Artificers, or any spellcaster, and scribe spells feat

[SteelDraco]

Now, stupid question I know....

Why does it take 9 pages (or more) in a book to scribe 1 9th level spell, but you can put 6 9th level spells on one scroll?

The difference is that the scroll and the spellbook have different things in them. I think of it as the distinction between source code and compiled code for a computer program. A spellbook has all the instructions necessary to prepare the spell for a wizard, to build the magical pattern in his head so that he can cast it later. The scroll has the magical energy put together in a more completed way - it just takes a skilled person reading it to make it go off.

That also explains why you need Spellcraft to transfer a spell from a scroll to a spellbook. Decompiling a program isn't easy, and that's effectively what you're doing, in a manner of speaking.

 

[irdeggman]

If they can't be used to scribe a scroll into a spellbook (Artificer scrolls), you could just scribe them into a spell book directly, couldn't you?

No they can't.

Artificer spells are neither arcane nor divine.

Wizard spells are arcane. Wizards can only cast arcane spells.

This would be like saying a bard/cleric who doesn't know cure light wounds as a bard spell can scribe an arcane cure light wounds spell.

He can't because he doesn't know it, they are separate spell lists and are supposed to be accounted for separately.

Same thing for sorcerer/wizard multi-class.

If the sorcerer doesn't "know " the wizard spell (i.e., it is not in the list of spells he knows as a sorcerer) but it is in his wizard spell book - he can't spontaneously cast it.

 

[irdeggman]

The difference is that the scroll and the spellbook have different things in them. I think of it as the distinction between source code and compiled code for a computer program. A spellbook has all the instructions necessary to prepare the spell for a wizard, to build the magical pattern in his head so that he can cast it later. The scroll has the magical energy put together in a more completed way - it just takes a skilled person reading it to make it go off.

That also explains why you need Spellcraft to transfer a spell from a scroll to a spellbook. Decompiling a program isn't easy, and that's effectively what you're doing, in a manner of speaking.

Excellent comparison.

 

[Wystan]

Of course that does sound stupid. I also think it is stupid you can't a spell from your spell book. You used to be able to in AD&D and then magic became hard to understand or something in 3.5. I read somewhere that it is cause now they just notes on the spell and not the spell itself, which is even stupider. Wouldn't you want a sample of the finished spell in your book?

Which again is even stupider, now you don't have the spell, just the notes, where is the actual spell recorded?

Edit- Oh, wait.....on a scroll....

 

[DM-Rocco]

Which of course is wierd, cause then why couldn't you use a scroll to memorize the spell?

 

[DM-Rocco]

The difference is that the scroll and the spellbook have different things in them. I think of it as the distinction between source code and compiled code for a computer program. A spellbook has all the instructions necessary to prepare the spell for a wizard, to build the magical pattern in his head so that he can cast it later. The scroll has the magical energy put together in a more completed way - it just takes a skilled person reading it to make it go off.

That also explains why you need Spellcraft to transfer a spell from a scroll to a spellbook. Decompiling a program isn't easy, and that's effectively what you're doing, in a manner of speaking.

You are right and wrong.

I am sure you are right from a rules stand point, and even a logical stand point, but from a gamming stand point, I think there are way too many people on the WOTC payroll who are, no offense to you, computer geeks.

That explaination makes sense to someone who thinks the same way you do, which is most likely a bunch of rule pushers, logic thinkers and computer programing nerds, again, no offense meant.

To the lay man though, it breaks our logic cause we can't relate to your compiling of computer programing skills. It is like my job, I am a graphic artist and do a lot of work on photoshop and other computer programs, which were not made by graphic artists, but by computer geeks who have no idea of what an artist is looking for from a program. In fact, if you take a moment to look at the way the programs are set up, they aren't even coherrent to any pattern and often times just frustrating cause some nerd in a cramped cubical has no idea what the end users really want or the way they will use them.

So, I guess you have a point, and agian, I'm not trying to slam your way of thinking, but it is not my way of thinking and I fear that I am in the majority. Personally, I think when people try to apply logic to D&D you really start messing up the game, as odd as that sounds.

EDIT: I don't want to turn this into a bash thread or anything so in hind sight I should erase the above, but I think it is a frustration that I am not alone in so I will leave as is for now. If you want a friendly debate about it, glad to hear your views and offer some of mine, but otherwise, let's concentrate on scrolls. I'm at work not, but when I get home I'll try to post one or two I was thinking of making to see if they work out properly.

Also, really, I am not trying to bring hate, so don't take it to heart if you are easily offended.

 

[Mistwell]

You are right and wrong.

I am sure you are right from a rules stand point, and even a logical stand point, but from a gamming stand point, I think there are way too many people on the WOTC payrole who are, no offense to you, computer geeks.

