sharing spellbooks?

[Chilingsworth]

Hello Playgrounders!

What are the rules for preparing spells from another wizard's spellbook? Is it impossible? Is it easier if the spellbook in question belongs to one's mentor/pupil? What about if the spellbook owner is willing to help you do it?

I seem to remember these things factoring in, but I'm away from my books and so can't check them.

Thanks!

[Flickerdart]

Spellcraft DC15 + spell level Prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook (wizard only). One try per day. No extra time required. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm)

[dextercorvia]

It only works if you already know the spell.

[Chilingsworth]

Thanks! But does having the original owner and/or being the owner's pupil/mentor help at all?

See, I'm playing a wizard and one of my party members plans to take wizard levels also. I was thinking that maybe we could share spellbooks to drastically increase the spells we have available for free.

EDIT: OK, so my orginal plan wont work. In that case, are there any advantages to having the party wizards be in a mentor/pupil relationship?

[Flickerdart]

Thanks! But does having the original owner and/or being the owner's pupil/mentor help at all?

See, I'm playing a wizard and one of my party members plans to take wizard levels also. I was thinking that maybe we could share spellbooks to drastically increase the spells we have available for free.

EDIT: OK, so my orginal plan wont work. In that case, are there any advantages to having the party wizards be in a mentor/pupil relationship?
You could Aid Another on his check for a +2, but no, there's no advantage otherwise.



It only works if you already know the spell.
A Wizard knows spells by putting them in his book, so that makes no sense.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Complete Arcane has rules for mastering another person's spellbook. It's I want to say another +5 or +10 over just learning one spell from the same spellbook.

[Chilingsworth]

Complete Arcane has rules for mastering another person's spellbook. It's I want to say another +5 or +10 over just learning one spell from the same spellbook.

That sounds promising! Might you have a page reference?

[dextercorvia]

A Wizard knows spells by putting them in his book, so that makes no sense.

He's asking about a two wizard party where Albert takes Glitterdust and Alter Self, while Bufort learns Mirror Image and Scorching Ray. Can Albert prepare Mirror Image from Bufort's book? Not unless Albert has learned it already, which as you said involves writing it in his own book. The borrowed book rule only comes into play if you are away from your primary book.

[Flickerdart]

He's asking about a two wizard party where Albert takes Glitterdust and Alter Self, while Bufort learns Mirror Image and Scorching Ray. Can Albert prepare Mirror Image from Bufort's book? Not unless Albert has learned it already, which as you said involves writing it in his own book. The borrowed book rule only comes into play if you are away from your primary book.
Uh, no. The skill check is to prepare the spell from anther wizard's book. There is another use of the Spellcraft skill to learn a spell from another book, but the two options are distinct. Albert can prepare Bufort's Mirror Image and Scorching Ray, and Bufort can prepare Albert's Glitterdust and Alter Self just fine.

[dextercorvia]

Uh, no. The skill check is to prepare the spell from anther wizard's book. There is another use of the Spellcraft skill to learn a spell from another book, but the two options are distinct.


A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook

The borrowed book rule is useless in this situation. The mastering rule on CA140, helps, but it is unclear what happens when the other wizard adds a new spell to a book you have mastered.

Edit
Albert can prepare Bufort's Mirror Image and Scorching Ray, and Bufort can prepare Albert's Glitterdust and Alter Self just fine. This can't happen unless they already know the respective spells.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

That sounds promising! Might you have a page reference?

Page 140. There's a small section about mastering a foreign spellbook with a DC based off of the highest level spell in the book and some other stuffs.

EDIT:


The borrowed book rule is useless in this situation. The mastering rule on CA140, helps, but it is unclear what happens when the other wizard adds a new spell to a book you have mastered.

Edit This can't happen unless they already know the respective spells.

You either reroll to remaster it or you talk with your DM and just wing it.:smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

The borrowed book rule is useless in this situation. The mastering rule on CA140, helps, but it is unclear what happens when the other wizard adds a new spell to a book you have mastered.
The Spellcraft skill description mentions nothing of this. The word "borrowed" does not appear on the Wizard and Sorcerer page either.

A wizard does not "know" spells. They just scribe them in their books:

At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook.

[dextercorvia]

The Spellcraft skill description mentions nothing of this. The word "borrowed" does not appear on the Wizard and Sorcerer page either.

