Casting spells directly from spellbooks [Archive] - Wizards Community

Casting spells directly from spellbooks [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
tridiak
03-23-04, 11:38 PM Can you cast spells directly from a spellbook, even if it is not your own?
If so, does the spell vanish from the book?

An official statement would be nice

TIA
Sancus
03-23-04, 11:40 PM No.

Nowhere does it say that spells can be cast from a spellbook, when you scribe a spell into your spellbook you use a completely different process from making a scroll -- it doesn't cost xp, and it doesn't require the scribe scroll feat.

There is no magical energy in a spellbook, it is a completely nonmagical book of notes on how to cast spells, basically.
Luminous Crayon
03-23-04, 11:46 PM A spellbook is a recipe file. A scroll is a microwavable frozen dinner. With a little effort, you can get direct, one-time use out of a scroll.

A spellbook gives instructions on how to replicate the spell, so you can use it over and over. But the "ingredients" aren't included, so no matter how youtry to prepare it, you can't "eat" it.
sparkster4242
03-24-04, 12:51 AM what you can do is leave a spell-slot unprepared, and prepare a spell from a book later in the day. it takes what, 15 minutes? to do that, so its not much use in combat, but it is an option.

Note that there is a spellcraft check required if you try to use someone else's book.

the book is not altered through using this technique.
NorthSaber
03-24-04, 01:06 AM I came up with a variant like this - see more details here (http://tinyurl.com/3f84w).
Eldren
03-24-04, 01:22 AM Back in 1st Edition and 2nd Edition, you could cast spells directly out of a spellbook, wiping the spell from the spellbook in the process. It was nice for a Wizard (Magic User in 1st Edition, Mage in 2nd Edition) who was in a pinch and needed something quick. Essentially, a spellbook was nothing more than a collection of "scrolls", just written on bound pages instead of rolled up parchment on a tube. There was no practical difference between a spell and a scroll, other than the fact that you could somehow learn a spell from a spellbook without wiping it clean, but you couldn't do the same with a scroll: Learning the spell wiped the scroll clean because you had to, for some reason, transfer the spell to your spellbook.

In 3rd Edition, you can't cast spells directly from your spellbook. As another poster noted, a spellbook is really nothing more than personal notations, in the "Universal" language of magic, on how you cast a spell. However, practically, what those notations are is a description of how you personally arrived at the conclusion that taking some bat poo, a bit of sulfur, and waving your arms about just so and saying just the right mystical phrases would result in a small bead that, upon impact, resulted in a Fireball spell. These notations are singular enough to a given Wizard that if another Wizard somehow finds the first one's spellbook, they have to rely on some basic magical knowledge (the Spellcraft skill) in order to decipher the first Wizard's writings. They can probably understand enough to know that it's a Fireball spell, but actually figuring out how to cast it, if they don't already have it in their spellbook, is something different, because that Wizard learned to cast Fireball a lot differently than the one who found his/her spellbook.

There probably wouldn't be anything overtly unbalancing about allowing a Wizard to use a spellbook as a scroll collection, as long as the player understood that each spell cast out of a spellbook resulted in one less spell in the spellbook. It essentially just replaces a scrollcase with a spellbook, since the end result is the same. But one thing I'd consider is that you should still require the character to use any material components required; scrolls normally don't, as the one who scribed the scroll used those during the scribing process, but if they're casting from a spellbook, they ought to have those components on hand. I don't pay too much attention to more mundane spell components, assuming that the Wizard or Sorceror in question has what they need in their spell component pouch (aside from expensive gems and whatnot), but if, during an adventure, they find a spellbook (or just a spell on a scroll) that has spells they want but don't have yet, I'm not going to assume that if they can somehow learn the spell and continue adventuring in the same day, they have the necessary components. Those are going to have to be acquired the next time they're in a reasonably-sized town. Either that, or they can just tell me they're looking for the specific components during their travel time, and if they're going through an area that would allow it, I let them find them (for instance, you aren't going to find bat guano if you're wandering through an open field that's nowhere near a dark place where a bat would be likely to sleep during the day).

