The basic spellbook, the one you buy from the PHB equipement section. is it magic, does it radiate a magical aura when you look at it with detect Magic?
Once you scribe spell in it?
IMO, no the spellbook is not more magic then my biology notebook from University in real life. it is filled with diagram and scribble that only I can understand and if you take my biology note it will take you about 1 hours per page to decipher the code I use in order to take notes fast enought.
The only way to make a spellbook glow with detect magic is to put a spell (like illusion script, or Nautylust aura or a trap spell) on the book and the spell will glow.
Yes a spellbook can be magic by itself if it's a wounderous magical item, with some inherent properties (like back in 3.5 the Boccob spellbook was letting you scribe one spell per page instead of a number of page equal to the spell level)
You just had a debate with yourself. You know that, yeah?
Normal spellbooks are just books.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Sorxores wrote:
but there is no RAW or RAI saying this in the book (which woul dmake it easier to convince my DM) because he, susing that 3 decades of play to say that a basic spell book is magic by the game rule (if he would say that as per rule 0 he as the DM declare that in his game spell book are magic then I wouldn't care because rule0) but he's sayign that it like this as written in the book so I was wondering
It is not written in the book. Nor was it written in the 3.5E or 4E books, from what I remember. (I just did a quick search of the 4E PHB, and it is not a rule in that book.)
It sounds like he's making a ruling based upon his years of interpretation and assumption of "how the world works". This is definitely not a rule in 5E, most relevantly, nor was it a rule in 4E, and it likely never was.
He is indeed invoking rule Rule 0, whether he believes he is doing so or not.
Spellbooks are listed in the Equipment section along with other nonmagical gear. They are not listed under "Magic items," although there may well be some special magical items that are a type of spellbook.
Note that, for example, the Potion of Healing in the basic rules / PHB specifically mentions that it is magical in the item's description, whereas a spellbook does not.
Spellbooks have never been magical in and of themselves according to the rules. Some DM's may use the "Book of Shadows" magical spellbook type rules but that's a rule 0 type of determination. That's why you can't just read a spell out of your spellbook to cast it like you can with a scroll (and which causes the scroll to be used up). A spellbook is actually just a notebook with not only the invocation (assuming Verbal components) of a spell but directions on the somatic and material components required plus any other notes the write chooses to put in like descriptions of effect, variations (like how to alter a component to make your fireball fuschia instead of flame red).
Considering in 5e that most magic items are meant to be rare it'd be odd that a spellbook would be considered magical. It is just a collection of pages of paper enclosed in a binding. Nothing in the rules of 5e and most earlier editions (I do seem to recall maybe 1st edition might have stated spellbooks were considered magical once they had spells in them but it's been decades and I can't recall for sure) indicate that spellbooks are in any way magical, just that they contain information pertaining to magic.
Now I could see a wizard choosing to put spells on this spellbook to keep others from stealing his secrets but could also see reasons to not put any and instead writing in code to make it harder for others to realize it IS a spellbook and not a treatise on the mating habits of flumph. Having a spellbook radiate magic is like having a sign over the fireplace poker saying "secret lever here".
The one thing I find amusing, is that you could theoretically use Minor Conjuration to create a facsimile of your spellbook. Even under the assumption that you must be intimately familiar with the information contained within the book, your spellbook definately counts as something you are intimately familiar with.
Conjurers can therefore stash their spellbook somewhere safe, and conjure a copy of it with which to memorize their spells. They would most likely carry around a second spellbook to copy new spells into, and later transfer those spells into their primary spellbook.
I would say that they're not magical. They just contain the arcane formulae needed to prepare and cast the spells. Unlike a scroll (which is a magical item), you can't cast a spell directly from a spellbook, except as a ritual (and, again, that's just using the spellbook as an instruction manual).
However, I imagine there could be spells you can cast on spellbooks to protect them that would then make it appear as if the book was magical. Then, it might light up bright as you please when you use Detect Magic. Otherwise, I think it's just a normal (though very valuable) book.
Actually, they were magical in 3.5. In 5th, however, they are not.
Which is dumb as hell, but I didn't make the game.
So be a conjuration wizard, and you can now create your spellbook at will whenever you need to study.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Dane_McArdy wrote:
Captnq wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
I don;t have to speculate. Spellbooks are found in the mundane equipment section in 5e. The only magic item found in that section is specifically noted as being magic.
RAW in 5e and previous editions from everyting I've seen and remember (I don't have my pre-4e books available to verify) treat spellbooks as important, rare, and expensive, but not magical. Nowhere has it stated that they glow under Detect Magic, that they are more resistant to damage than any other book (a trait magical items had in 1e and 2e at least is that they had DR/improved saves just by being magical), or that they counted as magical items.