A wizard does not "know" spells. They just scribe them in their books:

Wizards learn spells, which in turn they know. The information you are missing is found in the Magic Overview section, the Wizard Spell and Borrowed Spellbooks paragraph. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#wizardSpellsandBorrowedSpellbooks )

As text, it trumps the 'not mentioned' in the summary table under the spellcraft skill description.

[dextercorvia]

You either reroll to remaster it or you talk with your DM and just wing it.:smalltongue:

Mastering takes quite a bit of time, though, so remastering would be a pain. Probably your best bet is to buy extra spellbooks, and master each of them, anew. If you can get smaller folios instead of tomes, so much the better.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Mastering takes quite a bit of time, though, so remastering would be a pain. Probably your best bet is to buy extra spellbooks, and master each of them, anew. If you can get smaller folios instead of tomes, so much the better.

Well, to be fair, instead of mastering them, you could just aid another each other at level up for the new spells only. Still eats several days, but it's better that way than just remastering them.

[dextercorvia]

But then you still have to write them in your own spellbook to complete the process. I got the feeling, that it was that expense that our OP was trying to avoid.

[Flickerdart]

Wizards learn spells, which in turn they know. The information you are missing is found in the Magic Overview section, the Wizard Spell and Borrowed Spellbooks paragraph. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#wizardSpellsandBorrowedSpellbooks )

As text, it trumps the 'not mentioned' in the summary table under the spellcraft skill description.
Albert: Oh, woe is me, for I have become tired of my spellbook and the spells contained within. Wink.
Bufort: What a strange coincidence? Nudge.
Albert: Shall we exchange spellbooks, then?
Bufort: Let's!
*they prepare some spells*
Albert: Colleague, your spellbook is a sham! Nudge.
Bufort: Likewise, colleague! Wink.
Albert: We shall have to trade back immediately!
*they prepare the rest of their spells*

All it takes is a little creativity - since the books are theirs, they can prepare spells from them! :smallbiggrin:

[dextercorvia]

Nice try. They still have to know the spells, which means they have to have recorded them at some point in the past.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Nice try. They still have to know the spells, which means they have to have recorded them at some point in the past.

That or after while they just remaster the books.:smallamused:

[Flickerdart]

I'm not seeing the connection between "knowing" and "having scribed it" anywhere.

[Ksheep]

Reading over the CA entry on page 140, it says that when one masters a spellbook, you are simply learning all the notation of the other wizard, since each wizard has their own notations, shorthand, and whatnot. Once you master it, it isn't that you know all the spells, but rather you know the code that it's written in. From then on, you should be able to understand anything else added by the same wizard in that spell book.

If you have a master-apprentice situation, it's easier to understand (+2 circumstance bonus) because the notation is similar (although not quite the same).

At least, that's my take on it.

P.S. So… if that is the case for spellbooks, does that mean that scrolls are written in "plain-text", ie. with a standardized notation and no code, so it's easier to use? Sure, scrolls are DC 20+spell level while reading from another book is DC 15+spell level, but deciphering from a book takes a full day, whereas the scroll is simply a full round action.

[dextercorvia]

I'm not seeing the connection between "knowing" and "having scribed it" anywhere.

If you read the Arcane Preparation section, learning is synonymous with scribing, which means that knowing is synonymous with having scribed it. Wizards definitely know spells, despite not having a Spells Known table -- otherwise feats like Spell Mastery just don't make sense. Spell Mastery is probably the best example of the implicit relationship between known and scribed.


Benefit

Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.
Normal

Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to prepare all your spells, except read magic.

I've heard the argument that you can use the spellcraft roll to understand the spell, without scribing it, and know that spell without it being in your book, but that seems like pushing it to me.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

If you read the Arcane Preparation section, learning is synonymous with scribing, which means that knowing is synonymous with having scribed it. Wizards definitely know spells, despite not having a Spells Known table -- otherwise feats like Spell Mastery just don't make sense. Spell Mastery is probably the best example of the implicit relationship between known and scribed.



I've heard the argument that you can use the spellcraft roll to understand the spell, without scribing it, and know that spell without it being in your book, but that seems like pushing it to me.