Do what makes your campaign the most fun. For me, I don't see anything inherently unbalancing about allowing someone to cast straight from a spellbook, as long as the spell is used up in the casting.
Kewlmarine32
03-24-04, 01:28 AM Very Good Eldren... My thought exactly... Well done on the post...:behold:
smrtgmp
03-24-04, 09:06 PM We had a house rule in 2nd ed that allowed a caster to cast spells from his spell book (w/o erasing the spell), provided he was in a non-pressure situation and had plenty of time. IIRC, casting a spell from the book took 10-15 minutes (at least). Our reasoning for this was that a spell book provided step by step instructions, and so a wizard should be able to follow those instuctins to cast a spell.

In the description of preparing spells, it states that a wizard casts most of the spell a head of time, and finishes the spell when he needs to with the last words, gestures, etc. That was why we tacked on the extended casting time (I think it was actually 10x the normal casting time, or 10 minutes, whichever was longer). This didnt allow for abuse in combat, but it did allow you to cast that Leomond's Secure Shelter at the end of the day without wasting a slot on it.
DragonWorldOrder
03-29-04, 06:13 PM This vary topic is something I've personaly been thinking about for quit some time as a matter of fact. And in my opione when some one says Wizard, even before I started playing D&D. I would think of the Mighty Mage (Wizard), standing is some old long forgotten place. With his glowig spell book hovering infrout of him as he casts a spell, words Wizards cast out of your spell books at twice the duration. Like smrtgmp said, maybe no pressured and or as long as they have the componts and spell slot to cast it. Which makes them a little more versitily, and keeps with in the whole Wizard theme of things. This could be considered a speical ability of wizards, but at twice the cost of scribeing it in to your book, and dubble the cost it would be in XP as if you were to write it as a scroll. And maybe like wizards staffs in the Queenessetal, you have to use your spell slots to power this magic book ability. Matter of fact a whole PrC cOuLd be built around this idea, which if done carefully could be alot of fun to play I think. The phrase burn a spell, often came up in my group, where while sitting around the camp fire we needed a spell for no other reason other then to repaire something or something. So to have this abiltiy, throughly balnaced out and figure out, would be SO great to go rub in my snobby groups face and go, HA NOW I CAN.
DragonWorldOrder
03-29-04, 06:15 PM This vary topic is something I've personaly been thinking about for quit some time as a matter of fact. And in my opione when some one says Wizard, even before I started playing D&D. I would think of the Mighty Mage (Wizard), standing is some old long forgotten place. With his glowig spell book hovering infrout of him as he casts a spell, words Wizards cast out of your spell books at twice the duration. Like smrtgmp and Eldren said, maybe no pressured and or as long as they have the componts and spell slot to cast it. Which makes them a little more versitily, and keeps with in the whole Wizard theme of things. This could be considered a speical ability of wizards, but at twice the cost of scribeing it in to your book, and dubble the cost it would be in XP as if you were to write it as a scroll. And maybe like wizards staffs in the Queenessetal, you have to use your spell slots to power this magic book ability. Matter of fact a whole PrC cOuLd be built around this idea, which if done carefully could be alot of fun to play I think. The phrase burn a spell, often came up in my group, where while sitting around the camp fire we needed a spell for no other reason other then to repaire something or something. So to have this abiltiy, throughly balnaced out and figure out, would be SO great to go rub in my snobby groups face and go, HA NOW I CAN.
mercurial67
03-29-04, 07:47 PM The problem with letting a wizard cast a spell directly out of his book, even if it took 10+ minutes, is you are giving him extra spells per day. There are lots of utility spells which have extended durations such as secure shelter. If you want the flavor of a wizard casting directly out of his spell book, allow they to cast either at normal casting times or a full round casting time(whichever you prefer) any open slots they have. So if they want to hold the spell in memory, it takes 15 minutes. If they just want to cast it, they cast it directly out of their spell book. Of course it's not something they would normally do in combat since that is leaving them wide open AND leaving their book wide open for taking damage.