A DM can choose to make them magical in his games but that's a houseruling. The fact that when a spellbook is used to prepare or ritual cast a spell it doesn't wipe that spell from it's pages indicates that it's not magical since there was no magical energy in the writing to fuel the spells (a scroll uses the stored magic to supplant the material and somatic components and fuel the verbal so that the reader doesn't have to supply their own magic).
The other issue with making a spellbook always magical is that means the wizard has to be able to alter a magical item in order to add new spells into his own spellbook and he'll have a hard time replacing it should it be lost, or making backups. Traditionally wizards didn't carry their full spellbook with them, but had a "travelling spellbook" that was a copy of the spells they're most likely to use (aka the ones that show up in the PHB spell list) while their "at home" copy contains more utilitarian spells, details on their cantrips, and likely other topics related to magic but not spells specifically (like sources of various magical material components or monster parts with magical properties for spells, potions, etc.). Making any of these magical puts a greater price-tag on them and higher value to the wizard and any potential thief, especially if some residuum type mechanic is introduced that allows the "melting down" of magic items for raw magical fuel.
Historical (previous edition) variations aside based on the 5e PHB alone the spellbook isn't magical. It's just a pricier mundane book (vellum pages primarily and thicker than most books). The sidebar about the spellbook in the Wizard class section gives the costs for scribing spells (new ones and copying from one spellbook to another) and notes that it requires "fine ink" not "rare, magical inks". Basically a spellbook is in D&D what cherished illuminated manuscripts were in the Middle Ages: expensive and made with higher end materials than more common books. It'd be like the difference between a hardbound book and a newspaper in modern times. They're not magical, just fancy.
With that being said, there is some debate regarding how a spellbook or another written text would function in conjunction with the Minor Conjuration ability. By rights, having only 'seen" the spellbook, you could always conjure a facsimile. It would have the same binding, cover, and pages, and perhaps even the same wear and tear, but the pages would either be blank or full of nonsensical scribble.
Logic dictates however, that if you are intimately familiar with a text, such as your own personal spellbook - you would have a very clear understanding and visual memory of what each page looks like. I know personally, I can identify which section of an RPG book I am looking at just by how its laid out - which picture is on the page, or what subheading I am looking at. After a very short period of time, I then know which direction to head from any random point to get to the section I am looking for. The mind makes mental bookmarks and mental hyperlinks quite easily in this regard.
As such, it is logical that a conjurer should be intimately familiar with his spellbook, and therefore should be able to conjure an identical replacement for the purpose of memorizing his spells, save that he would have to recast his conjuration each hour. The same would hold true of any book the conjurer has studied on more than one ocassion - but it would not be true for books he may have only just flipped through the pages of, or looked at the cover.
Wasn't there an edition where you could read off a spell from a spell book like it was a scroll, using it up in the process? I would consider them magic then. But certainly not in 5e in any case.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
You're referring to 1st edition's Unearthed Arcana optional rule:
p80 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Unearthed Arcana (1985)
Casting spells directly from books
In extremis, the DM may allow a magic-user to cast a spell directly from any sort of spell book just as if the book were a scroll. The book must be of appropriate sort so that the spell matches the profession of the caster, Le. magic-user spell, magic-user spell book. The caster must be able to know and use the spell in question. (Note that in this regard, reading directly from a spell book differs from the use of scroll spells.)
Direct casting of a spell from a spell book automatically destroys that spell. There is also a 1% chance per level of the spell that the spells immediately preceding and following the spell cast will likewise be destroyed. There is an additional 1% chance that the casting of a spell directly from a spell book will destroy the entire book. A permanency spell, for instance, would not prevent a spell from “disappearing” when cast in this manner; even though writing might remain on the page, that writing will no longer be magical in nature. These strictures apply whether a spell caster is using his or her personal book or the book of another. Read magic is required for one magic-user to read another magic-user’s spell book, and a magic-user can learn a spell by reading it from another’s book. This learning process requires 2-8 hours of study per level of the spell, after which time the spell is learned and thereby immediately usable by the magic-user who did the studying.
The breakdown here is that the book is not magical, but rather it is the knowledge and power of the magic-user (a specific class, most akin to Wizards in 5e) which allows this to be done. Vancian magic (D&D's "normal" type in earlier editions) was predicated on "memorization" of spells after resting. So it wasn't that a 1st edition magic-user couldn't summon up any more magical energy when they ran out of spells. It was that they simply could not remember any more.
