| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gelcur |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 02:13:34
Page 52 of Pages from the Mages had a spell called Write. Does anyone know if there is a 3E version or has anyone converted it for their home campaign?
The closest thing I could find was Amanuenis but it only works on non-magical text. |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dracons |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 18:26:43
Copied from the SRD for 3.5/3.0
A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from her specialty school. She cannot, however, learn any spells from her prohibited schools. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, below). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. She cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until she gains another rank in Spellcraft. A spell that was being copied from a scroll does not vanish from the scroll.
In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp.
It also takes 24 hours, regardless of the spell level. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 05:02:34
quote:
Originally posted by Gelcur
On a related note people mentioned copying from scrolls to spellbooks. I always thought I ran that as house rule. Is it in the core rules? I stole it from the BG1 CRPG where you could destroy a scroll to attempt to copy it to your spellbook
It could be done in 2E, but it was similar to researching a spell, and the process destroyed the scroll.
I don't know how it was in 3E; I don't recall reading up on it, and I've yet to replace my 3E core books. That said, I'd allow it, but with a fair degree of difficulty (a Spellcraft check against a high base DC, maybe 15 or 20, modified by the spell's level). I'd likely give the spellcaster a bonus if it was a spell similar to one he knew (IE, a fireball scroll, and he knows flaming sphere).
Keep in mind that with scrolls, the spell is, for all intents and purposes, partially cast. The normally required somantic and material components aren't on the scroll; the process of creating the scroll negates the need for those components. So the spellcaster just has the verbal component. He might be able to determine what the ink is made of, which would help him determine the material components. But he's got to figure out the somantic stuff on his own. |
| Gelcur |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 04:30:51
I have been thinking it may be fair to say that 0 level spell should not be able to copy spells into a spellbook, it states it doesn't copy pictures I imagine a lot of spellcasting being pictures.
But that doesn't mean there could be a superior level 1 version, maybe called Write. That can do just that. Thanks for all the input guys. Didn't mean to cause an edition conflict.
On a related note people mentioned copying from scrolls to spellbooks. I always thought I ran that as house rule. Is it in the core rules? I stole it from the BG1 CRPG where you could destroy a scroll to attempt to copy it to your spellbook |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 01:24:47
Spell Compendium over-rides nothing in my campaign, because it's my game, not that of some third-rate hack working for Hasbro. If you want to believe Hasbro's money-grubbing spiels, your character died a hundred years ago, and you are just wrong to still be playing 3.$ when they have two hundred dollars' worth of new books for you to buy. If someone else in your gaming group has all of the 4.New.Coke books, everything he says is correct if it comes from those books, and everything that you say is wrong, even if you're the DM. Hasbro has spoken. Tremble and obey! 
<giggles>
Honestly, shandris, if you read the spells in that idiotic piece of trash carefully, it is possible for a large group of 1st level spell-casters to kill The Simbul in one round by casting multiple non-harmful, no save spells upon her, followed by one or two castings of reciprocal gyre (which may be read from a scroll) in the same round by other 1st level casters. Excessive damage; Insta-Kill. Yeah, ... but not in my game.
|
| shandiris |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 12:26:21
Unfortunatly the updated version of Amanuensis, in Spell Compendium does not allow spellbooks to be copied. This version overrides the one in Magic of Faerun because spell compendium is 3.5 and magic of faerun 3.0 . That said my own wizard is currently researching/creating the spell in Magic of Faerun under a new name. |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 09:33:55
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
My impression from Amanuensis was that spells could not
be written, due the properties of magical ink and all
that. Any rules lawyers want to clarify that?
Mmh.... I would differ! I read the spell discription yesterday and as I mentioned above: the second-last paragraph explicitly states that the caster can copy spells from other sources (other spellbooks, scrolls, etc.) into his spellbook as long as he provides the necessary special materials for writing arcane magic as discribed in the PHB. The spell discription supports this again in it's Spell Materials entry at the very end of the text.
However, the caster cannot create scrolls via this spell! |
| althen artren |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 23:42:49
My impression from Amanuensis was that spells could not
be written, due the properties of magical ink and all
that. Any rules lawyers want to clarify that? |
| Gelcur |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 13:35:13
Thank you for the clarification. On second look it makes sense now.
I got to remember just because its a spellbook does not mean its magical like a scroll. |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 27 Jun 2008 : 06:52:06
As I understand both spells they work similar.
With the Write spell you can copy spells that you do not understand yet from any source into your spellbook, so that you may try to learn it later.
Amanuensis[i] (btw from [i]Magic of Faerun, p. 77) lets you do the same thing, really.
With this spell the caster can copy non-magical texts only and according to the second-last paragraph she may copy spells into spellbook, providing the necessary costly materials.
The last paragraph makes clear that the caster does not need to understand the writing - in other words she does not need to know or understand or be able to cast the spell she is copying.
So, to my understanding these two spells are actually the same in their effects.
Ergdusch
|
|
|
