Artificers, or any spellcaster, and scribe spells feat

[DM-Rocco]

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.

Okay, so why wouldn't you be able to use the full thing to learn from, assuming you are refering to the scroll as the full thing and the spell book as the summary?

Say you were making a cheese burger and you had the betty crocker cooking book to make the cheese burger. Okay, use the notes from the cook book to make the cheese burger. Now, if you had a cheese bureger in front of you (scroll) you might not know every exact measurement that went into making the cheese burger, but you could make an educated guess, so you could learn from that, refresh your memory and make a cheese burger without having to check the cook book (spell book) for reference.

Now, of course you couldn't put a cheese burger physicially in the cook book as a reference to the finished product so let's think of it another way.

Say you want to make a term paper. You get a book (spell book) that shows you how to make a term paper. You get all the ingredients you need to make it. Now, you look at your friends term paper (scroll). You get more ideas for the term paper. In fact, most books that deal with how to make a term paper have sample term papers in them, which, for something as complicated as a spell, a spell book should have a sample of the actual spell in the spell book after the notes on the spell. To me and many other that is simple logic. So, explain why, if the actual spell was written in the spellbook, why you can't cast it directly from the spell book.

Back in the old AD&D you could. Of course you also wiped it from the book, just like a scroll, so many wizards didn't do that even though you could, but at least you had the option.

With the addition of the, hmm, I forget teh name off hand, but there is an item from Eberron that acts like a spell book and can carry up to 500 pages of spells. So, why couldn't you store spells in something like that for example?

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.

I agree, and I am a nerd in my own way. If you knew me, which of course you don't, the term nerd or geek is a type of honor. We have a listing called the geekfest. It is a bunch of like minded people who love video games and other things and while others call us geeks or nerds, we look at that as a badge of honor, and you should too. Which is why I didn't soften the words, only added in my written intent afterwards.

If you are a 'nerd' or 'geek' you most likely got that name for a reason and while those that gave it to you may have been spiteful, you earned it for knowledge that they did not have or understand.

Of course I could be digging a bigger whole for myself here, so I will stop

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.

Along that line of thinking, if you have the end process (a scroll) you might not always be able to figure out what is needed to use it. However, then, shouldn't a rogue be able to do a UMD to cast the spell as well since you have all the necessary information to learn and prepare an arcane 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.

So, why would it be a stretch to think that a wizard would put a completed spell in a spellbook?

 

[SteelDraco]

Okay, so why wouldn't you be able to use the full thing to learn from, assuming you are refering to the scroll as the full thing and the spell book as the summary?

I think you've got that backwards. The scroll is the limited summary, and the spell in the spellbook is the full thing.

Say you want to make a term paper. You get a book (spell book) that shows you how to make a term paper. You get all the ingredients you need to make it. Now, you look at your friends term paper (scroll). You get more ideas for the term paper. In fact, most books that deal with how to make a term paper have sample term papers in them, which, for something as complicated as a spell, a spell book should have a sample of the actual spell in the spell book after the notes on the spell. To me and many other that is simple logic. So, explain why, if the actual spell was written in the spellbook, why you can't cast it directly from the spell book.

The actual spell itself isn't something that can't be written down. What you've got in a spell book is the instructions for casting the spell. The magical energy (the spell) doesn't exist in a spell book. That's the essential difference between the two. A scroll does have that magical energy in it.

Here's another metaphor; see if it makes more sense. Think of the spell itself as a one-shot gun.

The spellbook would contain instructions for building that gun. Preparing the spell from a spellbook is that process - the wizard takes the instructions and builds the gun inside his head, and then just needs to pull the trigger to make it go off. If he knows a lot about guns, he can fiddle with the instructions, and make an Empowered or Silent gun. But he's still building the gun to trigger later, with the help of his spell book.

The scroll, then, is the gun. It's not in the wizard's head, it's in paper form, but it's still a product, rather than a process. You just have to know enough to point it and pull the trigger to make it do its thing, and then it's gone. The magical energy was moved from inside the wizard to the paper, and it's sitting there, waiting.

