So, my GM is sticking on a specific wording in the item, Page of Spell Knowledge, that says "It contains the knowledge of a single arcane or divine spell (chosen by the creator when the item is crafted)." Now, as a specific example, Boneshaker is on both the Cleric/Oracle spell list, and the Wizard/Sorcerer list. If my Oracle, who CAN cast it, makes a page with that as the spell, is it a problem for the party's sorcerer to cast it from the item?
In case anyone's wondering, my party found a really nifty spell book, and I was considering being slightly insane and turning the whole book into a volume of Pages of Spell Knowledge.
Seems to work fine, yeah, so long as it is on your spell list. Could see seperating them into arcane/divine being a fair houserule.
...
That is a pricey plan. Basically costs 100 times what making the spellbook does.
Agreed - no stated restriction on arcane vs divine implies that there isn't one.
Note that you can bypass the construction requirement to cast the spell if you add 5 to the construction DC.
Weirdo wrote: Agreed - no stated restriction on arcane vs divine implies that there isn't one.
Note that you can bypass the construction requirement to cast the spell if you add 5 to the construction DC.
Though you probably should not do so. That's kind of pushing good taste for an object of this nature. Technically you can.
I'm playing an oracle. Some of the spell levels have more spells than I even GET of that level. But, at the same time, I've GOT the spell book, arguably, even if I can't cast it myself, the +5 is perfectly reasonable, since I've got the spells, themselves.
And, Toast, I know it would cost significantly more... (did the math on it, it's a bit over 200k for me to do it with this spell book) which is why I said it was slightly insane. Given that the "spell book" is actually the list of 'erotic spells', it's also a minor series of crimes against humanity, but hey.
Zarius wrote: I've GOT the spell book, arguably, even if I can't cast it myself, the +5 is perfectly reasonable, since I've got the spells, themselves. Agreed. If you decipher the spell, it is on your class list, you have a written copy and you increase the DC by 5? Perfectly reasonable.
"I make a page of spell knowledge for a spell I could never cast and have never seen by increasing the DC by 5." That would be highly unrighteous.
How so? What's so unreasonable about a caster experimenting, researching and applying learned theory (Remember, spellcraft is intelligence based) to make an item to accomplish things the user couldn't bare handed. Spellcraft lets you figure out the exact spell someone is using just by being near it, so someone trained in the skill definitely knows a lot about the spell even if they can't actually cast it. The crafter is making it as a deliberate effort over several days and could fail (though will always take 10 instead) so it's clearly some degree of challenge.
From a gameplay prospective, the rule was to stop spontaneous casters from being awful at crafting (as they were in third edition), there's no reason to deny them being able to use it when a Wizard can just buy the scroll he needs and a Cleric can just have it on tap the next day.
TLDR
Your spiel apply equally to scrolls? Lore wise, this is a super scroll. Can't skip spell requierments of those, logically should thus not be able to skip it for these. Don't agree? Good for you.
Zarius wrote: So, my GM is sticking on a specific wording in the item, Page of Spell Knowledge, that says "It contains the knowledge of a single arcane or divine spell (chosen by the creator when the item is crafted)." Now, as a specific example, Boneshaker is on both the Cleric/Oracle spell list, and the Wizard/Sorcerer list. If my Oracle, who CAN cast it, makes a page with that as the spell, is it a problem for the party's sorcerer to cast it from the item?
As a home game, the GM can rule it as he likes. In PFS, there is no distinction between scrolls of divine or arcane spells. Or psychic spells as well I guess.
In a home game, denoting scrolls or page of spell knowledge would become tedious at best. But doable. I can point to some early APs, like Rise of the Runelords, does call out some scrolls as either divine or arcane. So there is some precedence to splitting scrolls into arcane/ divine/ psychic piles
Jakkedin wrote: Zarius wrote: So, my GM is sticking on a specific wording in the item, Page of Spell Knowledge, that says "It contains the knowledge of a single arcane or divine spell (chosen by the creator when the item is crafted)." Now, as a specific example, Boneshaker is on both the Cleric/Oracle spell list, and the Wizard/Sorcerer list. If my Oracle, who CAN cast it, makes a page with that as the spell, is it a problem for the party's sorcerer to cast it from the item?
As a home game, the GM can rule it as he likes. In PFS, there is no distinction between scrolls of divine or arcane spells. Or psychic spells as well I guess.
In a home game, denoting scrolls or page of spell knowledge would become tedious at best. But doable. I can point to some early APs, like Rise of the Runelords, does call out some scrolls as either divine or arcane. So there is some precedence to splitting scrolls into arcane/ divine/ psychic piles PFS don't differentiate arcane or divine scroll for ease of loot division, but the rule of the game differentiate them.
PRD - Core rulebook wrote: The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.) PFS Guild Guide wrote: • For the sake of simplicity, there is no difference between an arcane, divine, or psychic scroll or wand.
Thus a bard and cleric may both use the same scroll of cure moderate wounds.
Sadly, Pages of spell knowledge are wondrous items, so they don't require to know the spell in any way if you have the right skills.
A commoner with an intelligence of 3, Master Craftsman, skill focus (Profession: scribe) and all his skill point in Profession (scribe) can make pages of spell knowledge thanks to his wondrous calligraphy without any rank in spellcraft or Knowledge (arcana).
Practically the definition of idiot savant.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
