Reading Spells from Spell Books

[Dead Greyhawk]

Hi all,

I'm going to put forth some rules here about reading spells from spellbooks. Let's bat them around this week and then I'll finalize a rule for Sunday to vote on.

From Unearthed Arcana,

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, ie. 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.

We've already done away with the latter part of this rule (that read magic is needed for another spellcaster to read a spellbook). My question is whether we should do away with part of the former as well. This would allow the use of higher level spells found in spellbooks, at the risk of losing other spells found in the spellbook.

I'm mixed on this approach, since it seems like an end around on the level limits on writing scrolls (writing a spellbook full of fireballs and then reading from them instead of writing scrolls) and so I'd think there would need to be offsetting penalties in terms of casting times and chance of adjacent spell erasure and spellbook erasure.

I'm leaning towards a casting time of three times the spell level minus the level of the spell caster in rounds. Thus a third level spell would take a fifth level caster four rounds to cast from the spellbook, rather than only one round if memorized. If we increase the chance of adjacent erasure from one percent per spell level to three percent per spell level, then a ninth level spell cast from a spellbook has a twentyseven percent chance of erasing adjacent spells. Not too bad for casting such a spell. I'd check independently for spells to either side.

There's a discussion of this at Dragonsfoot here that has some alternate ideas as well.

[Dell]

Not that I don't love complex rules, but for something that as of yet hasn't become an issue in the game that seems excessive. How about this:

The odds for casting a spell from a spellbook are calculated the same as they would be for Writing that spell into a spellbook - if successful, then the spell is cast much like a scroll - if unsuccessful, then the spell is lost and you roll again with the same odds to see if the adjacent spells are lost. If either roll fails, then you roll for the next spell in the book, as the effect continues to burn spell after spell. This gives a good balance, as the formula for writing a spell already takes the level of the spell and the caster into account. You may want to provide some additional modifier based on whether the caster has ever learned the spell that he's reading.

For casting time, I say that the casting time for the spell should be increased to the next time type - segments become rounds, rounds become turns, turns become hours, and if the casting time is in hours then you're going to have to memorize it. Then add one round. If the spell is a higher level than the caster can normally cast, add one additional round for each level that the caster would have to gain to cast the spell.

So, using Winthrop's favorite spells - sleep, shield and magic missile would take 2 rounds, web would take 3, fireball 4, and strength would take an hour (plus one round) to cast from the book.

For Dell, it would be the same for all those, except for fireball - fireball would take Dell 6 rounds to cast, because he'd need to gain 2 more levels before he'd be able to learn it.

Sound fair?

[Dead Greyhawk]

A la Dell,

The odds for casting a spell from a spellbook are calculated the same as they would be for Writing that spell into a spellbook - if successful, then the spell is cast much like a scroll - if unsuccessful, then the spell is lost and you roll again with the same odds to see if the adjacent spells are lost. If either roll fails, then you roll for the next spell in the book, as the effect continues to burn spell after spell. This gives a good balance, as the formula for writing a spell already takes the level of the spell and the caster into account. You may want to provide some additional modifier based on whether the caster has ever learned the spell that he's reading.

This seems like a fine mechanism to me. I have never written down the house rule for the write spell. I'll do that and crosspost it.

---

Write
A mage using this spell can scribe into his or her spellbook a new spell. This spell can be written from another spellbook, in which case the spell remains in the spellbook, or from a scroll, in which case the spell disappears from the scroll. The probability of successfully writing a spell is determined through the use of Intelligence Table II: Ability for Magic-users on p. 10 of the Players Handbook. The Chance to Know Each Listed Spell is the base probability of successfully writing a spell into a spellbook. This probability is modified by the ability of the caster to memorize and cast the spell. If the caster is unable to memorize and cast the spell, the chance of successfully writing a spell is modified downward 5% for each level between the level of the caster and the required level to cast the spell. Thus, a first level mage with an 18 intelligence has a base chance of 85%. This mage would have an 85% chance of writing cantrips or first level spells, a 75% chance of writing second level spells, a 65% chance of writing third level spells, and so on. Conversely, a higher level mage has an equal enhanced probability of writing spells the mage can already cast. A fifth level mage with an 18 intelligence has an 85% chance of writing a third level spell, a 95% chance of writing a second level spell, and a 99% chance of writing a first level spell or cantrip. Rolls of 00 are automatic failures and rolls of 01 are automatic successes. regardless of actual probability. Write requires the use of magic-based inks at a minimum cost of 100 GP per spell per spell level.

---

What do you suppose happens if your roll fails and you lose the spell from the spellbook without casting the spell? The next step seems to be to check the adjacent spells. Do they both get independent rolls, or is one roll made for both? In a cascade, where multiple spells are being erased, are they rolled for individually, or in sets? Would blank pages in a spellbook act as a barrier, blocking the erasure of adjacent spells?


A la Dell,

For casting time, I say that the casting time for the spell should be increased to the next time type - segments become rounds, rounds become turns, turns become hours, and if the casting time is in hours then you're going to have to memorize it. Then add one round. If the spell is a higher level than the caster can normally cast, add one additional round for each level that the caster would have to gain to cast the spell.

That works for me and is significantly simpler.

I'm also thinking about learning new spells from spellbooks rather than scrolls. I conceptualize a scroll as being a charged device; the spell is tied up in the scroll and released by reading it. I conceptualize spellbooks as being the opposite; all of the details and explanation of the spell are present so that it can be learned and memorized. The Write spell provides a sort of bridge between those two forms.

If you came across a high level spell in scroll form, you'd be able to cast it without understanding it because all of the details would be bound up in the scroll. On the other hand, if you came across it in a spellbook, it would take you a while to figure out how the spell worked and how to cast it if you hadn't already learned that level of magic. I'm suggesting that it takes some time to figure out spells written in spellbooks that are higher than what you can cast.

A la Unearthed Arcana

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.

I'm suggesting we take part of the learning process above and apply it to spells you can't cast that are found in spellbooks. Something like 1 hour plus 1 hour per level of the spell. This seems not too onerous to me (a 9th level spell would take 10 hours to figure out) and represents the hard work a mage would spend after finding a new magical book.

What do you think?

[Mr. Trommer]

After having read a spell from a spell book can you then re-use the page to write a spell on it again? For example I had read Magic Missile from my spell book against the Wight. Can I use the page again to write magic missile back on it?

[Ginger]

It doesn't look like you can. The page quite literally burns up. That's why there's the risk that adjacent spells will also burn up.

[venger]

admin said:

What do you think?

heh, i like how nobody responds for three years

and then its almost a non-sequitor

[Mr. Trommer]

I thought I's ask again since God mentioned yesterday that it would be easier/better/more cost effective to read spells from a spell book rather from scrolls. I may not have heard that correctly since I do recall the danger of affecting other pages when I read Wish spwll from the OES. Though it doesn't do the same thing on scrolls.

[Ginger]

He was saying that the rules in the book are confusing and could be percieved that way. That's why we don't use them and have these house rules.

[Mr. Trommer]

I thought I had missed part of the conversation:(