IMO, a spell scroll and the spellbook pages for that spell have almost nothing in common; even a wizard would have to look at it for a bit to know what he's got.

More later, have to go to work. Stupid work.

 

[DM-Rocco]

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.


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?

Okay, that may be one way of explaining it, but then, why did they change it in the first place?

In AD&D you could cast them from a spell book or a scroll, suddenly magic became ultra hard and edgy and now, in 3.0 and 3.5 you suddenly can't cast spells from a spell book. So, take your argument and apply it to why can't you cast a spell from a spell book. Same thing really.

You used to be able to do something, someone in WOTC said, hey, I don't like this rule, I am going to change the creators rules for no real reason, so now, with a new addition, you can't do what you once could.

You will never be able to convince me that you can't and I will never be able to convince you that you can. Most likely cause we come from two different generations of game play. That, of course assumes that you haven't been playing for 25 years. If you have, then it is just chalked up to an acceptance of the rules.

I don't mind the rule, I can take it or leave it, even back in AD&D I don't think I ever cast a spell from a spell book. However, I don't think it makes sense in the same way I don't think it makes sense to have UMD as a CHR based skill. You are not forcing your will to exert control of the device through sheer strength of personality, you are deducing the proper way to activate something without it blowing up in your face (INT).

But, I accept that rule to, as stupid as I think it is cause it is in the rule book, but when I DM it is another story altogether.

I think you've got that backwards. The scroll is the limited summary, and the spell in the spellbook is the full thing.


The actual spell itself isn't something that can't be written down. What you've got in a spell book is the instructions for casting the spell. The magical energy (the spell) doesn't exist in a spell book. That's the essential difference between the two. A scroll does have that magical energy in it.

But that is the point, back in the day, you could make spellbooks and they did have that energy, just like a scroll, now they don't. I don't fully understand your first post, cause I don't understand programing, but I understand your intent and what you are trying to say. What I don't understand is why it was ever changed in the first place?

I chalk that one up to too many chefs in the kitchen pulling the game apart. (meaning the transition from old school to new.)

Here's another metaphor; see if it makes more sense. Think of the spell itself as a one-shot gun.

The spellbook would contain instructions for building that gun. Preparing the spell from a spellbook is that process - the wizard takes the instructions and builds the gun inside his head, and then just needs to pull the trigger to make it go off. If he knows a lot about guns, he can fiddle with the instructions, and make an Empowered or Silent gun. But he's still building the gun to trigger later, with the help of his spell book.

The scroll, then, is the gun. It's not in the wizard's head, it's in paper form, but it's still a product, rather than a process. You just have to know enough to point it and pull the trigger to make it do its thing, and then it's gone. The magical energy was moved from inside the wizard to the paper, and it's sitting there, waiting.

IMO, a spell scroll and the spellbook pages for that spell have almost nothing in common; even a wizard would have to look at it for a bit to know what he's got.

More later, have to go to work. Stupid work.

Yeah, I posted this while I was at work, it is hard to keep up when you are supposed to be making money for the man

Okay, I don't mind entertaining more of this, but how about a few answers about scrolls, the original query, in addition to whatever else.

Okay, I am soon to start in a game where I will be playing a Gestalt Artificer//Wizard. We haven't started yet, so I am up for additional options, but I want Artificer for sure, here is a link to the other site:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2855160#post2855160

Anyway, I think Artificers seem like they would be fun to play, but I have never done so yet, so I need a little 101 on making scrolls.

Scribe Scroll [Item Creation]

Prerequisite: Caster level 1st.
Benefit: You can create a scroll of any spell that you know. Scribing a scroll takes one day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. The base price of a scroll is its spell level x its caster level x 25 gp. To scribe a scroll, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing one-half of this base price.

Any scroll that stores a spell with a costly material component or an XP cost also carries a commensurate cost. In addition to the costs derived from the base price, you must expend the material component or pay the XP when scribing the scroll.

Okay, spell level 1 x caster level 1 x 25 gold equals 25 gold for one first level spell on a scroll and 1 xp. Now, if I put 4, let’s say magic missile, spells on a scroll the cost would be 100 gold and 4 xp or 3 xp if I also had the legendary artisan feat, right?

