So I've been running a campaign with a wizard who buys lots of scrolls to copy into his spellbook. While I was doing research on arcane classes I stumbled along a section about spell scrolls in the dmg that seemed to differ from the copying a spell section of the wizard class. Or I may be reading it wrong.
this is the ph section.
"Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells."
and this is the dmg section for spell scroll
"A wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied just as spells in spellbooks can be copied. When a spell is copied from a spell scroll, the copier must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the spell’s level. If the check succeeds, the spell is successfully copied. Whether the check succeeds or fails, the spell scroll is destroyed."
now the way I assume it is that the wizard section is for spells In general to include those found in another wizards spellbook. where as copying from an actual scroll qould follow by the spell scroll section. Anyone else have anymore information on this??
A wizard could write out a spell anywhere. Mostly they write it in their spell books, but they could write it in code in a story book, they could carve it in stone, they could publish it in a newspaper if they wanted, and they could write it on some sort of scroll. Mostly they write spells in their spell books because apparently they are all a bit paranoid about people stealing their secrets, but that's not really important.
Now, a scroll with a spell written on it is not necessarily a "Spell Scroll". A Spell Scroll is a specially enchanted single use magic item. It is like a one-time-use access code to shortcut into the source of magic power and cast a spell that the reader might not otherwise know. Spell Scrolls self-destruct when used, and that is why a wizard trying to copy a spell from them must pass an Arcana test to see if they can capture all the spell's details before the scroll turns to dust. By contrast, a normal scroll with a spell written on it has no inherent power. Only a wizard can find anything useful there, and can transcribe that spell into their own book without risking the scroll being destroyed. When presenting this object to the party as loot, it would probably be better to avoid the word 'scroll' and the confusion it could cause. Maybe call it a spell written on parchment.
There's two kinds of spell scrolls. Ones that teach you how to cast the spell, and one that is actually the spell casted, but held in stasis until used.
The first is what wizards get when they buy a spell to copy into their books. Let's say the local wizard is open to making a few bucks letting wizards buy copies of some of the spells they know. What they do is recopy the spell onto a scroll, and give that to the wizard, rather than letting a strange wizard copy directly out of his spellbook. We've all written weird things in the margin of our spellbooks. We don't need people knowing our late night thoughts.
The second is what they can make themselves and carry around a few extra spells rather than have them prepared. Should you find one of these while adventuring and you want the spell in your book, you can risk trying to copy it over.
Huh. That is not how I interpret this. I treat all scrolls, and spellbooks, the same. Anyone with the capacity to read the symbols can cast the spell, regardless of what it is written on. They need to use the right components, and it performs just like any other spell. If they use the scroll, or the entry in the spellbook, to cast the spell, then the page or scroll is destroyed. If they try instead to copy it into their own spellbook, then they need to roll the DC. regardless of if they succeed or not, the page is destroyed. To commit the spell to memory, they have to transcribe in to their own spellbook. That process of transcription is what gives them the insight needed to handle casting the spell from memory, but they still need to do that memorization separately.
it makes sense to me that you would have to open the spell scroll and copy it down - arcana check! I like the idea of it being a low roll or high roll, changing the effect slightly.
I don't see any difference between copying a spell from a spell scroll to copying it from some tome. Copying a spell found like that: a tome or page found somewhere, doesn't require checks and doesn't destroy the original written spell. I see no reason why a spell scroll would be any different - whether upon a magical scroll or non-magical page, the paper's gonna have the same stuff on it to copy from.
So, in my games if a wizard finds a spell scroll of a wizard spell, they can copy the spell into their spellbook and still have the scroll to use for casting the spell once without spell slots. It's not game-breaking or a big deal, and makes more sense to me.
The difference between a spell scroll and a spell book is that a scroll is a 'fully charged' casting of the spell infused into the scroll, while the book is just a mundane notation. Copying a spellbook takes time and resources (gold) to copy as you have to decipher the original mages personal notation, then convert it into your own conventions, which requires some degree of experimentation. It's like reverse engineering code or a complicated electronic device or a recipe, you're going to have some trial and error involved.
