Does copying a spell scroll into a Wizard's spellbook consume the scroll? The basic rules don't seem to explicitly say so.
The Basic rules don't yet contain rules for magic items, and scroll in particular so it won't be possible to tell until the PHB or DMG releases. I'll try asking Mike Mearls in the meantime.
Here's what Mike Mearls answered on twitter;
@Plaguescarred Does copying a spell scroll into a Wizard's spellbook consume the scroll?
@mikemearls believe it does
Wait a week until we have magic item rules. If the rules for scrolls don't say the scroll is consumed, then it isn't (unless they later errata it).
Considering magic scrolls with Wizard spells can be obtained from the Starter Set adventure and that copyng spells from scrolls or other spellbooks is the primary way that Wizards are expected to expand their spell selections, I hoped that this would be a little more fleshed out by now. I will go with Mike's assertion that the scrolls are consumed until future published material contradicts him.
Dyndrilliac wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Dyndrilliac wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Tichrimo wrote:
R_Dragoner wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
A scroll is a one time use magic item.
Really isn't a big deal if the scroll is not consumed. If a wizard copies it into his book, then the scroll would still be a one time use magic item and the wizard would have a new spell available to prepare.
If it is consumed, then there is no magic item and the wizard has a new spell available to prepare.
I am not sure what R_Dragoner is saying, but I think he is assuming that a spellbook is magical in nature. Spellbooks are just regular books with notes in them. No spellbook could be used to cast a spell in the same manner a scroll is used.
Probably. The old vancian stuff like in the Dying Earth.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I'd look at gaining spells as being pretty evenly split between found scrolls/spellbooks and learned spells on level up, although I know that's my own perspective.
I actually feel like just assuming the spells gained when leveling up is rather under-powered for a wizard, given that divine casters automatically know every spell on their list (and often have several freebies auto-prepared too.) What makes wizard spells so amazingly special that a wizard should be balanced when he/she only knows a very small number of them, and overpowered if they know as many of them as a cleric does?
It seems to me that wizards simply need more spells than they get through leveling in order to keep up with clerics.
When comparing wizards to clerics, it is important to not simply compare strict numbers of spells - cleric spells have significantly different overall purpose, and as such are not at all on a 1 cleric spell option = 1 wizard spell option scale.
What can be done, however, is comparing one class that uses the "arcane" spell list and another, such as the Wizard, the Sorcerer, and the Warlock.
Doing so, you can see that the wizard has by far the most different spells known of the arcane casters (5 cantrips and 44+ known spells at 20th level, compared to the sorcerer's 6 cantrips and 15 known spells, and the warlock's 4 cantrips, 15 know spells, and probably a few more from their pact).
I don't know if it would be a problem with having the scroll not be consumed by copying it into a spellbook; but, I don't think someone should be able to copy a spell into their spellbook, if that spell is of a higher level than they can prepare and cast.
Also, keep in mind that a scroll spell is usually cast at a specific caster level; which can make it more potent than the same spell, cast as a spell from a wizard's spellbook (prepared or ritual). So, if the scroll is not consumed in copying, that gives more usefulness to the scroll than might be designed (in fact, more than MM seems to think was intended).
I also think that scroll craetion is going to be considerably more expensive and time consuming than copying a scroll/writing a spell into a spellbook; because of the higher caster level involved with a scroll. In fact, if a higher caster level is set as a default, I would expect the wizard to have to be able to cast spells at that level to be able to create magic scrolls.
lawrencehoy wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
@Overpromises - Scribing scrolls probably uses a tool rather than a feat. Healing potions can be created with the Herbalism Tool.
Given that there are fewer feats in game than there were in 3.x, they probably didn't want to 'feat tax' spellcasters into taking scribe scroll. I suspect any spellcaster can do it by spending gold. (I don't think they'll even require XP - I wouldn't be surprosed if that's one of the features they ursurp from Pathfinder.)
DrDragonlance wrote:
Dyndrilliac wrote:
Why would scrolls be consumed after copying them? What explanation can you provide that the words on the scrolls disappear because it knows it has been copied? Doesn't work thematically for me.
SilverBulletKY wrote:
I think the point about the scroll being consumed means the party is less one magic item is assuming that the treasure parcels are a finite value. If a spell scroll is given as treasure and the party wizard copies it into his spellbook, then it is no longer a magic item. So, what happens to the value of that item? Especially when you consider that the wizard had to *spend* more gold to copy to the spell into his spellbook. This puts the party's "treasure value" at a net loss, I think. Whereas, if the scroll is not consumed, then the wizard can hand it off to someone else who can use it (the Bard? or Rogue?) or they can sell it. Or the wizard can hang onto it for the event that he loses his spellbook somehow.
Undrhil wrote:
So when a wizard copy a spell from another spellbook, dose it consume the spell scribed in that book ? 
TrueManiek wrote:
Alynn wrote:
I think to make the trade off clearer that I would allow the copying of a scroll into the spellbook by consumtion of the scroll and the required study time but no additional financial cost.