D&D (2024) The new spell creation rules

[cbwjm]

If wizards add spells to their spellbook via the scribe spell spell, does that mean dispel magic can be used to remove spells from a wizard’s spellbook? Are the spellbook’s pages blank while it’s in an antimagic field?

No. Scribe spell is instantaneous, once it's done the effects aren't affected by antimagic or dispel magic. It could technically be counterspelled, but after the fact I don't think it is something that magic, or lack thereof, affects.

 

[Charlaquin]

The snafu of the Scribe Spell (about replacing a Spellbook without it) needs clarification − or maybe fixing or rethinking.


But I read the following part this way.

Because the spell duration is "Instantaneous", the effect of the spell is no longer magical.

In other words, magic was used to create the object. Afterward, the magic is done. The object itself isnt magic. (Compare the Create Water spell, where magic is used to create it, but the water itself is nonmagical and endures normally.)

The final result of the Scribe Spell spell is a NONMAGICAL SPELLBOOK.


Here a particular spell gets scribed into the Spellbook.

"
When the scribing is complete,
the spell becomes one of your known spells in the book,
appearing on its own page if the book was out of pages.
The spell appears in a cipher that is understandable only to you
or someone casting Identify or Scribe Spell,
and if the book was blank before the scribing,
that book is now your spellbook.

"

So, this is a "known" spell. Meaning it is a spell that one oneself knows, understands, and can rewrite over and over anywhere.

The problem is, nobody else understands the language that this spell is being written in. It is written in a unique "cipher" that only one person understands.

Other people can use magic to crack this code, namely Scribe Spell.


(Scribe Spell also mentions "Identify". The Identify spell description doesnt do anything like deciphering a code. I suspect, the general idea is supposed to be, a person casting Identify would understand what the gibberish is about, but still wouldnt "know" the spell.

But actually, here is the wording of Identify.

"You learn whether any spells are affecting the item."

− Well, no, there are no spells "affecting" the Spellbook.

"lf the item was created by a spell, you learn which spell created it."

− Well, yes. The Spellbook was "created by a spell". And the caster of Identify discovers magically, that Spellbook was created by the Scribe Spell spell.

But Wizards already know that Spellbooks are created by the Scribe Spell spell, so casting Identify here is moot.

The Identify spell description doesnt say what the Scribe Spell spell description seems to think it says.)

That makes sense, thanks!

 

[Incenjucar]

It would be quite amusing if a kingdom started printing all books with a hidden watermark to prevent wizards from being able to use it for spellbooks unless they make their own paper and bind their own books.

 

[Charlaquin]

No. Scribe spell is instantaneous, once it's done the effects aren't affected by antimagic or dispel magic. It could technically be counterspelled, but after the fact I don't think it is something that magic, or lack thereof, affects.

That makes sense, should have checked the duration. I appreciate the answer!

 

[HammerMan]

Per RAW (or at least, Rules As Being Considered), a spell can differentiate between an ally and an enemy automatically. If this is happening because of the wizard, then again, that's got some pretty serious setting implications, since all wizards are thus, I dunno, subconsciously telepathic now?

I have never seen it but I have heard stories of people trying to root out shape shifters this way “this spell only targets enemies, so let’s see if you are my ally or attacked and replaced them”

 

[HammerMan]

Well, as DM, I prioritize narrative plausibility before I even bother looking at any mechanics.

So, in a situation where it seems implausible to know who is in a fog, then the "foe" necessarily includes any innocent bystanders in that fog. The spellcaster is choosing to endanger them.

That is a perfectly fine house rule. I won’t even say I would not do the same… but that isn’t how the game is written.

 

[HammerMan]

A bookless Wizard can prepare the Scribe Spell from an other Wizard, then go from there to rebuild the book.

Where I still think it’s dumb I think it is always preped as a bonus spell

 

[HammerMan]

Not requiring a spell to scribe spells into your spellbook I feel makes more sense.

That is what I put in my feed back

 

[HammerMan]

"I can break the game with Wish," doesn't seem like a reasonable complaint about the power level of Modify Spell or Craft Spell. In this example, Wish is broken. Which we knew already. It's intentionally busted.

If you CANNOT break the game with wish then is it really wish?

 

[Yaarel]

That is a perfectly fine house rule. I won’t even say I would not do the same… but that isn’t how the game is written.

Rules as written, say the DM decides how to handle ability (skill) checks.

Requiring players to refer to scenes − not mechanics − is rules as written.