Scrolls are imbued with magic. That's why they can be used with Use Magic Device. Spellbooks? Nope. Just the one variant rule in UE a long, long time ago.
Seuleslintan wrote:
hehe good counter =)
Nothing I see in PHB indicates a Wizard's spellbook is magical in itself. The rules indicate that inscribing the spell just requires fine inks and some material components to practice the spell. There's no meditation or ritual aspect indicating you're infusing it with magic to make it your's.
So no, not magical.
Would you be able to make a copy using a conjuration spell? Yes, but it would be very very difficult. To my understanding, conjuration requires you know the object well enough to make a copy. But spellbooks are loaded with handwritten glyphs, annotations, cryptic languages, references between spells or how components interact with one another, etc. And all of this written in the Wizard's own doctor like handwriting, no doubt. I do not believe it's supposed to be an exact copy of the original scroll, down to the cursive being used, but just some writing on how the spell works, what words and gestures you speak, and the kind of arcane symbols you visualize in your head.
Basically, unless you know the spells themselves, it's very very unlikely you will be able to successfully conjure a working copy. In terms of conjuring a non-working copy, it might be possible(ish) if you have really good memory, but even then, any Wizard who spends more than a few minutes looking over the book will see it for the gibberish it is.
That would be my ruling as a DM.
Random associated question: If the text is not magical in itself, and is just wizard scrawlings, why does it have to be in fine ink? Can't regular ink, or crayons for that matter, convey the same mundane information wizards would need to cast from their spellbook?
Have you met a Wizard? They're, like, the most snobbish guys around, yo. Like all fine brandy and blue cheese for them. Regular ink is sooooo below them ;)
But really, it's not mentioned why. It just says fine inks. What it doesn't say is that it's magic ink. If you need a real world reason, let's say that the ink is specially designed to not stain or smear, potentially mixing with a facing page and ruining your meticulously inscribed spells.
KarlB wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Dane_McArdy wrote:
Dane_McArdy wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
There are counterexamples of items in the Equipment chapter of the rules that are clearly called "magical," such as a potion of healing, whereas a spellbook is not.
Saying "No where in the rules does it specifically say that spell books aren't magical.", therefore they are magical, is more or less the definition of a munchkin fallacy. It may be grounds to examine the rest of the rules, but that statement by itself is not an argument.
I take a spellbook's writing to be mundane but covering magical subject matter. The writing explains how to perform magic to the initiated, but it doesn't itself perform magic or consist of magic - it consists of nonmagical, if finely crafted, ink and vellum. This is in contrast to illusory script or a glyph of warding, which are actually "magical writing."
If it's important at any point, ask your DM to be sure.
Dane_McArdy wrote:
in 5th I would not make it magical by default ... this keeps the book trinket and the pact of the book for the warlock class special in that both books are magical. If your DM is fairly inventive he could make the trinket book become your grimwar for your warlock (yes you can steal this idea) when the character takes the pact of the tome.
another reason is that this would make having special spell books that are ainchent tomes and semi inteligent (ie like bob the skill) a possability. also since we do not have the DMG I would go fairly light on the strict interpretation till we have solid DMing advice.
If a spellbook is not magical then why do you have to have access to level 3 spells in order to write the fireball spell in your spellbook?
FrogReaver wrote:
Speaking of Spellbooks...
PHB 114: When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell splots and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
Lvl 3 Wizard / Lvl 2 Cleric can place LVL 3 wizard spells in his spell book. He can't get them by leveling up but he can place them in the spellbook if he finds one during the campaign since he will have a level 3 spell slot...
Multiclassing one level of wizard wizard looks alot better now lol...
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
There is a substantive difference between being a human copy machine and understanding and then reproducing the spell in your own script so that you can later refresh your memory of what is specifically required to cast the "fireball" spell. "Adding a spell to your spellbook" is a bit different than just copying something you've found- it could involve personalizing the formula so that you remember how to prepare and cast a fireball. The rules mentioned include "time spent deciphering and copying it."
While we're at it, the spellbook rules only apply in that form to single-class Wizards. Mutli-class wizards use the rules from chapter 6 that say you should treat preparing and learning spells as a single-classed member of your class (i.e.: do not use the multiclass spellcasting table in chapter 6, and therefore, no third-level Wizards with fireball in their spellbooks.)
FrogReaver wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
The multiclass rules explicitly state that a character learns spells as a "single class member" of that class, therefore, no multi-class spell slots for determining the impact of that feature. A single-class Wizard 1 does not have 3rd level spell slots and cannot add fireball to his spellbook.