That explaination makes sense to someone who thinks the same way you do, which is most likely a bunch of rule pushers, logic thinkers and computer programing nerds, again, no offense meant.

To the lay man though, it breaks our logic cause we can't relate to your compiling of computer programing skills. It is like my job, I am a graphic artist and do a lot of work on photoshop and other computer programs, which were not made by graphic artists, but by computer geeks who have no idea of what an artist is looking for from a program. In fact, if you take a moment to look at the way the programs are set up, they aren't even coherrent to any pattern and often times just frustrating cause some nerd in a cramped cubical has no idea what the end users really want or the way they will use them.

So, I guess you have a point, and agian, I'm not trying to slam your way of thinking, but it is not my way of thinking and I fear that I am in the majority. Personally, I think when people try to apply logic to D&D you really start messing up the game, as odd as that sounds.

He's making a comparison from his background. I could make one from mine as well if you prefer, and I bet you could from yours as well.

For example, for me, a scroll is like the Holding of an appellate court decision. With the Holding, I know the relevant law and can use it to argue a case if it isn't a major point. Sort of a one-shot assistant for something else I am doing (a single supporting point in a larger brief I am filing for example). If somene questions me hard on that point, it might not hold up great because I don't know all the other details of that case (it is easier to dispel since it isn't cast at my caster level, for the D&D analogy).

However, if I am trying to use that same appellate court case over and over as the main support for something I am arguing (like an extension on the holding of that case or overturning that case or something similar), I have to know the entire case and not just the Holding so I know the reasoning and facts and cited laws and other cited cases and context. It will hold up much better under scrutiny (it is harder to dispel because it is cast at my caster level, for the D&D analogy).

I could make the same analogy for a story treatment vs. a full script I suppose too.

Or a google search summary vs. the entire web page.

Each time, there is one thing that is a summary of another thing, and the summary is effective under limited circumstances but is not as strong as the full thing. The summary is at the caster level of the person who wrote the summary, and is not at your own caster level. It's effects, if they scale based on level, will likely not scale. It's also easier to dispel or counter. And you can only cast it one time rather than many times. It makes sense to me that the thing that is limited is also substantially shorter than the full-power thing.

 

[GwydapLlew]

Also, really, I am not trying to bring hate, so don't take it to heart if you are easily offended.

You may want to consider some of those loaded words in that case; I don't want to start another 'nerds != bad' thread, but the way something is phrased is every bit as important as the intent.

It's really very simple, regardless of whether you are a programmer or not. A spellbook contains all the necessary information to learn and prepare an arcane spell. A scroll allows anyone able to interpret it (i.e., read magic, Spellcraft or UMD) to cast a spell.

It should be obvious that the two are not the same thing.

A scroll effectively has the magic of the spell imbued inside it, awaiting a chance to be triggered by the person who reads it. This is why scrolls can be disjoined or drained, and why they are considered magic items. A rogue using UMD cannot pick up his comrade's spelbook and prepare or cast spells. Why? Because they are different things - one is a magic item that allows you to cast the spell, the other is not.

 

[MarkB]

You are right and wrong.

I am sure you are right from a rules stand point, and even a logical stand point, but from a gamming stand point, I think there are way too many people on the WOTC payroll who are, no offense to you, computer geeks.

That explaination makes sense to someone who thinks the same way you do, which is most likely a bunch of rule pushers, logic thinkers and computer programing nerds, again, no offense meant.

To the lay man though, it breaks our logic cause we can't relate to your compiling of computer programing skills.

Alright, here's a more general metaphor, then. Maybe higher level spells don't actually require any more space to record than lower level ones - but manipulating and containing magic is more difficult the higher its level, and the safety procedures differ from spell to spell. So for higher level spells, most of the space taken up in their entry is instructions on how to cast the spell safely and efficiently.

Obviously, those instructions are unnecessary for a scroll, which contains the spell already mostly cast, so they're left out. Working out what those instructions should be, from the scroll alone, is a tricky task that requires experience and talent, and that's what the Spellcraft check represents.

So, I guess you have a point, and agian, I'm not trying to slam your way of thinking, but it is not my way of thinking and I fear that I am in the majority. Personally, I think when people try to apply logic to D&D you really start messing up the game, as odd as that sounds.

But isn't that exactly what you're asking people to do when you ask questions that go beyond the raw game rules? Since all we have to go on is the rules, we can only try to work logically from what the rules tell us. There's not much point in trying to find illogical explanations, is there?

 

[irdeggman]

Here is another example.

The spellbook is like a cookbook while the scroll is more like a frozen dinner (most of the work has been done already).


IIRC in 2nd ed if you cast a spell from your spell book the spell was consumed and vanished (just like a scroll) so you ended up with a blank page. Now this is from memory (it has been a long time and I am getting on in age so I could be misremembering). I don't have access to my 2nd ed books to check that out though.