To be fair, this is kind of past the point where RAW matters. Is it cheesy to do if you have two wizards in the party? Probably. Is it cheesy to have two wizards in the party? Maybe, depending on group and general op-fu.:smalltongue:

[tyckspoon]

P.S. So… if that is the case for spellbooks, does that mean that scrolls are written in "plain-text", ie. with a standardized notation and no code, so it's easier to use? Sure, scrolls are DC 20+spell level while reading from another book is DC 15+spell level, but deciphering from a book takes a full day, whereas the scroll is simply a full round action.

No, if this were the case you wouldn't need to decipher a scroll at all (assuming you had casting ability/Spellcraft to know what it was talking about in the first place.) It makes sense to me at least that a scroll will be written with the same version of the notation as used by the wizard who wrote it down, because that's just how that guy writes down magic. A spellbook, I would presume, is a little bit easier to understand because it will have margin-notes and the magical equivalent of programmer commentary that the owner of the book put there to help him keep track of stuff when he scribed it, while the scroll is probably just the spell alone without any reading aids.

'course, that's all entirely unsupported in the actual rules, and you can make up any explanation you like.. and it doesn't explain why divine casters should have to deal with that kind of thing on their scrolls. Unless you assume there is actually a universal notation of magic that describes arcane and divine forces equally, and everybody is just using it wrong..

[Chilingsworth]

To be fair, this is kind of past the point where RAW matters. Is it cheesy to do if you have two wizards in the party? Probably. Is it cheesy to have two wizards in the party? Maybe, depending on group and general op-fu.:smalltongue:

Both wizards are entering into "Theurge" classes. Specifically, my wizard is a Telepath/Diviner going into Cerbermancer, my partymate is a Druid planing to take Conjurer levels to get into Arcane Hierophant.

Just mention it to narrow down the power level abit.

Also, Gate, Shapechange, and the polymorph spells (except baleful polymorph) have been banned.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Both wizards are entering into "Theurge" classes. Specifically, my wizard is a Telepath/Diviner going into Cerbermancer, my partymate is a Druid planing to take Conjurer levels to get into Arcane Hierophant.

Just mention it to narrow down the power level abit.

Also, Gate, Shapechange, and the polymorph spells (except baleful polymorph) have been banned.

That's fair. I said it because, at a table, I would let it fly just because two people are actually working out of character together for something in-character. DND being a team game, I love that sort of thing. There are hard-crunch rules for such, too.

As for builds, I'd recommend Diviner 1/Psion (whatever, really) 3/Cerbermancer (or Mindmage, but probably not both) 10/More of one of the two sides the rest via PrCs (if wizard, Master Specialist is easy. Same goes for Archmage and a few other awesome PrCs. If Psion, depends, really.)

Druid should rock Wizard 1/Druid 3/Mystic Theurge 2/Arcane Heirophant 10/Mystic Theurge +X. The druid could blow a feat to be INT-sad in all but druid spells per day. Faerie Mysteries Initiate is also an amazing feat for both characters in order to get INT to HP over CON, but that's a joke for a whole nother reason.

[Xtomjames]

I'll put my two cents into this since this isn't purely a RAW question. Wizards usually have their own spellbook, but that doesn't mean they can't pick up new spellbooks. There is a reason why Wizards have a full spell list available to them, they can use any and all spells so long as they meet the level requirement. Any spellbook a wizard personally owns is considered Her spellbook. The whole mastering another spellbook stuff out of CM and CA is about being able to read another's spellbook for the soul purpose of casting spells from it. Once a new spellbook (be it a book taken from another wizard ~dead or stolen or willingly given) the wizard can then learn spells from that spellbook as well and use spells from that spellbook so long as she meets the requirements for level and so long as the spell isn't in a forbidden school (save if the wizard is specialized).

[Kalirren]

I've heard the argument that you can use the spellcraft roll to understand the spell, without scribing it, and know that spell without it being in your book, but that seems like pushing it to me.

That's funny, that seems to be exactly the way it ought to work to me. I'd always assumed that the "that you know" clause in Spell Mastery was to prevent you from taking Spell Mastery and claiming to have invented a number of spells equal to Int mod that just happen to be equivalent to these X spells without paying their research cost.

Point is that you can acquire another wizard's spellbook at some time, learn from it, Spell Mastery the useful spells that they have, then give it back to them. There are explicit rules governing the preparation of spells from someone else's spellbook, I think that quite adequately establishes RAI.

