[3.5] Can a lower level Wizard scribe a spell he can't cast yet?

[prototype00]

Say his Master is a 10th level wizard and he is a 2nd level apprentice, can he still borrow his Master's spellbook to scribe Fireball (assuming he can make the spellcraft check) even though he can't cast the spell?

Just wanted to confirm as the RAW seems to imply yes.

[mabriss lethe]

Nope. sorry. The caster has to have the spell prepared in order to scribe a scroll of it. A 2nd level wizard, short of shenanigans. won't have a spell slot high enough to prepare a fireball to scribe, regardless of having access to the spellbook of a higher level wizard. Relevant rules in link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingScrolls)

[prototype00]

Nope. sorry. The caster has to have the spell prepared in order to scribe a scroll of it. A 2nd level wizard, short of shenanigans. won't have a spell slot high enough to prepare a fireball to scribe, regardless of having access to the spellbook of a higher level wizard. Relevant rules in link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingScrolls)

Ah, no, not what I meant. Can the Apprentice copy the spell into his own spellbook even though he can't cast the spell yet?

[mabriss lethe]

Ah, no, not what I meant. Can the Apprentice copy the spell into his own spellbook even though he can't cast the spell yet?

Ah, my mistake. I saw "scribe" and went in a different mental direction.

Reviewing the rules, It looks like you can copy the spell into your own spellbook, by RAW, as long as you succeed on the proper skill checks. Though, obviously,you just won't be able to benefit from having it in your book until you're able to properly cast it. (Though there may be a correction to that someplace like the Rules Compendium)

[Jay R]

If I'm the DM and a player asks me, I would reply, "How are you trying to find out?"

If he asks his master, the master would say, "I've never tried it, and it sounds dangerous, but I have no idea."

If he tried it, he would make a spellcraft check, and if he failed it, he would know that he had failed.

[If he made it, I would privately roll another spellcraft check. If he fails that one, then the spell is incorrect, but he won't find out until he actually tries to cast it.]

[Psyren]

If I'm the DM and a player asks me, I would reply, "How are you trying to find out?"

If he asks his master, the master would say, "I've never tried it, and it sounds dangerous, but I have no idea."

If he tried it, he would make a spellcraft check, and if he failed it, he would know that he had failed.

[If he made it, I would privately roll another spellcraft check. If he fails that one, then the spell is incorrect, but he won't find out until he actually tries to cast it.]

Why not just have the book spontaneously combust while it is stowed near his groin for good measure

[Zanos]

If I'm the DM and a player asks me, I would reply, "How are you trying to find out?"

If he asks his master, the master would say, "I've never tried it, and it sounds dangerous, but I have no idea."

If he tried it, he would make a spellcraft check, and if he failed it, he would know that he had failed.

[If he made it, I would privately roll another spellcraft check. If he fails that one, then the spell is incorrect, but he won't find out until he actually tries to cast it.]
Why? It's not like this really grants any advantage.

[Jay R]

Why? It's not like this really grants any advantage.

Because he's trying to do something that a wizard of his level does not understand, and that the rules and examples never have a wizard of his level doing. He's trying to create, not merely a mundane copy, but a mystical item that can help a higher level wizard do something he himself cannot make anything do.

I will make some decisions to prevent PCs from having excess advantage, but this one has nothing to do with that. This ruling is to make sense within the world we're simulating.


Why not just have the book spontaneously combust while it is stowed near his groin for good measure

Because that serves no purpose in creating an interesting and evocative simulation of a fantasy world. I don't know what your purpose is in suggesting this, but it doesn't appear to be a purpose I share.

[AOKost]

I would pundit that if they made the Spellcraft check, they understand the spell, and so no secondary roll is necessary. They still can't cast the spell until they have a spell slot available, and it's not like you get a bonus on Spellcraft checks for the number of spells of a certain school you know when dealing with spells affects/effects of that school.... though that should be looked into... for every 20 spells of a certain school, you gain a +1 Knowledge bonus on related checks...

[Lorddenorstrus]

Because he's trying to do something that a wizard of his level does not understand, and that the rules and examples never have a wizard of his level doing. He's trying to create, not merely a mundane copy, but a mystical item that can help a higher level wizard do something he himself cannot make anything do.

I will make some decisions to prevent PCs from having excess advantage, but this one has nothing to do with that. This ruling is to make sense within the world we're simulating.



Because that serves no purpose in creating an interesting and evocative simulation of a fantasy world. I don't know what your purpose is in suggesting this, but it doesn't appear to be a purpose I share.