And, if I had the extraordinary artisan feat it would only cost me 75 gold, right?

So a second level spell cast at first level (cause it looks like artificers can do that) x 25 gold would be 50 gold and 2 xp, or 38.5 gold and 1.5 XP if I have the extraordinary artisan and legendary artisan feat, right?

The cost doesn’t change no matter how many you shove on one scroll?

 

[MarkB]

Okay, that may be one way of explaining it, but then, why did they change it in the first place?

In AD&D you could cast them from a spell book or a scroll, suddenly magic became ultra hard and edgy and now, in 3.0 and 3.5 you suddenly can't cast spells from a spell book. So, take your argument and apply it to why can't you cast a spell from a spell book. Same thing really.

You used to be able to do something, someone in WOTC said, hey, I don't like this rule, I am going to change the creators rules for no real reason, so now, with a new addition, you can't do what you once could.

It's not for no real reason. 3rd edition does an absolutely superb job of organising and simplifying item creation rules to make them more useable and consistent. Part of that was to provide sensible pricing structures for both scrolls and spellbooks.

Now, it so happens that, beyond very low levels, it's significantly cheaper to write spells into a spellbook than it is to scribe them as scrolls. If spellbooks were directly castable, no wizard would bother scribing scrolls - they'd just buy loads of spare spellbooks and fill them with the spells they want to cast from scrolls, at a significantly reduced price - and with no XP expenditure.

Now, this could be set right by matching up the costs of scrolls and spellbooks, but there are very sound game-balance reasons not to do so. The simple solution, therefore, is not to allow wizards to cast directly from their spellbook.

Why does this even bother you? It makes practically no impact on the power of wizards, and contrary to what you may believe, there are good reasons for the change.

Scribe Scroll [Item Creation]

Prerequisite: Caster level 1st.
Benefit: You can create a scroll of any spell that you know. Scribing a scroll takes one day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. The base price of a scroll is its spell level x its caster level x 25 gp. To scribe a scroll, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing one-half of this base price.

Any scroll that stores a spell with a costly material component or an XP cost also carries a commensurate cost. In addition to the costs derived from the base price, you must expend the material component or pay the XP when scribing the scroll.

Okay, spell level 1 x caster level 1 x 25 gold equals 25 gold for one first level spell on a scroll and 1 xp. Now, if I put 4, let’s say magic missile, spells on a scroll the cost would be 100 gold and 4 xp or 3 xp if I also had the legendary artisan feat, right?

And, if I had the extraordinary artisan feat it would only cost me 75 gold, right?

So a second level spell cast at first level (cause it looks like artificers can do that) x 25 gold would be 50 gold and 2 xp, or 38.5 gold and 1.5 XP if I have the extraordinary artisan and legendary artisan feat, right?

The cost doesn’t change no matter how many you shove on one scroll?

Of course not. Scrolls are just parchment, and dirt cheap. It's the special inks that set you back in materials costs.

 

[Caliban]

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.

This was not a rule in AD&D. It was a common house rule, but it was never a rule in the DMG or PHB.

Besides which, if you could cast spells directly from your spellbook, why bother to make scrolls? Scrolls cost gold and XP to make, while making copies of your spells takes gold and no xp. (I could see creating a feat to allow it, at the cost spending XP when you actually cast the spell.)

 

[DM-Rocco]

I think Artificers can emulate a higher ability score via UMD for item creation, but I'd have to check the book, and I'm at work right now.

From what I can tell of the class, this seems correct, but can you or someone else confirm?

 

[DM-Rocco]

It's not for no real reason. 3rd edition does an absolutely superb job of organising and simplifying item creation rules to make them more useable and consistent. Part of that was to provide sensible pricing structures for both scrolls and spellbooks.

Now, it so happens that, beyond very low levels, it's significantly cheaper to write spells into a spellbook than it is to scribe them as scrolls. If spellbooks were directly castable, no wizard would bother scribing scrolls - they'd just buy loads of spare spellbooks and fill them with the spells they want to cast from scrolls, at a significantly reduced price - and with no XP expenditure.