The "Your Spellbook" sidebar is a sub-section of the "Learning Spells of First Level or Higher" section of the Wizard class. This subsection specifically references learning spells for which you have a spell slot as per the "Wizard" class table.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(You ninja-edited your post)
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
No, there is a restriction in the rules for learning spells that specifies spell slots as per the "Wizard" table. Additionally, special rules apply to multiclass characters- the same special rules section that gives a multiclass character more spell slots also restricts those slots to not apply to cases of "knowing" spells. Those "multiclass" slots essentially don't exist when a Wizard wants to copy spells into his or her book.
The "Your Spellbook" sidebar is a subsection of the "Learning Spells..." rules. Regardless, multiclassing does two things:
- give you more spell slots than your Wizard level would indicate
- remove those spell slots for the purposes of learning new spells
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Novacat wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
p. 164 wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
No, "these spells" refers to "all spells learned of first level or higher." Copying spells from another source into your spellbook follows the same rules and is included in the same rules section. The only difference is the method of acquisition, not the rules governing it.
You seem to forget that the multiclass rules are inherently changing the Wizard rules.
- The Wizard rules say that a level 3 wizard has no 3rd-level spell slots.
- The Wizard rules say that a Wizard can copy a spell of a level for which he or she has spell slots.
The multiclass rules override both of these:
- A level 3 multiclass wizard can possibly have 3rd-level spell slots.
- A level 3 multiclass wizard can't simply "use all his spell slots" for the purposes of learning spells because some of those slots are from multiclassing and thus violate the multiclassing rules about learning spells as a single-class (i.e.: not multiclassed) character.
Selective reading can lead to bad situations, but consistent reading fixes the "problem."
Regardless of attempting to find a loophole, it was common sense and has been stated plainly by developers that the "loophole" interpretation is wrong.
Your reading comprehension appears faulty.
"Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spells slots, as shown on the Wizard table."
Please explain how the bolded part can POSSIBLY refer to anything other than the two free spells you gain as part of a level-up.
Also, the multiclassing rules ignore the possibility that a wizard can have spells other than those gained by leveling up. They are silent on the specific topic of copying spells into your spellbook. For example, they say that only two of your wizard spells can be 2nd level (as a 3rd level wizard), but if you're copying spells into your spellbook, you could have any number of 2nd level spells.
The developers are not silent on the matter. They probably thought this concept was too ridiculous to explicitly disallow, but have answered uncharacteristically bluntly when asked point-blank about it.
"These spells" refers to "Learning Spells of First Level or Higher", of which the standard method of acquisition is gaining a Wizard level. The last sentence of that rule extends these rules to apply in additional circumstances, but the same rules still apply. if the "Your Spellbook" sidebar contradicted an earlier rule, it would say something like "you may add a spell to your spellbook if it is a level for which you have spell slots (includling multiclass spell slots)."
Without that, it doesn't break either the rule established earlier in the same page or the multiclass rules on p. 164 that specifically modify the "Your Spellbook" sidebar on p. 114.
In retrospect, arguing this point at all is pretty silly as the entire concept of "copying a spell into your spellbook" is entirely under the purview of a DM- moreso than just levelling up, as the DM has to specifically plant written spells in his or her campaign. Therefore, any rules about how to accomplish this are also necessarily coming directly from a table's DM. Your individual DM will either allow you to copy fireball when you're below level 5, but most won't, just like your DM might give you a Holy Avenger at level 2, or let you kill the Tarrasque at level 7, but most won't.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
English does in fact work that way.
"Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook."
"Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table."
"On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the "Your Spellbook" sidebar)."
"Learning spells" is different from "learning spells?"
(Edit: The "Your Spellbook" sidebar is a sidebar about "learning spells". p. 164 modifies the rules for "learning spells.")
Here's the link:
thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/multiclass-caster-spellbook/
"Learning spells" is different from "learning spells?"[/quote]
I think you'll find that learning two free spells as part of a level up is, in fact, different than copying spells into your spellbook. One is free, the other is not. One is level dependent, the other is not. One happens during an adventure, the other happens during character progression. One takes time, the other does not. One of the methods precedes the sentence that refers to "these spells," the other does not.
It would seem that at least one developer agrees with you, but all that proves is that WotC doesn't know how to write rules worth a damn (but we've known that for years).
Again, the only difference between learning a spell from "copying" and learning it from "gaining a level" is the method of acquisition - not the restrictions about which spells are viable options.
When you write your own RPG rulebook, feel free to make the rules work however you wish.