It's suggesting that the response you shared is just about as dickish as you can get towards players. It holds no purpose past being as mean as possible. It'd be better to just say you aren't allowed to do that. Although it's rather pointless... as the DM you're deciding which spells are inside the NPCs spellbook not every spell in 3.5 is broken OP. Seriously the example was FIREBALL. The real question is why you think it's OK to do that kind of passive aggressive crap to players in the first place.

[Zanos]

I would pundit that if they made the Spellcraft check, they understand the spell, and so no secondary roll is necessary. They still can't cast the spell until they have a spell slot available, and it's not like you get a bonus on Spellcraft checks for the number of spells of a certain school you know when dealing with spells affects/effects of that school.... though that should be looked into... for every 20 spells of a certain school, you gain a +1 Knowledge bonus on related checks...
Yeah, making a spellcraft check is literally how you determine if a character understands a spell. It's not like 16th level wizards don't know what a meteor swarm is because they can't cast it yet.

[Psyren]

It's suggesting that the response you shared is just about as dickish as you can get towards players. It holds no purpose past being as mean as possible. It'd be better to just say you aren't allowed to do that. Although it's rather pointless... as the DM you're deciding which spells are inside the NPCs spellbook not every spell in 3.5 is broken OP. Seriously the example was FIREBALL. The real question is why you think it's OK to do that kind of passive aggressive crap to players in the first place.

In a nutshell, that ^

[Hackulator]

Because he's trying to do something that a wizard of his level does not understand, and that the rules and examples never have a wizard of his level doing. He's trying to create, not merely a mundane copy, but a mystical item that can help a higher level wizard do something he himself cannot make anything do.

I will make some decisions to prevent PCs from having excess advantage, but this one has nothing to do with that. This ruling is to make sense within the world we're simulating.



Because that serves no purpose in creating an interesting and evocative simulation of a fantasy world. I don't know what your purpose is in suggesting this, but it doesn't appear to be a purpose I share.

Dude, scribes who didn't know how to read used to copy books in real life.

It's not at all unreasonable to say someone could copy a spell they weren't capable of casting yet.

[Zancloufer]

They probably could scribe a scroll of a spell they couldn't cast yet into a spell book.

Also worth noting while not necessarily completely by the rules CRPG D&D games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights did let you scribe spells you couldn't cast yet into your spell-book.

[Psyren]

Dude, scribes who didn't know how to read used to copy books in real life.

It's not at all unreasonable to say someone could copy a spell they weren't capable of casting yet.

Not to mention that Spellcraft is actually math. We know this because spellbooks can be understood by anyone "no matter what their native language or culture" (PHB 178), much like numbers can. I may not know advanced calculus, but I can copy down complicated formulas from one notebook to another all day long.

[Jay R]

Dude, scribes who didn't know how to read used to copy books in real life.

It's not at all unreasonable to say someone could copy a spell they weren't capable of casting yet.

Yup. But mundane scribes cannot copy spellbooks in D&D, so something mystical is going on. Therefore we know, beyond any doubt, that this analogy is not analogous, and does not apply.


It's suggesting that the response you shared is just about as dickish as you can get towards players. It holds no purpose past being as mean as possible. It'd be better to just say you aren't allowed to do that.

Oh, I think that's much more dickish. I'd always prefer to say, "You can try, but it's very difficult," and give them a chance, then to say, "You aren't allowed to do that."


It holds no purpose past being as mean as possible.

This is simply false. I gave you my reason: creating an interesting and evocative simulation of a fantasy world.

You could say that it fails at this purpose, and start a fruitful discussion, but to ignore the stated purpose and pretend it has no other except a nasty one you invent out of nonsense serves no purpose.


Although it's rather pointless... as the DM you're deciding which spells are inside the NPCs spellbook not every spell in 3.5 is broken OP.

I've already said that this is not about deciding that it's OP. ["I will make some decisions to prevent PCs from having excess advantage, but this one has nothing to do with that. "] Please stop making up falsehoods about me.


Seriously the example was FIREBALL. The real question is why you think it's OK to do that kind of passive aggressive crap to players in the first place.

It's not "passive-aggressive" to let a PC try something the rules don't allow at that level, with some chance of success but not 100%. That's giving the PC more than the rules allow, not less.

