WHEEEEE!
So, as much for my benefit as anything else, a reiteration of the RAW:
1) Either make a DC 20 + spell level spellcraft check or use read magic to decipher the spellbooks (he already did this, using read magic);
* Failure on this spellcraft check means you have to wait until the next day
2) Spend an entire day (for each spell) studying it, then make another spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level) to "understand" the spell;
* Failure on this spellcraft check means you can't "understand or copy" the spell; you can't try again until you get another rank in spellcraft (GAH!)
3) Spend an entire day (again) and use up 1 page per spell level (at a cost of 100 gp each page) actually writing the spell in his spellbook.
* This, as noted by m_n, is the copying cost and does not include the "borrowing fee"
Next, the points that have been raised:
2) Amount of time to "understand" spells (copying is addressed later)
I think people are talking by each other. In particular, m_n is discussing the issue from the alternative perspectives that (a) the characters would not have the ability/inclination to spend the time; and (b) as a matter of game balance, it doesn't work. Ti is discussing the issue from the alternative perspectives that (a) it makes no sense that stuff (learning spells, leveling up, etc.) all moves so fast in terms of game time; and (b) the nature of wizards, the concept of personalized writing, and such. So, let's try to get on the same page. I'll try to help narrow things.
First, Ti is correct that (at least under some conceptualizations) wizards study/are bookworms/etc. I think m_n acknowledged it as true and dismissed it. I agree. Obviously classes are modeled upon concepts, but, at the end of the day, there IS a gamist element here (at least there is in the way that our group has nearly always roleplayed). Unless we want to shift the paradigm of our playstyle, I think these considerations (I tried to think of a good label, but failed) are secondary.
Second, both perspectives that I labeled "(a)" are related, but not the same. Regarding the speed in-game that things progress, I want to note that, while it does seem interesting for a party (various versions of the party) to go from 1st level to 4th level in under 20 days seems conceptually odd, the only ways to avoid that are to either put more in-game time in between encounters or to make encounters worth less XP (so that you progress more slowly). At this point, I'm going to limit my comments regarding these two solutions. Suffice to say, there are certain points (at the end of story arcs, for example) when it is very possible to "build in" downtime. The question then, as related to the "(a)" perspectives, is whether such downtime is sufficient to accommodate learning spells as dictated by the RAW. So, I think this is one of the questions we need to ask in attempting to resolve this issue.
Third, the resolution of this issue DOES affect game balance. However, I think it is relatively minor.
3) The concept of "borrowed" spellbooks [#3 and #5 are, in fact, completely redundant, so I've repackaged it]
There seems to be universal agreement that a wizard should be able to do SOMETHING that makes him able to use a spellbook which the RAW would call "borrowed" as if it were "owned." There, however, seems to be some measure of disagreement as to what that should entail. Possible proposals include:
* If you have used read magic and/or deciphered the spell in that particular book (as outlined in my reiteration of the RAW #1), you can treat the book as "owned" as related to that spell
* If you have learned/understood the spell (reiteration of the RAW #2) the spell in that particular book, you can treat the book as "owned" as related to that spell
* If you spend more time for spell preparation, you can treat the book as "owned"
* Some combination of the above
* The concept of "borrowed" spellbooks ceases to exist; if you are in possession of a spellbook and you know the spell in it, you can prepare it from that book
In addition to giving that helpful layout of the proposals, I'd like to reiterate the RAW on this subject:
* Decipher the writing (reiteration of the RAW #1; you only need to do this once for a particular spell in a particular book) AND
* Spellcraft check DC 15 + spell level (this check must be done every time you prepare the spell; failure means you can't prepare it that day)
Is there one of these solutions (or some other one) that you all prefer? The discussion on this specific issue has been fairly vague. I'm hoping that by cementing it as I did, we can more easily decide what we like.
4) The actual copying costs 100 gp per page
There seems to be no qualms about this. I would just note that the gold amount is relatively small and, as you increase in level, the burden of the gold amount becomes de minimus. I'd also note that, depending upon the resolution of the concept of "borrowed" spellbooks, this cost could further lessen (or vanish all together). So, I don't think this is really so much an issue now.
However, lurking in this issue, is the TIME it takes to copy. I think it is identical in concept with the time issue outlined in #2 with the exception already noted (resolution of the "borrowed" spellbook issue may drastically lessen the time impact for copying).
SUMMARY:
* On the issue of time to "understand" spells, I think we need to focus the discussion, particularly to the issue of whether the kind of downtime that can relatively easily be factored in would be enough. This is merely my understanding; please bring up other considerations, or reconsiderations if you think I inappropriately dismissed some.
* On the issue of "borrowed" spellbooks, we should look at the list of proposals and pick one (or add more, if needed).
* On the issue of actually copying of spells, the monetary considerations are not likely worth the effort to change. The time considerations should be considered in the same matter that we consider the time to "understand" spells, with the knowledge that resolution of the "borrowed" spellbooks issue could reduce or eliminate this issue to a large extent.