Allowing free castings directly out of the book though gives the wizard class that much more power.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tridiak 03-23-04, 11:38 PM	Can you cast spells directly from a spellbook, even if it is not your own? If so, does the spell vanish from the book? An official statement would be nice TIA
Sancus 03-23-04, 11:40 PM	No. Nowhere does it say that spells can be cast from a spellbook, when you scribe a spell into your spellbook you use a completely different process from making a scroll -- it doesn't cost xp, and it doesn't require the scribe scroll feat. There is no magical energy in a spellbook, it is a completely nonmagical book of notes on how to cast spells, basically.
Luminous Crayon 03-23-04, 11:46 PM	A spellbook is a recipe file. A scroll is a microwavable frozen dinner. With a little effort, you can get direct, one-time use out of a scroll. A spellbook gives instructions on how to replicate the spell, so you can use it over and over. But the "ingredients" aren't included, so no matter how youtry to prepare it, you can't "eat" it.
sparkster4242 03-24-04, 12:51 AM	what you can do is leave a spell-slot unprepared, and prepare a spell from a book later in the day. it takes what, 15 minutes? to do that, so its not much use in combat, but it is an option. Note that there is a spellcraft check required if you try to use someone else's book. the book is not altered through using this technique.
NorthSaber 03-24-04, 01:06 AM	I came up with a variant like this - see more details here (http://tinyurl.com/3f84w).
Eldren 03-24-04, 01:22 AM	Back in 1st Edition and 2nd Edition, you could cast spells directly out of a spellbook, wiping the spell from the spellbook in the process. It was nice for a Wizard (Magic User in 1st Edition, Mage in 2nd Edition) who was in a pinch and needed something quick. Essentially, a spellbook was nothing more than a collection of "scrolls", just written on bound pages instead of rolled up parchment on a tube. There was no practical difference between a spell and a scroll, other than the fact that you could somehow learn a spell from a spellbook without wiping it clean, but you couldn't do the same with a scroll: Learning the spell wiped the scroll clean because you had to, for some reason, transfer the spell to your spellbook. In 3rd Edition, you can't cast spells directly from your spellbook. As another poster noted, a spellbook is really nothing more than personal notations, in the "Universal" language of magic, on how you cast a spell. However, practically, what those notations are is a description of how you personally arrived at the conclusion that taking some bat poo, a bit of sulfur, and waving your arms about just so and saying just the right mystical phrases would result in a small bead that, upon impact, resulted in a Fireball spell. These notations are singular enough to a given Wizard that if another Wizard somehow finds the first one's spellbook, they have to rely on some basic magical knowledge (the Spellcraft skill) in order to decipher the first Wizard's writings. They can probably understand enough to know that it's a Fireball spell, but actually figuring out how to cast it, if they don't already have it in their spellbook, is something different, because that Wizard learned to cast Fireball a lot differently than the one who found his/her spellbook. There probably wouldn't be anything overtly unbalancing about allowing a Wizard to use a spellbook as a scroll collection, as long as the player understood that each spell cast out of a spellbook resulted in one less spell in the spellbook. It essentially just replaces a scrollcase with a spellbook, since the end result is the same. But one thing I'd consider is that you should still require the character to use any material components required; scrolls normally don't, as the one who scribed the scroll used those during the scribing process, but if they're casting from a spellbook, they ought to have those components on hand. I don't pay too much attention to more mundane spell components, assuming that the Wizard or Sorceror in question has what they need in their spell component pouch (aside from expensive gems and whatnot), but if, during an adventure, they find a spellbook (or just a spell on a scroll) that has spells they want but don't have yet, I'm not going to assume that if they can somehow learn the spell and continue adventuring in the same day, they have the necessary components. Those are going to have to be acquired the next time they're in a reasonably-sized town. Either that, or they can just tell me they're looking for the specific components during their travel time, and if they're going through an area that would allow it, I let them find them (for instance, you aren't going to find bat guano if you're wandering through an open field that's nowhere near a dark place where a bat would be likely to sleep during the day). Do what makes your campaign the most fun. For me, I don't see anything inherently unbalancing about allowing someone to cast straight from a spellbook, as long as the spell is used up in the casting.
