Wizard's spell book as an infinte scroll?

[Yogibear41]

Would it be too far fetched to assume the detailings of a particular spell on a particular page in a wizards spell book function much like a scroll of said spell? And if that were the case would it also be possible for say an artificer with an a high use magic device to use said spells in said wizards spellbook as if they were in fact scrolls of said spells? Now if this happened the spellbook page would likley disappear like a scroll, but what if there was a way to make it not disappear, so an artificer with the proper UMD could essentially gain a wizards casting ability(assuming taking the time to turn to the right page and what not) so combat application probably wouldn't work so well, but just think of the possibilities!

While we are on the subject a similar question comes to mind, lets say a wizard has lost his spellbook, but happens to have a scroll or 2 of spells he already knows, could he study those scrolls as he would study his spell book to be able to prepare those 1 or 2 spells in all his available slots?

[Diarmuid]

I've played in games where the DM allowed for using the pages of a spellbook encompassing a given spell to be used as a scroll, but anything like that is completely homebrew and there are no supporting rules for it in the game.

If you were going to allow for it, I'm not really sure how you would circumvent the page(s) from being erased upon use of the magic but if you could do that, why not simply use the same process to keep a regular scroll from being expended as well?

[Deophaun]

Would it be too far fetched to assume the detailings of a particular spell on a particular page in a wizards spell book function much like a scroll of said spell? And if that were the case would it also be possible for say an artificer with an a high use magic device to use said spells in said wizards spellbook as if they were in fact scrolls of said spells? Now if this happened the spellbook page would likley disappear like a scroll, but what if there was a way to make it not disappear, so an artificer with the proper UMD could essentially gain a wizards casting ability(assuming taking the time to turn to the right page and what not) so combat application probably wouldn't work so well, but just think of the possibilities!
There is a thing that works like this. It is called a minor schema. Minor schema are found in Magic of Eberron.

[elonin]

I'm not familiar with schema. Game balance would say no given the cost to add a spell to your spell book vs the cost of a scroll. you could likely have your spellbook take the form of a long scroll.

[Diarmuid]

There's also the mechanical issue of spells encompassing multiple pages in a spell book as opposed to scrolls being a single sheet.

[JusticeZero]

In 2e, you could do this - it would erase the page when cast though.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Would it be too far fetched to assume the detailings of a particular spell on a particular page in a wizards spell book function much like a scroll of said spell? And if that were the case would it also be possible for say an artificer with an a high use magic device to use said spells in said wizards spellbook as if they were in fact scrolls of said spells? Now if this happened the spellbook page would likley disappear like a scroll, but what if there was a way to make it not disappear, so an artificer with the proper UMD could essentially gain a wizards casting ability(assuming taking the time to turn to the right page and what not) so combat application probably wouldn't work so well, but just think of the possibilities!
The main issue here is price. A scroll costs 25 gp times the spell level times the minimum caster level (less crafting costs and XP and all that). Meanwhile, scribing into a spellbook costs 100 gp times the spell's level, and requires no feat or XP cost to perform. This means that for spells of 3rd level or higher you're getting a significant discount on scrolls if you allow this (75 gp at 3rd level, 2,925 gp at 9th level).

That could be extremely unbalancing, and it introduces no new or interesting gameplay mechanics besides those already offered by spell scrolls. If you want to be a UMD-er then play a rogue, take skill mastery, and carry a bucket of scrolls around. Artificers can already carry buckets of scrolls around (and they can craft them too).


While we are on the subject a similar question comes to mind, lets say a wizard has lost his spellbook, but happens to have a scroll or 2 of spells he already knows, could he study those scrolls as he would study his spell book to be able to prepare those 1 or 2 spells in all his available slots?

Nothing in the rules allows you to prepare a spell from a scroll, but it's trivial (if a bit costly) to copy a spell from a scroll into a spellbook. Copying a spell from a scroll into a spellbook does not expend it. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#addingSpellstoaWizardsSpellbook

Since scrolls generally cost more than spellbook pages I think there's nothing wrong with allowing a mage to prepare a spell from a scroll. It shouldn't be too unbalancing if you allow it as a houserule.

[Asrrin]

As a DM I would rule against this. a spell page is a complete and detailed recipe of how the caster must prepare his/her arcane energies and then trigger them with a (mostly) standard action.

A scroll is the actual prepared arcane energies put to written form, waiting only for the spell trigger to complete. There is no functional way to make a recipe/instruction set turn into magical energy.

[Chronos]

Copying a spell from a scroll into a spellbook does not expend it.
Incorrect:

The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.

[EyethatBinds]

Would it be too far fetched to assume the detailings of a particular spell on a particular page in a wizards spell book function much like a scroll of said spell? And if that were the case would it also be possible for say an artificer with an a high use magic device to use said spells in said wizards spellbook as if they were in fact scrolls of said spells? Now if this happened the spellbook page would likley disappear like a scroll, but what if there was a way to make it not disappear, so an artificer with the proper UMD could essentially gain a wizards casting ability...

Okay, I was with you as a house rule until right here. I allow wizards in my game to burn spells in their book as scrolls (but requiring a full round action). Now what if there were a way to use UMD to make a scroll last forever? Well, that's really where we get questionable.