WoTC has some of the most rigorously worded rules of any gaming company in the world, if not the most rigorous. They pioneered standard rules templating in card games. 5e intentionally was not written in a rigorous manner to reinforce the creative and imaginative nature of the hobby. By the same token, you are free to let level 3 wizards pen a fireball into their spellbooks. You cannot, however, successfully argue that this is a "legitimate" or "supported" tactic.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I'm with 2C here. Why? Because you learn/acquire spells as if you were that single class. It's almost a throw-away line that I TOTALLY missed thanks to the semi-complicated Multiclass rules. But someone (probably Plaguescarred) pointed that out to me and it was a game-changer. But if you want to say that copying a spell into your spellbook doesn't count, that's fine, because I doubt it'll be gamebreaking (since they can't prepare it. But copying Rituals might be the dealbreaker for me as to why I won't allow it, anyway). But just know that as you learn and prepare spells, you do so as if you're a Wizard, and only a Wizard. Same goes for the spellbook, I believe, since it seems to be a subsection of the wizard Preparing and Casting Spells.
FrogReaver wrote:
My 2 cp on the original question is that blank spell books are entirely non-magical. They are very well-made books, carefully bound using high quality parchment, which itself is quite expensive. A spell book that has spells in it would have a faint magic aura. It isn't quite a magic item, nor is it entirely non-magical anymore.
The requirement for special inks, and minimum time requirement based on the level of the spell implies that writing spells is something more involved than taking history notes with a ballpoint. It isn't a matter of permanence that makes those inks expensive. We have books from the 7th century and older (Lindisfarne Gospels, Book of Kells) that have not faded over the centuries. Inks made with oak galls and iron are very permanent, and not expensive to manufacture. Colored pigments cost a great deal more, but were used more sparingly as part of the decorations in manuscripts, not for the body text. If writing spells into your book were as simple as taking notes on any other subject, the materials used to write your notes would be irrelevant. The requirements for writing spells into a book implies a ritual-like process. Therefore the book would exude faint traces of magic. I would allow detect magic to see something special about a spell book.
Based on what has been posted here, the multi-class wizard cannot write spells of a higher level than allowed by his wizard level alone, even if he has higher slots granted by multi-classing.
YMMV, that is my take on it. 30 years DM'ing FWIW. Now in the words of Wil Wheaton, "Play more games!" 
So, by some of the "logic" I see tossed around here, If I buy a shield for my wizard, it must be magical. It doesn't say it's not magical. I can write a spell on it. You must assume a default state. It is a book. Does it say it is more than a book? No. It's just built with better paper and bindings than a normal book(kind of like an unabridged dictionary). If it doesn't state it's magical or give some hint to it by writing the name in italics(which they tend to do for magic items), then you assume it's a book, nothing more.
Ooh! I just bought a horse. Since the book doesn't say it's not magical, I'm gonna assume it is.
Grazel wrote:
Yes but the only reason a scroll is magical (and technically a "spellbook" could be a collection of scrolls) is because the energy for the spell is imbued into it in a format that's readable by more than just the creator. The notes in a spellbook for a spell are notes. For verbal components they may include the incantation as well (if there is one) but that doesn't mean that imbues magic into it, in vanilla D&D anyway.
I also state that a DM may decide that they could be magical if they want it's just inidcated as being such by RAW. There is no magical language (hence why Read Magic has ever existed as it allowed a wizard to read the writings of other wizards). You could have a language that is inheritly magical so any writing in that language radiates magic, but it doesn't exist in RAW (4e kind of had it with some of the outerplanar languages and runepriests but that would affect all writing not just spellbooks).
I'm not saying that spellbooks CAN'T be magical, just that they aren't as presented in RAW. But like all things in 5e (and actually all editions of D&D), the final say always comes from the DM. Since this was a rules question we have to assume to answer via RAW. RAW indicates that they aren't magical and wouldn't radiate magic (whether empty or full).
Since spell books contain magical writing which requires a read magic spell, I think they are magical. The same is true for scrolls.
dmgorgon wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
A blank spellboo, is not magical. It is essentially, a blank journal. It might be fancy, it might be plain, it might be crude, it might be made from unique materials. And maybe those materials are magical.
The listing in the rules for a blank spellbook, is the basic, simple spellbook a caster might need to buy.
Once you put spells in it? That's really up to the DM to decide. The process of putting spells in a book, is a bit of a ritual, and requires unique ingrediants.
So, the question, as posed, is up to the DM and players in their game to decide.
Dane_McArdy wrote: