D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Scribing Scrolls Clarification

[Archade]

Has 3.5 clarified scribing costs/times for scrolls, especially with multiple spells on a single scroll?

 

[Murrdox]

I don't think we'll see a change to scribing time/costs for scrolls. The rules work pretty well as it stands right now. However, I could use clarification for the time required to scribe scrolls less than 1000 GP in value, in addition to the multiple spells per scroll as you said.

That, and I also want to know if the time and cost required to add spells to a wizard's spellbook has been reduced. It takes my Fighter players just a couple of days to have his weapon enchanted, and then he's ready for the next stage in the adventure. Currently, I have to give my wizard players at least 2 weeks or so, just so they can add 3 or 4 more spells to their spellbooks. God forbid if they wanted to use any of that time to make their OWN items or scrolls.

 

[Destil]

That, and I also want to know if the time and cost required to add spells to a wizard's spellbook has been reduced. It takes my Fighter players just a couple of days to have his weapon enchanted, and then he's ready for the next stage in the adventure. Currently, I have to give my wizard players at least 2 weeks or so, just so they can add 3 or 4 more spells to their spellbooks. God forbid if they wanted to use any of that time to make their OWN items or scrolls.

The cost and time per page is the same. BUT spells now take only 1 page per spell level, so the're effectivly halved.

 

[Murrdox]

BUT spells now take only 1 page per spell level, so the're effectivly halved.

A MOST welcome change... especially for DMs who run campaigns like I do... with not too much "downtime". I like to keep things active and exciting.

 

[Dimwhit]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Murrdox
That, and I also want to know if the time and cost required to add spells to a wizard's spellbook has been reduced. It takes my Fighter players just a couple of days to have his weapon enchanted, and then he's ready for the next stage in the adventure. Currently, I have to give my wizard players at least 2 weeks or so, just so they can add 3 or 4 more spells to their spellbooks. God forbid if they wanted to use any of that time to make their OWN items or scrolls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cost and time per page is the same. BUT spells now take only 1 page per spell level, so the're effectivly halved.

Actually, I heard the to scribe a spell into a spellbook only takes 24 hours, regardless of spell level. The cost is the same, but halved because it's only 1 page per level, as stated above. Don't know if that's true, though. Thought I read it on Wizards boards or something.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Actually, I heard the to scribe a spell into a spellbook only takes 24 hours, regardless of spell level. The cost is the same, but halved because it's only 1 page per level, as stated above. Don't know if that's true, though. Thought I read it on Wizards boards or something.

That's correct. I believe Andy Collins clarified that on the WotC boards or his own messageboard.

 

[Kerrick]

I like the new rule, personally, but I wish they would have done something about researching spells. I mean, one week per spell level sounds reasonable, but not when you're going from place to place and you don't have time to research (or when the DM is trying to keep the game moving at a reasonable pace). I play a wizard in our current campaign, and he's come up with almost a dozen spells - I asked the DM about research, and he said that he did away with that, because it causes too much downtime. I'm kind of a rules stickler, though I can see the sense in getting rid of (or changing) silly rules, so I went along with it for the sake of argument... but, I dont know, it seems like the system just punishes players who come up with a lot of spells.

We've got some downtime in game now (we just wrapped up a long-spanning epic adventure, and the PCs are taking a break), so I'm using the time to officially research some of the spells I came up with.

 

[Murrdox]

For a long time, I've considered creating some sort of house rule that would allow for half a day's research when the party is traveling from place to place.

In my campaign, the party spends quite a bit of time traveling cross country.

People need breaks to eat and rest.
Horses need to stop periodically and be fed.
Lunchtime.
Dinnertime.

During all that time, and if the wizard is capable of leafing through a tomb or two while walking or riding, why can't he do some de-facto research while traveling?

This is pure house-rule territory, but something I've been thinking about for a long time. I've also considered allowing something like this for scribing spells in a spell book, and scribing scrolls. You just do it a little bit here and a little bit there, as opposed to spending all day on it. I'd even allow it for potion making, if the user has a portable alchemists lab.

 

[James McMurray]

Wouldn't "leafing through a tomb" be considered active adventuring? Especially if it was a trapped tomb or filled with undead?

 

[Dimwhit]

Scribing is one aspect of 3.0/3.5 that has never made sense to me. Why should it take 8 hours, or 24 hours, or 4 days to write a spell (either to a spellbook or scribing a scroll) when the whole thing can be read and cast (from a scroll) in a 6-second round? Or studied from a spellbook in 15 minutes (minimum time to study a spell from a book)? The answer I'm sure to get is "for balance reasons," but I'm honestly sick of that answer. D&D under 3.0, and now 3.5, has become so "balanced" that it's losing some serious flavor, IMO.

So other than balance, is there any remotely logical justification for it? I'm open to something I've missed, but I'm very skeptical.