[olentu]

I recall the PHB says the following about known spells.

For a wizard, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks. This may not be the exact wording used but it should be close if I remember correctly.

[Coidzor]

Right. If, after going through all this, the DM is still being a stick in the cludge, may I refer you to my signature? :smalltongue:

[Yorae]

If you read the Arcane Preparation section, learning is synonymous with scribing, which means that knowing is synonymous with having scribed it. Wizards definitely know spells, despite not having a Spells Known table -- otherwise feats like Spell Mastery just don't make sense. Spell Mastery is probably the best example of the implicit relationship between known and scribed.



I've heard the argument that you can use the spellcraft roll to understand the spell, without scribing it, and know that spell without it being in your book, but that seems like pushing it to me.


I'm not sure what you're getting at -- Wizards don't have "spells known." That is the entire point of being a wizard. They prepare the spell in their minds via reading the spell from somewhere, whether their own spellbook, another spellbook, a scroll, whatever. Then they cast the spell and the spell vanishes entirely from their mind. They only ever temporarily have a spell stored in their mind. They DO get two 'free' spells to write down in their spellbook each wizard level. That is not the same thing as learning it.

There is nothing special about the act of scribing their own spells other than the fact that they can better understand their own writing and don't need to make spellcraft checks to prepare spells from their own book(s).

What you described is not "pushing it," it's exactly how the rules work.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm

Although, why would you really prepare from a borrowed book, when you could just copy the spell into your own book instead and not have to rely on your buddy always being there? I guess if you're really pressed for time...

[NNescio]

If you read the Arcane Preparation section, learning is synonymous with scribing, which means that knowing is synonymous with having scribed it. Wizards definitely know spells, despite not having a Spells Known table -- otherwise feats like Spell Mastery just don't make sense. Spell Mastery is probably the best example of the implicit relationship between known and scribed.


I'm not sure what you're getting at -- It is a well known fact that Wizards do not "know" spells. That is the entire point of being a wizard. They prepare the spell in their minds via reading the spell from somewhere, whether their own spellbook, another spellbook, a scroll, whatever. Then they cast the spell and the spell vanishes entirely from their mind. They only ever temporarily have a spell stored in their mind. They DO get two 'free' spells to write down in their spellbook each wizard level. That is not the same thing as learning it.

There is nothing special about the act of scribing their own spells other than the fact that they can better understand their own writing and don't need to make spellcraft checks to prepare spells from their own book(s).

This is what dextercorvia is referring to:


Spell Mastery [Special]

Prerequisite
Wizard level 1st.

Benefit
Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.

Normal
Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to prepare all your spells, except read magic.

Also, there are lines such as these:

...Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells. She must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting a good night’s sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard decides which spells to prepare.


Wizard Spells and Borrowed Spellbooks

A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Once a spell from another spellcaster’s book is deciphered, the reader must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level) to prepare the spell. If the check succeeds, the wizard can prepare the spell. She must repeat the check to prepare the spell again, no matter how many times she has prepared it before. If the check fails, she cannot try to prepare the spell from the same source again until the next day. (However, as explained above, she does not need to repeat a check to decipher the writing.)

[Yorae]

Ah, I see.

You could rewrite that as "choose a number of spells from your own spellbook", no? Or is there a suggestion that the two spells you write into your spellbook when you level up and the spells you copy into it otherwise are treated differently?

[NNescio]

Ah, I see.

You could rewrite that as "choose a number of spells from your own spellbook", no? Or is there a suggestion that the two spells you write into your spellbook when you level up and the spells you copy into it otherwise are treated differently?

But that's not the interpretation used by WoTC. A lot of verbiage -- even those from core -- appear to imply that wizards do know spells.

Here's another example:

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 × its caster level × 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.

Most PrCs that advance spellcasting are also considered to grant extra spells for wizards.

And here's (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_knownspell&alpha=) something very explicit:


known spell

A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement.

Source: PHB

[EnnPeeCee]

My understanding of wizards is that a wizard only "knows" how to cast a spell after they've spent the time recording it into their spellbook. The can read about other spells, and understand what they do, but its the act of recording it that makes them figure out how to cast it. So two wizards could only prepare spells from each others' books if they had the spell in their own as well.