Why would that make any gorram sense? Why would any GM allow a skill check to grant a person infinite spells? Why would a skill do something that it cannot do? I mean, why would you want this to happen in a game? It would mean that UMD would become the only skill worth having, to the point that fighters would take cross class ranks to gain access to infinite spells.

It's a ludicrous idea without a shred of common sense thrown in.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm afraid I have to agree with EyethatBinds on the "oh god no" front. Casters do not need more spells/day, or more versatility. Especially artificers.

I would allow a wizard to scribe a scroll on a page of his spellbook, if he felt it necessary, but that's about as far as I'd go.

[Darth Stabber]

I've played with a houserule allowing pages ripped from a spellbook count as a scroll of that spell, and it's not particularly unbalancing, it does offer a slight edge in versatility at a nasty cost (losing the spell, and pages from the book). A mending spell to reattach the now empty pages solves the lesser problem, but the need to refind and recopy are likely to be issues in a situation in which that drastic action would be necessary. It also gives you a neat trick making some room in your spellbook.

[Doxkid]

Ok. So you just gave a wizard infinite spells without having to use cheese, hoops, loops, trickery, bad wordings, or any of their own OoC intelligence.

Good job?

[Vaern]

While we are on the subject a similar question comes to mind, lets say a wizard has lost his spellbook, but happens to have a scroll or 2 of spells he already knows, could he study those scrolls as he would study his spell book to be able to prepare those 1 or 2 spells in all his available slots?
A scroll is meant to be usable once. Allowing wizards to use than an infinite number of times without the item that exists specifically to allow them to do so is just crazy. Why would anyone pay the extra 100 gold per spell level to scribe a spell in a proper spellbook when they can just use the scroll that they already have for the same effect?

At the very most, I would allow the wizard to prepare a spell one time for each scroll he happens to have. This will allow him to hold onto those spells without risk of losing the scrolls in addition to his spellbook, without being as broken as allowing a handful of scrolls to function as effectively as a true spellbook.
If it is a spell that he already knows and he is the one who scribed the scroll, he can prepare it normally.
If it is a spell that he knows, but the scroll was scribed by someone else, I would ask for a spellcraft check equivalent to preparing a spell from another wizard's spellbook.
If it is a spell that he does not know, I would ask for a spellcraft check equivalent to learning a new spell - with the same penalty of not being able to retry until he gains a new rank in spellcraft.
If successful, the wizard prepares to spell - and the writing on the scroll is erased as though it had been cast normally.
If the wizard manages to reclaim his spellbook before casting a new spell which he has successfully prepared from the scroll, I would then allow him to scribe the new spell in the spellbook as though he was doing it from the memorized scroll (and, in doing so, "forget" the spell until he prepares it again from the spellbook).

[Diarmuid]

In 2e, you could do this - it would erase the page when cast though.

Not to derail the thread too much, but could you cite where this is spelled out? It's certainly nowhere in the "Mage" section of the AD&D 2nd Edition PHB discussing spellbooks.

[ZamielVanWeber]

As long as it cleanses the page it seems fine. Otherwise you get into issues with the Collegiate Mage and/or Elven Generalist casters and their ridiculous number of spells known (my current record is 18 level ones). I would crush a sorcerer of the same level simply of spell list size and flexibility.

[Gildedragon]

@Vaern: using a scroll bundle as spellbook isn't OP at all. It's more expensive than a normal spellbook if anything. And IIRC they can learn a spell from a scroll anyway so it doesn't do much of a difference

The opposite: spellbook as scroll is a more powerful option but it has edition precedent and is essentially the spell hoarding dragon ability.
Burning up spellbook pages to cast spells is flavorful, makes captured spellbooks more useful for the party, and has a good desperate last resort feel to it.

[Darth Stabber]

@Vaern: using a scroll bundle as spellbook isn't OP at all. It's more expensive than a normal spellbook if anything. And IIRC they can learn a spell from a scroll anyway so it doesn't do much of a difference

I actually had a homebrew "greater arcane preparation" feat that allowed sorcerers to prepare spells they didn't have as spells known, but only from scrolls, only from sorc/wiz list, in a level higher slot, and they hve to make "preparation from someonelse's spellbook" spellcraft check at the modified difficulty. It actually works out pretty well, they're still no wizard, but it gives them some interesting choices. I costs more to keep a "scroll sachel" than a spellbook, they NEVER count as knowing additional spells, and they are forced to heighten everything prepared in this manner.

So there is, from my testing, a lot more wiggle room than people think in this space, but it is a space in which one must be careful.

[Vaern]

@Vaern: using a scroll bundle as spellbook isn't OP at all. It's more expensive than a normal spellbook if anything. And IIRC they can learn a spell from a scroll anyway so it doesn't do much of a difference
Actually, you seem to be forgetting that, in addition to the 100 gold pieces per page, copying a spell into a spellbook consumes the scroll of the spell being copied. This makes a bundle of scrolls inherently less expensive than copying them into your spellbook if they can be prepared infinitely without consuming the scroll. You are also not considering the fact that players very frequently obtain scrolls for free in piles of loot.
Why would you ever spend the extra hundred gold per spell level to copy the scroll if you could just use the scroll itself as your spellbook? And why would you ever use a scroll if you could not only prepare it an infinite number of times, but also cast it at your own caster level instead of the scroll's?