[Hackulator]

Yup. But mundane scribes cannot copy spellbooks in D&D, so something mystical is going on. Therefore we know, beyond any doubt, that this analogy is not analogous, and does not apply.




and yet, we're not talking about mundane scribes, we're talking about wizards......that's why its an ANALOGY

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/692/19789999.jpg

[Vaz]

Not to mention that Spellcraft is actually math. We know this because spellbooks can be understood by anyone "no matter what their native language or culture" (PHB 178), much like numbers can. I may not know advanced calculus, but I can copy down complicated formulas from one notebook to another all day long.

An individual studying Roman Numerals might not understand what Arabic numerals meant, though.

[redwizard007]

I'm actually with Jay on this one, with one caveat. I'd tell the player what mechanic I was using to increase the likely hood of failure. If asked to do this I would be darn tempted to revive the 2nd edition rule about only having one try to learn each specific spell.

Are wizards not powerful enough that we need to let them preload their spell books? Why not just start with them having every spell ever? Shoot, I bet you can come up with reasons that they should be able to scribe divine spells into their books too. Just in case, ya know? And it doesn't really seem fair that wizards have so few hit points... Maybe we should let them add their Int bonus at each level. We will call it a fitness regime bonus. They should also probably get that Int bonus to attack and AC because, duh, they can figure out how to anticipate what their enemy will do.

Quit whining and accept that not everyone will interpret the rules the way you want. Some will. Some won't. Accept your DM's ruling and move on.

[Kantolin]

See, with this:


I'm actually with Jay on this one, with one caveat. I'd tell the player what mechanic I was using to increase the likely hood of failure. If asked to do this I would be darn tempted to revive the 2nd edition rule about only having one try to learn each specific spell.

I'd actually be okay with it, or at least moderately so. Like, if the question is 'Hey can I do this?', and the answer is, 'Yes' or 'No' or 'Yes, but it'll be a little harder', or 'Yes, but you'll need a spellcraft check', then all of that is not a problem.

So I mean...


If I'm the DM and a player asks me, I would reply, "How are you trying to find out?"

That's reasonable!


If he asks his master, the master would say, "I've never tried it, and it sounds dangerous, but I have no idea."

If he tried it, he would make a spellcraft check, and if he failed it, he would know that he had failed.

That's also reasonable! 'Can I do this?' 'Make a spellcraft check' '6' 'No.'


[If he made it, I would privately roll another spellcraft check. If he fails that one, then the spell is incorrect, but he won't find out until he actually tries to cast it.]

That is where it toes the line from 'A DM ruling' to 'Kinda jerkish'. As that is 'Yes (mwa ha ha, he thinks he can do things)'.

If it was 'Yes, but even if you succeed there's a risk involved' then... sure. But if the argument is 'Magic is dangerous!' then we get to the 'so it explodes, because magic is dangerous', which makes about as much 'sense'.

Now don't get me wrong - I for example really /like/ playing Wilders. They're not as powerful as many other casters, but meh - I love playing the risky caster who throws caution to the winds. That's cool. So I'm cool with 'Yes but...', or even, 'Yes but you're not sure if you'll be able to get it right', or 'Yes but I'll be doing a secret spellcraft check to see if you get it right'.

Or even 'Yes, but you may want to check it with your Mentor first' or something, or your Mentor says 'No don't do that that's crazy you'll blow yourself up' or a ton of things that aren't 'Lol you thought you succeeded'.

[prototype00]

So the answer by RAW is "Nothing stopping them". Thanks for that and the hearty discussion!

prototype00

[DrKerosene]

So the answer by RAW is "Nothing stopping them". Thanks for that and the hearty discussion!

prototype00

Well, it the Wizard is a low enough level, they may not have enough gold to afford to copy the spell into their Spellbook for a while.

Likewise, I can see houserules about rolling a 1 resulting in a Scroll Mishap or something.

[Thurbane]

On the topic of "trying to do something that a wizard of his level does not understand", a few things I might point out:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#arcaneMagicalWritings

Would he not be expending the 0-level cantrip available to all Wizards: Read Magic?


A read magic spell automatically deciphers a magical writing without a skill check.

Also, this:


If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.

Assuming his master is not a sociopathic jerk, he should be OK, even without read magic or a Spellcraft check to understand the spell.


Deciphering a magical writing allows the reader to identify the spell and gives some idea of its effects (as explained in the spell description).

So it's not like the low level Wizard in the example is going in blind. He knows what the spell is, and what it does. In fact...


No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above).

...he can't even begin the copying process until he knows what the spell in question is and what it does.


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).


If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell.

If he succeeds, he knows he succeeded. If he fails, he knows he failed.