Some references from the srd:

Arcane Magical Writings

To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in her own way. Another person’s magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until she takes time to study and decipher it.

To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in written form in another’s spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell’s level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers a magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.

Once a character deciphers a particular magical writing, she does not need to decipher it again. Deciphering a magical writing allows the reader to identify the spell and gives some idea of its effects (as explained in the spell description). If the magical writing was a scroll and the reader can cast arcane spells, she can attempt to use the scroll.


Wizard Spells and Borrowed Spellbooks

A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Once a spell from another spellcaster’s book is deciphered, the reader must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level) to prepare the spell. If the check succeeds, the wizard can prepare the spell. She must repeat the check to prepare the spell again, no matter how many times she has prepared it before. If the check fails, she cannot try to prepare the spell from the same source again until the next day. (However, as explained above, she does not need to repeat a check to decipher the writing.)

[The Random NPC]

So, if I understand EnnPeeCee the the other's point correctly, spell books were useless as loot before they came out with Complete Arcane of if your DM doesn't use the book?

[Yorae]

And here's something very explicit:



known spell

A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement.

Source: PHB




Ahh, well that fixes the terminology issue. It's the same thing.

My understanding of wizards is that a wizard only "knows" how to cast a spell after they've spent the time recording it into their spellbook. The can read about other spells, and understand what they do, but its the act of recording it that makes them figure out how to cast it. So two wizards could only prepare spells from each others' books if they had the spell in their own as well.

Some references from the srd:




Arcane Magical Writings Blurb


Not sure what this bit has to do with anything? That's talking about reading the spell, not copying it or preparing it -- note the bit above it:



A read magic spell automatically deciphers a magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.


That's just actually reading it.



A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured.


Whaa--?!

...

*blink*

Ah, okay, I get it now... so...



So, if I understand EnnPeeCee the the other's point correctly, spell books were useless as loot before they came out with Complete Arcane of if your DM doesn't use the book?


Took me a second to understand -- the spell books are NOT useless as loot, as you can copy the spell out of the spellbook you looted and into yours, 'learning' it. You just can't prepare directly from it unless you already copied it into your book, which seems odd, but there you go. I guess you don't understand it well enough until you've written it down yourself.

I guess this is to prevent you from not spending the time and materials cost for scribing the spell? *shrug*

[The Random NPC]

Took me a second to understand -- the spell books are NOT useless as loot, as you can copy the spell out of the spellbook you looted and into yours, 'learning' it.

You're right, I forgot about that.

[Xtomjames]

Ending the argument once and for all; RAW rules Magic of Faerun page 173 Mastering a Foreign Spellbook:

"Instead of laboriously copying each spell of interest from a found spellbook into her own, a wizard may instead make a dedicated effort ot master the spellbook's particular ciphers and notations. this process is sometimes referred to as becoming attuned to the spellbook, although it's a matter of time and study, not a mystical process. Mastering a spellbook requires one tenday plus one day per spell contained within, and a Spellcraft check (DC 25+spell level of the highest level spell in the book). If the wizard succeeds, she can use the foreign spellbook as her own, requiring no spellcraft checks to prepare or copy spells from it. if she fails, she cannot retry the attempt to master the book until she gains at least 1 more rank in Sepllcraft."

In other words a wizard can pick up any other wizard's spellbook and use it presuming the take the time to attune to it.

[olentu]

Ending the argument once and for all; RAW rules Magic of Faerun page 173 Mastering a Foreign Spellbook:

"Instead of laboriously copying each spell of interest from a found spellbook into her own, a wizard may instead make a dedicated effort ot master the spellbook's particular ciphers and notations. this process is sometimes referred to as becoming attuned to the spellbook, although it's a matter of time and study, not a mystical process. Mastering a spellbook requires one tenday plus one day per spell contained within, and a Spellcraft check (DC 25+spell level of the highest level spell in the book). If the wizard succeeds, she can use the foreign spellbook as her own, requiring no spellcraft checks to prepare or copy spells from it. if she fails, she cannot retry the attempt to master the book until she gains at least 1 more rank in Sepllcraft."

In other words a wizard can pick up any other wizard's spellbook and use it presuming the take the time to attune to it.

Complete arcane would be the most recent source for mastering a foreign spellbook should I remember the publication dates correctly. Of course they are basically the same but still.