| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see any particular reason for only people with the spellcasting class feature to be able to copy spells into a spellbook.
I suppose I'd have to ask you: How do you think disallowing non-spellcasters from copying spells into a spellbook improves the game?
I don't see any particular reason for only people with the spellcasting class feature to be able to copy spells into a spellbook.
Because in order to write the spell into your book, you have to learn it. And you don't have that ability as a non-caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because in order to write the spell into your book, you have to learn it. And you don't have that ability as a non-caster.
In order to write a spell in a book you just need to make spellcraft checks and any class can put points in spellcraft. Plus bookish rogue lets you learn a different spell by studying it in a book. As far as I can tell, as long as the rogue makes the spellcraft checks theres nothing stopping them from copying spells.
Because in order to write the spell into your book, you have to learn it. And you don't have that ability as a non-caster.In order to write a spell in a book you just need to make a spellcraft check and any class can put points in spellcraft. Plus bookish rogue lets you learn a different spell by studying it in a book. As far as I can tell, as long as the rogue makes the spellcraft checks theres nothing stopping them from copying spells.
The rule has never been about can'ts but can. And all of the mechanics involving copying spells has been in the context of book casting classes, not general uses of the spellcraft skill.
Witches are a good example. They can not use spellbooks despite having access to the spellcraft skill. So it's a fair conclusion to assume that the spellcraft skill by itself is not sufficient to scribe spells in a spellbook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Witches can't learn/cast spells from spellbooks, but I don't know of any rule saying that they cannot make, read/understand, or copy spellbooks. Source?
And of course the rules are written under the assumption that a spellbook-using class would be the one doing it; they're the ones the rules were initially built for and who are most likely to use them.
PS: Why would people copy spells into a spellbook from scrolls? That's horrendously wasteful when you could copy from a spellbook instead and NOT destroy scrolls in the process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Witches can't learn/cast spells from spellbooks, but I don't know of any rule saying that they cannot make, read/understand, or copy spellbooks. Source?
Again... there is no rule that they CAN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Witches are a good example. They can not use spellbooks despite having access to the spellcraft skill. So it's a fair conclusion to assume that the spellcraft skill by itself is not sufficient to scribe spells in a spellbook.
You claim that there is a rule supporting your argument here.
Again... there is no rule that they CAN.
And then you claim that there isn't a specific rule saying that they can, so they're forbidden by default.
I don't see any problem with a game deciding to disallow it, but I also see no reason to discourage allowing it.
Also: The "divine magical writing" section exists, despite there being no divine spellcasting classes with the spellbook class feature, at least at the time it was created. This indicates that classes without the spellbook class feature are intended to be able to write spells into a spellbook.
Whether non-spellcasting classes are intended to, or not, I don't think it breaks anything mechanically regardless of how you rule.
Witches are a good example. They can not use spellbooks despite having access to the spellcraft skill. So it's a fair conclusion to assume that the spellcraft skill by itself is not sufficient to scribe spells in a spellbook.You claim that there is a rule supporting your argument here.
Again... there is no rule that they CAN.And then you claim that there isn't a specific rule saying that they can, so they're forbidden by default.
That's pretty much the basic structure of the game. It's a permissive rules set, which means the rules describe the activities you're permitted to do.
The rogue abilities are intended for rogues to make use of things they scavenge and steal, not to make them knock off wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Rogue can write a spellbook off of other spellbooks (or, if they're feeling wasteful, scrolls)" wouldn't really make them anything like a wizard, knock-off or otherwise. It's a really, really minor ability that the class is not defined by.
The most it actually does is stop a rogue from having to hire an appropriate caster to do it for him/her, if they'd even bother doing that instead of just using the things they'd otherwise acquired.
As for "you cannot do anything that isn't explicitly allowed"... I'm almost certain that following this literally would mean that a lot of things flat-out do not work. (For example, psychic spellcasters recovering spell slots. Not something that they've said they can actually do yet, IIRC). To the best of my knowledge, RAW doesn't actually cover the carrying capacity of anything other than bipeds and quadrupeds.
It's a roleplaying game. The rules cannot possibly cover every single thing that can happen, and sometimes things are poorly written. Not allowing that kind of thing get in the way of a fun game is important. (What counts as getting in the way of fun would definitely depend on the gaming group and possibly the campaign, of course)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a player with an unchained rogue who took minor and major magic as his rogue talents.
He also took "bookish rogue" feat to be able to change his minor and major magic feats by studying them from a spellbook for 10 minutes.He now wants to be able to copy spells into a spellbook.
I told him that he can't but that he could have a wizard or someone copy them in for him or use scrolls to study from. He still wants the spellbook.
I've heard rumors that this was ruled on prior to the bookish rogue feat appearing but so far have only found dead links or ones that say "this is what I've heard but no official ruling"
Can anyone help with this?
Spellcraft skill description states copying/learning a spell from a spell book is a DC 15 + Spell Level Spellcraft check. If it were me, this rogue could do so, as it's stated pretty clearly in the skill description.
And I echo some advice upthread, as long as everyone's enjoying the game and this isn't going to bring play to a screeching halt, go for it.
Not sure about the witch example, as the familiar is the "spell book" and can learn spells from other familiars- maybe they have the "intelligence" of Disney's Snow White's forest friends and can read? Or maybe the witch can read the spell book to the familiar? A good way to get creative for sure!
(for quick reference)http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/skills/spellcraft.html#spel lcraft
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again... there is no rule that they CAN.
I poked around a little more and the way I understand it now is that using a spellbook is a class feature and all the stuff around it is part of that class feature. So only classes that have the spellbook class feature or a class feature that says it acts like a spellbook can do anything with spellbooks beyond selling them.
That being said, if its a homebrew game theres nothing to stop you from houseruling that other people can do stuff with spellbooks.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, ArthionAtWar, I'm fairly sure there are no rules specifically for or against this point. What was intended is a matter of interpretation, unless a developer has actually chimed in somewhere.
Regardless of RAW and RAI, though, this is more a matter of gaming group negotiation. Which path leads to the most fun for people involved? How does having this ability make the rogue more fun to play, and how would it being barred make the game more fun to play?
Internal consistency can certainly help a game remain fun, provided it's something that the group actually cares about, and maybe this is something that's needed for it to be internally consistent. Only your gaming group can decide this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to the Rules as Written it is implied that the "Spellbooks" class feature is required to write a spellbook... except all the rules for doing so are contained in another chapter entirely, Magic, and the rules found therein only make reference to Wizards because at the time the Core rulebook was written, there were no other Spellbook using classes. However we mustn't forget that Pathfinder was written "conversationally" (aka poorly), and that they may very well have intended for the Bookish Rogue feat to allow you to write a spellbook, and simply forgot to actually include a clause granting that ability because that wasn't how the author imagined it being used.
I allow Bookish Rogues in my campaigns to create and maintain spellbooks as if they were Wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
technically, a person with an insanely high level in Linguistics might succeed at recopying a spell from one book into another... that would be an exact copy though, and only the owner of the original book would have a chance at using the copy unhindered... anybody else would treat the new book as a borrowed volume (and if the DM feels nasty, even the original owner would have trouble, accounting for different handwriting and scribal errors)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although the section on replacing and copying spellbooks refers exclusively to wizards, the feat Bookish Rogue strongly implies that such a rogue operates as a wizard in this respect.
It seems reasonable to allow such a rogue to use the same procedure:
1) Decipher the writings (read magic or spellcraft DC20+spell level)
2) Spend one hour studying the spell
3) Succeed another spellcraft check (DC15+spell level)
4) Expend the required gold (10gp x (spell level)^2) for magical inks and materials
Alternatively, he can simply used a "borrowed" spellbook, obtained from whatever source is appropriate (purchased, stolen, looted, etc).
Nobody's going to make profits from selling books they've scribed themselves, since they can only sell them for half the gp value invested to scribe it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty much the basic structure of the game. It's a permissive rules set, which means the rules describe the activities you're permitted to do.
Basic structure? Permitted activities? As if! The whole point of tabletop roleplaying games is the exact opposite of what you state. Roleplaying is meant to allow you to do practically anything you want.
If we wanted locked doors that lead nowhere, and railroaded story lines, and other nonsense limitations, we'd all be playing video games instead!
The GM who says something like monkeys can't throw feces because there's no rules for s@$%ting is a GM that no one is ever going to bother playing with. There's no immersion for players in a game with the restrictions of a "permissive rules set."
Such an ideology totally guts the game, and what it means to be a roleplayer.