Okay, I would almost hate to admit it and give you fodder against me, but at least that makes sense. This compiling data, and cook books and law briefs really are not a compelling arguement for me. Anyway, on to better things.

Of course not. Scrolls are just parchment, and dirt cheap. It's the special inks that set you back in materials costs.

Er, I think you are trying to be funny about my serious question. Either that or I am just confused and have missed something.

 

[DM-Rocco]

This was not a rule in AD&D. It was a common house rule, but it was never a rule in the DMG or PHB.

Besides which, if you could cast spells directly from your spellbook, why bother to make scrolls? Scrolls cost gold and XP to make, while making copies of your spells takes gold and no xp. (I could see creating a feat to allow it, at the cost spending XP when you actually cast the spell.)

They have articals about it in Dragon Magazine and I recall reading it in my first edition book, but no, I am not going to drag out my old books and page through everything just to find a page number.

Anyway, the reason why most spell casters never did it was cause you lost the spell from your spell book and would have to research it or find it somewhere in order to cast it, and in first edition, that was just nuts. That and spellbooks weighed a ton compared to scrolls.

Anyway, please feel free to comment about the main purpose of the thread

 

[Twowolves]

In the 1st ed Unearthed Arcana, they had the rules for reading a spell directly from a spellbook. It was kinda like using a scroll, except it automatically purged the spell from the book, and had a pretty good chance at wiping the preceeding and following spells as well, and did something else nasty like a system shock roll or die, or something like that. Possible, but not at all desirable.

As to the difference between a spell in a book vs a spell on a scroll, it's the difference between schematics to make a bomb vs having something in front of you ticking merrily away. One is ready for immediate use, the other is more detailed and longer instructions for crafting repeated uses. And you can use a scroll to help research a spell, or copy it into your book, with time and effort, which I'd assume includes burning the scroll and taking lots of pages of notes on the effects and how to duplicate it. Also, don't forget, that spellbooks also are supposed to double as diaries and research notebooks, so all those pages are full of scribbles and notes and personal comments that could have little to do with the actual purpose of the spell on the page.

 

[Jack Simth]

Okay, that may be one way of explaining it, but then, why did they change it in the first place?

My guess? Baccob's Blessed Book.

Okay, so you can scribe a spell into BBB for free (other than the one day scribing time).

You can cast a spell out of a spellbook, but it removes the spell from the book.

Wizard crafts two Blessed Books. One, he uses as his "normal" spellbook (Main). The other (Death by Fire), he copies his commonly used spells into several times (e.g., "Let's see... 20 copies of Delayed Blast Fireball, twenty copies of Time Stop, twenty copies of Force Cage; that will fill up my two months prep time; and it's only 550 of my 1,000 pages; good thing I have three copies each of the common utility spells already in there; otherwise, I wouldn't have quite enough preparation time."). Then, in the dungeon, he can go a LONG time between rests...... and after he's cast the spell from the book, it's blank, and can be re-scribed, again, for no cost but his time.

A Baccob's Blessed Book costs 12,500 gp and takes thirteen days to make.

A scroll of a 9th level spell costs 3,825 gp, and takes four days to make.

A Baccob's Blessed Book can hold 111 9th level spells and one 1st level spell, and it takes 112 days to so fill it.

Assuming you craft everything yourself, the time break-even point on crafting scrolls of 9th level spells vs. crafting a BBB, scribing a spell into it is a little over four 9th level spells (4*4=16 days to make the scrolls, vs. 13+4*1=17 days to make the BBB and fill it with four spells). Gold and XP wise, it's slightly over 3 (~3.26797385620915032679738562091503).

Even if casting out of the book actually destroys the pages (so they can't be re-scribed), the Wizard pulling this trick STILL comes out way ahead.

Edit: If you have a chance of losing the spell before and after when casting the spell you want from your book, simply pad the "working copy" BBB with 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells between, that you don't really care about - Featherfall, Mage Armor, Shield.....