A scroll on the other hand is different because it actually contains magic. You need to make the arcana check to avoid accidentally 'setting off' the spell charged within it while you dismantle the spell. If you liken copying from a spellbook to reverse engineering a car, copying a spell scroll is like reverse engineering a car while it's in motion. Hence the arcana check.
I'm with Cyb3r: if copying from a Spell Scroll actually bypassed the normal gold/time requirement of a Wizard's spell book and provided some mechanical advantage, sure, consume it. But it doesn't, it's effectively identical to copying it off of a mundane bar napkin or musty old tome or hieroglyphic or whatever. There's no call to destroy the Scroll, until and unless you cast the spell on the Scroll using the Scroll.
Alright, here is another twist. (First , I agree with arcana check when it's scroll to book, and cost for both scroll to book and book to book for supplies) But what if my snappy Wizard wanted to take a scroll spell and duplicate it on another scroll? And now they have two scrolls for the same spell to be used by anyone in the party. I mean someone with magic ability had to put it on a scroll in the first place right? What does that take??
Alright, here is another twist. (First , I agree with arcana check when it's scroll to book, and cost for both scroll to book and book to book for supplies) But what if my snappy Wizard wanted to take a scroll spell and duplicate it on another scroll? And now they have two scrolls for the same spell to be used by anyone in the party. I mean someone with magic ability had to put it on a scroll in the first place right? What does that take??
Wouldn't work. Copying from a scroll destroys it, whether the copy process succeeds or not. You could try to copy scroll to scroll I guess, but at the end you would only have one scroll at best. If you want to duplicate a scroll, you'd try to copy it to your book, then follow the instructions for scribing a spell scroll twice after that.
I don’t know if the scroll necessarily activates if you open it. Surely you’d have to use verbal or somatic to set it off unless part of using the scroll states that if you open it it’s a now or never situation. Like if there was a wax seal that must be broken before you use it, I’d say it’s wasted. But simply copying over the spell and imbuing it with the magic required shouldn’t destroy the scroll. I think you still have to take the time and some materials to re-create it, like you would from a spell book but with a scroll, even characters who are not Uber-magically inclined can use it. In that case I still think you need some arcana know how to re-create it. A spell book I could see needing some know how and extra time to decipher the individual mages notes though.
A wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied just as spells in spellbooks can be copied. When a spell is copied from a spell scroll, the copier must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the spell's level. If the check succeeds, the spell is successfully copied. Whether the check succeeds or fails, the spell scroll is destroyed.
I don't see any difference between copying a spell from a spell scroll to copying it from some tome. Copying a spell found like that: a tome or page found somewhere, doesn't require checks and doesn't destroy the original written spell. I see no reason why a spell scroll would be any different - whether upon a magical scroll or non-magical page, the paper's gonna have the same stuff on it to copy from.
So, in my games if a wizard finds a spell scroll of a wizard spell, they can copy the spell into their spellbook and still have the scroll to use for casting the spell once without spell slots. It's not game-breaking or a big deal, and makes more sense to me.
Necro'ing a super old thread, but I'm responding in case others reach this page due to google like I did. This is not the RAW, and I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion. If charging a spell into a spell scroll for one time use was the same as any spell recording, then a wizard could just make spell scrolls of any of their spells for super cheap which would be broken. Imagine if any particular wizard could just create fireball scrolls on a whim for only a few hundred gold worth of ink/paper. A spell copied onto paper isn't the same as magically enchanting a piece of paper to hold a charged spell.
I don't see any difference between copying a spell from a spell scroll to copying it from some tome. Copying a spell found like that: a tome or page found somewhere, doesn't require checks and doesn't destroy the original written spell. I see no reason why a spell scroll would be any different - whether upon a magical scroll or non-magical page, the paper's gonna have the same stuff on it to copy from.