Kewlmarine32 03-24-04, 01:28 AM	Very Good Eldren... My thought exactly... Well done on the post...:behold:
smrtgmp 03-24-04, 09:06 PM	We had a house rule in 2nd ed that allowed a caster to cast spells from his spell book (w/o erasing the spell), provided he was in a non-pressure situation and had plenty of time. IIRC, casting a spell from the book took 10-15 minutes (at least). Our reasoning for this was that a spell book provided step by step instructions, and so a wizard should be able to follow those instuctins to cast a spell. In the description of preparing spells, it states that a wizard casts most of the spell a head of time, and finishes the spell when he needs to with the last words, gestures, etc. That was why we tacked on the extended casting time (I think it was actually 10x the normal casting time, or 10 minutes, whichever was longer). This didnt allow for abuse in combat, but it did allow you to cast that Leomond's Secure Shelter at the end of the day without wasting a slot on it.
DragonWorldOrder 03-29-04, 06:13 PM	This vary topic is something I've personaly been thinking about for quit some time as a matter of fact. And in my opione when some one says Wizard, even before I started playing D&D. I would think of the Mighty Mage (Wizard), standing is some old long forgotten place. With his glowig spell book hovering infrout of him as he casts a spell, words Wizards cast out of your spell books at twice the duration. Like smrtgmp said, maybe no pressured and or as long as they have the componts and spell slot to cast it. Which makes them a little more versitily, and keeps with in the whole Wizard theme of things. This could be considered a speical ability of wizards, but at twice the cost of scribeing it in to your book, and dubble the cost it would be in XP as if you were to write it as a scroll. And maybe like wizards staffs in the Queenessetal, you have to use your spell slots to power this magic book ability. Matter of fact a whole PrC cOuLd be built around this idea, which if done carefully could be alot of fun to play I think. The phrase burn a spell, often came up in my group, where while sitting around the camp fire we needed a spell for no other reason other then to repaire something or something. So to have this abiltiy, throughly balnaced out and figure out, would be SO great to go rub in my snobby groups face and go, HA NOW I CAN.
DragonWorldOrder 03-29-04, 06:15 PM	This vary topic is something I've personaly been thinking about for quit some time as a matter of fact. And in my opione when some one says Wizard, even before I started playing D&D. I would think of the Mighty Mage (Wizard), standing is some old long forgotten place. With his glowig spell book hovering infrout of him as he casts a spell, words Wizards cast out of your spell books at twice the duration. Like smrtgmp and Eldren said, maybe no pressured and or as long as they have the componts and spell slot to cast it. Which makes them a little more versitily, and keeps with in the whole Wizard theme of things. This could be considered a speical ability of wizards, but at twice the cost of scribeing it in to your book, and dubble the cost it would be in XP as if you were to write it as a scroll. And maybe like wizards staffs in the Queenessetal, you have to use your spell slots to power this magic book ability. Matter of fact a whole PrC cOuLd be built around this idea, which if done carefully could be alot of fun to play I think. The phrase burn a spell, often came up in my group, where while sitting around the camp fire we needed a spell for no other reason other then to repaire something or something. So to have this abiltiy, throughly balnaced out and figure out, would be SO great to go rub in my snobby groups face and go, HA NOW I CAN.
mercurial67 03-29-04, 07:47 PM	The problem with letting a wizard cast a spell directly out of his book, even if it took 10+ minutes, is you are giving him extra spells per day. There are lots of utility spells which have extended durations such as secure shelter. If you want the flavor of a wizard casting directly out of his spell book, allow they to cast either at normal casting times or a full round casting time(whichever you prefer) any open slots they have. So if they want to hold the spell in memory, it takes 15 minutes. If they just want to cast it, they cast it directly out of their spell book. Of course it's not something they would normally do in combat since that is leaving them wide open AND leaving their book wide open for taking damage. Allowing free castings directly out of the book though gives the wizard class that much more power.