PC "would not want to write in any book"? Why not? Is there any rule that prevents this? Realizing that Players will often do the weirdest things... or at least want their PCs to do the most outlandish things.
Can a PC with a rank in Spellcraft scribe spells into a spellbook? Does the rank in Spellcraft qualify as the "character ability" requirement?
|
|
so, you are saying that a player could NOT have a illiterate barbarianI'll say they can't. All Pathfinder Society agents must be literate. It isn't legal to play an illiterate PFS character.
If you are going to cut my statements and quote me out of context, please at least use the "..." convention to show that the sentence you are quoting is not complete.
the full sentence you were quoting was:
"so, you are saying that a player could NOT have a illiterate barbarian (who happened to be a goblin) with a rank in Spellcraft?"
and actually - there is no rule that I know of that states that a Pathfinder must be literate. So you know of one? Where is it listed?
(edit: isn't the "True Primitive" archetype legal? it grants Illiteracy)
But having played with more than one of the goblin PCs at my table, I know at least some of them SAY they are illiterate. I can still recall "the pretty pictures" one of them drew to fulfill his "...report..." part of the mission. Then there was the Goblin Alchemist - who explained that he Formula Book was a "pop-up" picture book...
So, I'm pretty sure that the statement "All Pathfinder Society agents must be literate." is not accurate.
|
|
so, you are saying that a player could NOT have a illiterate barbarianI'll say they can't. All Pathfinder Society agents must be literate. It isn't legal to play an illiterate PFS character.[...]
and actually - there is no rule that I know of that states that a Pathfinder must be literate. So you know of one? Where is it listed?
[...]
So, I'm pretty sure that the statement "All Pathfinder Society agents must be literate." is not accurate.
This is the best reference I can find quickly. I'm sure I've seen it stated more clearly elsewhere.
Seeing as there are so very few goblin PC boons and, as far as I can tell, none that aren't already in play; I'd say they are very poor precedent to use going forward.
|
|
so, you are saying that a player could NOT have a illiterate barbarianI'll say they can't. All Pathfinder Society agents must be literate. It isn't legal to play an illiterate PFS character.[...]
and actually - there is no rule that I know of that states that a Pathfinder must be literate. So you know of one? Where is it listed?
[...]
So, I'm pretty sure that the statement "All Pathfinder Society agents must be literate." is not accurate.This is the best reference I can find quickly. I'm sure I've seen it stated more clearly elsewhere.
Seeing as there are so very few goblin PC boons and, as far as I can tell, none that aren't already in play; I'd say they are very poor precedent to use going forward.
But isn't the "True Primitive" Barbarian archetype legal? it grants Illiteracy.
so - the statement "All Pathfinder Society agents must be literate." is not accurate.
"All Pathfinder Society agents should be literate." would work. or
"Most Pathfinder Society agents are be literate." is accurate if we exclude all those agents (for example the Goblin PC as well as any True Primitive Barbarians) that are illiterate.
edit: but this is about you calling out my question about using a rank of Spellcraft to write in a Spellbook ... "Strawman the barbarian."
It was not a Strawman argument.... (defined as: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3.Person B attacks position Y.
4.Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.)
It was an extreme example of using a skill rank to qualify under this FAQ.
If a PC has a rank in Spellcraft, does that allow her to write spells into a spellbook?
|
|
wait... perhaps "True Primitive" is banned? I may have missed this one...
edit: yeah, I missed that. Sigh. That's to bad. Guess I will have to retract my earlier statement... it appears that the "True Primitive" archetype is no longer legal... so maybe Pathfinders do have to be Literate. Maybe. Anyone got it in a rule somewhere?
|
|
The true primitive archetype is removed as a legal option from play on July 9, 2015.
heck! I have PCs I'm not played sense before July 9, 2015! ah, well... thankfully, none of them are True Primitives (though I do have a PC who does all his reports as Epic Poems with stick drawings...).
Thanks KingOfAnything.
I'll leave my earlier miss-steps out there to provide a "bad example" for others...
|
|
Back on the topic of spellbooks... I'm pretty sure Spellcraft by itself wasn't intended to be sufficient to allow scribing spells. And I'm pretty sure the intention was that you can scribe spells that you can make use of in some way other than just scribing them. So if I have an oracle ability that lets me use wizard spells from a spellbook, I probably can't scribe a witch-only spell like ill omen. But I could scribe wizard spells. If owning a spellbook and having ranks in spellcraft were enough, I would think they could just say anyone can scribe spells, provided they can make the spellcraft roll, as having a spellbook and using spellcraft are requirements of scribing a spell in the first place.
For me the pending question is more whether items count as having an ability or not, or if it needs to come from your class or a feat or something similar. Mnemonic Vestments, for example. Or a Ring of Spell Knowledge. Of course, I asked that question above, so we've circled back to it as well. I'll probably just retrain one of my sorcerer's feats to Versatile Spontaneity to remove any doubt, then buy a Blessed Book and fill it.
|
|
If having ranks in Spellcraft was sufficient to qualify as a "character ability" involving spellbooks, then that would be the explicitly stated requirement, seeing as the skill is Trained Only, thus requiring even wizards to have a rank in it to scribe spells.
I have encountered more than one Wizard in PFS without a rank in Spellcraft. Both were only 3rd level (one had just leveled to 3rd)...
When I pointed out the problem to them, they were surprised and had thought that Wizards just got their initial spells and two spells added for leveling - they actually hadn't added another spell. The guy leveling to 3rd added several points to Spellcraft, and I have no idea what the other guy did (only saw him once at a CON). If I recall correctly, my "Rogue with a level of Wizard" got a spell from each of their books... But then he has had ranks in Spellcraft sense he was just a 1st level Rogue. (though he didn't get his first spellbook until he got a level of Wizard).
|
|
Sorry, Da Wander, I wasn't attacking your primary argument. I was just jumping on the poorly-written literacy rule in PFS. It isn't as clear as it should be. I'm gonna raise that in the VO discussion about what needs to be in the next revision of the Guide.
I actually skirt the illiteracy rule with a gnome that thinks he's a goblin. Technically, he can read and write. He just refuses to. He does have craft(fingerpainting) trained and carries a craft(fp) masterwork kit to ensure his reports are as nice as possible.
As to the main discussion, I tend towards the "if you have a mechanical use for a spellbook" camp as well. But then, I'd hate my mnemonic vestment wearing sorcerer to be nerfed.
|
|
Sorry, Da Wander, I wasn't attacking your primary argument. I was just jumping on the poorly-written literacy rule in PFS. It isn't as clear as it should be. I'm gonna raise that in the VO discussion about what needs to be in the next revision of the Guide.
I actually skirt the illiteracy rule with a gnome that thinks he's a goblin. Technically, he can read and write. He just refuses to. He does have craft(fingerpainting) trained and carries a craft(fp) masterwork kit to ensure his reports are as nice as possible.
As to the main discussion, I tend towards the "if you have a mechanical use for a spellbook" camp as well. But then, I'd hate my mnemonic vestment wearing sorcerer to be nerfed.
Is there a "written literacy rule in PFS"?
I've actually heard this referenced from a couple judges recently - one who was quite vocal about it. (Stating he would "Enforce the Literacy rule" at his table, though he did not state what punishment was involved in braking it.)