So, in my games if a wizard finds a spell scroll of a wizard spell, they can copy the spell into their spellbook and still have the scroll to use for casting the spell once without spell slots. It's not game-breaking or a big deal, and makes more sense to me.
Necro'ing a super old thread, but I'm responding in case others reach this page due to google like I did. This is not the RAW, and I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion. If charging a spell into a spell scroll for one time use was the same as any spell recording, then a wizard could just make spell scrolls of any of their spells for super cheap which would be broken. Imagine if any particular wizard could just create fireball scrolls on a whim for only a few hundred gold worth of ink/paper. A spell copied onto paper isn't the same as magically enchanting a piece of paper to hold a charged spell.
What are you on about?
I'm not talking about making magic item scrolls. I was referring to scribing spells into a spellbook.
I don't see any difference between copying a spell from a spell scroll to copying it from some tome. Copying a spell found like that: a tome or page found somewhere, doesn't require checks and doesn't destroy the original written spell. I see no reason why a spell scroll would be any different - whether upon a magical scroll or non-magical page, the paper's gonna have the same stuff on it to copy from.
So, in my games if a wizard finds a spell scroll of a wizard spell, they can copy the spell into their spellbook and still have the scroll to use for casting the spell once without spell slots. It's not game-breaking or a big deal, and makes more sense to me.
Necro'ing a super old thread, but I'm responding in case others reach this page due to google like I did. This is not the RAW, and I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion. If charging a spell into a spell scroll for one time use was the same as any spell recording, then a wizard could just make spell scrolls of any of their spells for super cheap which would be broken. Imagine if any particular wizard could just create fireball scrolls on a whim for only a few hundred gold worth of ink/paper. A spell copied onto paper isn't the same as magically enchanting a piece of paper to hold a charged spell.
What are you on about?
I'm not talking about making magic item scrolls. I was referring to scribing spells into a spellbook.
Your post makes no ****in' sense at all.
If you can cast it without spell slots, that's a magic item scroll. "still have the scroll to use for casting the spell once without spell slots. It's not game-breaking or a big deal, and makes more sense to me." That's literally describing a magic scroll imbued with a spell, not a spellbook copy of a spell. You literally can't have it both ways where you can transcribe it without destruction but use it to cast a spell. If that "makes no ****in' sense at all", then I don't know what to tell you. Part of how enchanting a magic spell scroll is that the spell is imbued into the parchment itself, you have to use the scroll in order to make the arcana check to see if you can understand it in time. If the transcription didn't destroy the scroll, then there wouldn't be the risk in the first place.
I don't see any difference between copying a spell from a spell scroll to copying it from some tome. Copying a spell found like that: a tome or page found somewhere, doesn't require checks and doesn't destroy the original written spell. I see no reason why a spell scroll would be any different - whether upon a magical scroll or non-magical page, the paper's gonna have the same stuff on it to copy from.
So, in my games if a wizard finds a spell scroll of a wizard spell, they can copy the spell into their spellbook and still have the scroll to use for casting the spell once without spell slots. It's not game-breaking or a big deal, and makes more sense to me.
Necro'ing a super old thread, but I'm responding in case others reach this page due to google like I did. This is not the RAW, and I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion. If charging a spell into a spell scroll for one time use was the same as any spell recording, then a wizard could just make spell scrolls of any of their spells for super cheap which would be broken. Imagine if any particular wizard could just create fireball scrolls on a whim for only a few hundred gold worth of ink/paper. A spell copied onto paper isn't the same as magically enchanting a piece of paper to hold a charged spell.