And the process of learning a spell from a scroll includes copying it into a spellbook, which wipes it from the scroll before the wizard would have a chance to prepare it himself. He would normally be unable to do so if he was parted from his spellbook. As there appear to be no rules for preparing spells directly from scrolls, I would say that my recommendation on the subject is sufficiently more forgiving than RAW.

[Yogibear41]

I think people are taking what I originally proposed and twisting it a bit. Especially when talking about infinite spells per day for a wizard.

This is what we have

1. a spell book, not as a spell book but as a list of scrolls, thereby allowing an artificer with an appropriate UMD check to use a page(s) to cast that spell.
Using up said page as if it were a scroll. (the little tid bit about the page not disappearing was just maybe some sort of way a artificer could use one of his infusions per day to cast that spell instead or something)


2. Say a wizard, who has lost his spell book for whatever reason, destruction, theft, etc. but happens to have say a scroll of magic missile, and who also originally had magic missile within his spell book(aka he already made his spellcraft check to understand said spell and now has the ability to write it into his book for the appropriate cost)

Now lets say this wizard is in the thick of things and has no way to get a new spellbook, retreat, or any other option he needs to be able to do something with what he has. So instead of firing off the 1 scroll he happens to have, when he sits down to prepare his spells for the day he has his "one page spellbook" if you will and prepares the 1st level magic missile spell in every slot he has because thats all he has.


Now I suppose you could get into some sort of tiffy about, well if he can do that why would he ever pay money to transfer a scroll into his actual book.
From a strict mechanics/numbers stand point I can't give you an answer as it would just be a waste of money/resources. But from a roll playing perspective what self respecting wizard is going to be carrying around a spellbook filled with hundres of sheets of "loose leaf spells" that can go flying away at a moments notice.



EDIT /facepalm hard I just looked at what I titled this thread....

[Cybris75]

So instead of firing off the 1 scroll he happens to have, when he sits down to prepare his spells for the day he has his "one page spellbook" if you will and prepares the 1st level magic missile spell in every slot he has because thats all he has.

RAW he would need a spellbook and copy the spell from the scroll into the book, erasing the scroll in the process. This takes a day plus a spellcraft check (btw, Read Magic can be prepared without a spellbook) plus money for materials. You can fudge this a bit - at my table we usually don't have the Wizard buy the ink/materials, but just assume he brought some and subtract the money. The materials are not really specified as a buyable item anyway.

The spell on the scroll is in a different state than a spell in a spellbook (sort of like a compiled self-erasing program versus the source code of said program).

Now, the definition of spellbook could be flexible - I don't know if it actually has to be a book with covers, or just a blank piece of paper. He still needs the special ink/materials.

Also, a wizard can prepare from another wizard's spellbook. There's nothing said about writing into another wizard's spellbook, but I would allow it if a wizard stole/bought/found a spellbook.

And wasn't there a rule where you can write spell you have already prepared into a spellbook?

[Yogibear41]

IDK if it is an actual rule or not, but I was under the impression that if a wizards spellbook was somehow destroyed, but he still had a certain number of spells prepared he could re-write those spells from memory(as long as he didn't cast them) into a new spellbook.

[TuggyNE]

IDK if it is an actual rule or not, but I was under the impression that if a wizards spellbook was somehow destroyed, but he still had a certain number of spells prepared he could re-write those spells from memory(as long as he didn't cast them) into a new spellbook.

That is in fact the case.

[Vaern]

Now I suppose you could get into some sort of tiffy about, well if he can do that why would he ever pay money to transfer a scroll into his actual book.
From a strict mechanics/numbers stand point I can't give you an answer as it would just be a waste of money/resources. But from a roll playing perspective what self respecting wizard is going to be carrying around a spellbook filled with hundres of sheets of "loose leaf spells" that can go flying away at a moments notice.
Well, as Asrrin pointed out, the spells in the spellbook are fully detailed descriptions, including instructions for the somatic, verbal, and material components, as well as any foci required to cast it. One might suggest that the specific inscription materials used to record a spell in a spellbook is what allows it to be etched into a wizard's mind when he prepares his spells - not any old flask of ink is sufficient for the job.
Meanwhile, scrolls are explicitly one-time-use items. They're there for when a wizard runs out of prepared spells for a certain level, or so he can have a spell available when it isn't prepared - not so he can use them to prepare his spells.

There is absolutely no reason, though, that you could not make your own "one page spellbook" of Magic Missile. Bearing in mind that copying spells from your own spellbook to a new one costs half the price of scribing a new spell (50 gold), this "spellbook" would be a little more than a scrap of parchment exactly the same size of a scroll and could be kept hidden separately from the rest of your spell collection.
Keep the page hidden somehow, and this completely rules-legal scrap of paper can be used for exactly the same purpose as the scroll you are trying to prepare spells from.