They can absolutely do this. A spell scroll of fireball takes 40 hours of work (there's no concept of this being modified by skill or anything - takes everyone the same amount of time) and 500 gp in materials, and, of course, has a static DC independent of the actual wizard's DC - it might be higher or lower than the wizard's. Why are you attacking Cybermind? They specifically said in the post you quoted that their rule was a homebrew, and you're going on about how it isn't RAW. Well, of course it isn't. That's what makes it a homebrew.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I've been running a campaign with a wizard who buys lots of scrolls to copy into his spellbook. While I was doing research on arcane classes I stumbled along a section about spell scrolls in the dmg that seemed to differ from the copying a spell section of the wizard class. Or I may be reading it wrong.
this is the ph section.
"Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells."
and this is the dmg section for spell scroll
"A wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied just as spells in spellbooks can be copied. When a spell is copied from a spell scroll, the copier must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the spell’s level. If the check succeeds, the spell is successfully copied. Whether the check succeeds or fails, the spell scroll is destroyed."
now the way I assume it is that the wizard section is for spells In general to include those found in another wizards spellbook. where as copying from an actual scroll qould follow by the spell scroll section. Anyone else have anymore information on this??
A wizard could write out a spell anywhere. Mostly they write it in their spell books, but they could write it in code in a story book, they could carve it in stone, they could publish it in a newspaper if they wanted, and they could write it on some sort of scroll. Mostly they write spells in their spell books because apparently they are all a bit paranoid about people stealing their secrets, but that's not really important.
Now, a scroll with a spell written on it is not necessarily a "Spell Scroll". A Spell Scroll is a specially enchanted single use magic item. It is like a one-time-use access code to shortcut into the source of magic power and cast a spell that the reader might not otherwise know. Spell Scrolls self-destruct when used, and that is why a wizard trying to copy a spell from them must pass an Arcana test to see if they can capture all the spell's details before the scroll turns to dust. By contrast, a normal scroll with a spell written on it has no inherent power. Only a wizard can find anything useful there, and can transcribe that spell into their own book without risking the scroll being destroyed. When presenting this object to the party as loot, it would probably be better to avoid the word 'scroll' and the confusion it could cause. Maybe call it a spell written on parchment.
There's two kinds of spell scrolls. Ones that teach you how to cast the spell, and one that is actually the spell casted, but held in stasis until used.
The first is what wizards get when they buy a spell to copy into their books. Let's say the local wizard is open to making a few bucks letting wizards buy copies of some of the spells they know. What they do is recopy the spell onto a scroll, and give that to the wizard, rather than letting a strange wizard copy directly out of his spellbook. We've all written weird things in the margin of our spellbooks. We don't need people knowing our late night thoughts.
The second is what they can make themselves and carry around a few extra spells rather than have them prepared. Should you find one of these while adventuring and you want the spell in your book, you can risk trying to copy it over.
So if have a "Spell Scroll" do you need to do the arcana check AND pay 50g and 2 hours per level to copy into your spell book?
Yup. :(
Huh. That is not how I interpret this. I treat all scrolls, and spellbooks, the same. Anyone with the capacity to read the symbols can cast the spell, regardless of what it is written on. They need to use the right components, and it performs just like any other spell. If they use the scroll, or the entry in the spellbook, to cast the spell, then the page or scroll is destroyed. If they try instead to copy it into their own spellbook, then they need to roll the DC. regardless of if they succeed or not, the page is destroyed. To commit the spell to memory, they have to transcribe in to their own spellbook. That process of transcription is what gives them the insight needed to handle casting the spell from memory, but they still need to do that memorization separately.
Thread Necromancy is a terrible thing - reviving zombies from the past means we will have to call in the Paladins.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
So do people use the DMG ruling or the PHB?
it makes sense to me that you would have to open the spell scroll and copy it down - arcana check! I like the idea of it being a low roll or high roll, changing the effect slightly.
thread necromancy! Ha!
DM - And In The Darkness, Rot: The Sunless Citadel
DM - Our Little Lives Kept In Equipoise: Curse of Strahd
DM - Misprize Thou Not These Shadows That Belong: The Lost Mines of Phandelver
PC - Azzure - Tyranny of Dragons
Personally, I don't use either.
I don't see any difference between copying a spell from a spell scroll to copying it from some tome. Copying a spell found like that: a tome or page found somewhere, doesn't require checks and doesn't destroy the original written spell. I see no reason why a spell scroll would be any different - whether upon a magical scroll or non-magical page, the paper's gonna have the same stuff on it to copy from.
So, in my games if a wizard finds a spell scroll of a wizard spell, they can copy the spell into their spellbook and still have the scroll to use for casting the spell once without spell slots. It's not game-breaking or a big deal, and makes more sense to me.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
The difference between a spell scroll and a spell book is that a scroll is a 'fully charged' casting of the spell infused into the scroll, while the book is just a mundane notation. Copying a spellbook takes time and resources (gold) to copy as you have to decipher the original mages personal notation, then convert it into your own conventions, which requires some degree of experimentation. It's like reverse engineering code or a complicated electronic device or a recipe, you're going to have some trial and error involved.
A scroll on the other hand is different because it actually contains magic. You need to make the arcana check to avoid accidentally 'setting off' the spell charged within it while you dismantle the spell. If you liken copying from a spellbook to reverse engineering a car, copying a spell scroll is like reverse engineering a car while it's in motion. Hence the arcana check.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
I'm with Cyb3r: if copying from a Spell Scroll actually bypassed the normal gold/time requirement of a Wizard's spell book and provided some mechanical advantage, sure, consume it. But it doesn't, it's effectively identical to copying it off of a mundane bar napkin or musty old tome or hieroglyphic or whatever. There's no call to destroy the Scroll, until and unless you cast the spell on the Scroll using the Scroll.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Alright, here is another twist. (First , I agree with arcana check when it's scroll to book, and cost for both scroll to book and book to book for supplies) But what if my snappy Wizard wanted to take a scroll spell and duplicate it on another scroll? And now they have two scrolls for the same spell to be used by anyone in the party. I mean someone with magic ability had to put it on a scroll in the first place right? What does that take??
Wouldn't work. Copying from a scroll destroys it, whether the copy process succeeds or not. You could try to copy scroll to scroll I guess, but at the end you would only have one scroll at best. If you want to duplicate a scroll, you'd try to copy it to your book, then follow the instructions for scribing a spell scroll twice after that.
Thank you so much!!!!... so this begs the next question... how does one scribe a spell scroll??
I don’t know if the scroll necessarily activates if you open it. Surely you’d have to use verbal or somatic to set it off unless part of using the scroll states that if you open it it’s a now or never situation. Like if there was a wax seal that must be broken before you use it, I’d say it’s wasted. But simply copying over the spell and imbuing it with the magic required shouldn’t destroy the scroll.
I think you still have to take the time and some materials to re-create it, like you would from a spell book but with a scroll, even characters who are not Uber-magically inclined can use it. In that case I still think you need some arcana know how to re-create it. A spell book I could see needing some know how and extra time to decipher the individual mages notes though.
DM - And In The Darkness, Rot: The Sunless Citadel
DM - Our Little Lives Kept In Equipoise: Curse of Strahd
DM - Misprize Thou Not These Shadows That Belong: The Lost Mines of Phandelver
PC - Azzure - Tyranny of Dragons
Spell Scroll specifically says on it:
As for this - check out the Crafting a Magic Item subsection in the DMG.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Necro'ing a super old thread, but I'm responding in case others reach this page due to google like I did. This is not the RAW, and I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion. If charging a spell into a spell scroll for one time use was the same as any spell recording, then a wizard could just make spell scrolls of any of their spells for super cheap which would be broken. Imagine if any particular wizard could just create fireball scrolls on a whim for only a few hundred gold worth of ink/paper. A spell copied onto paper isn't the same as magically enchanting a piece of paper to hold a charged spell.
What are you on about?
I'm not talking about making magic item scrolls. I was referring to scribing spells into a spellbook.
Your post makes no ****in' sense at all.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
If you can cast it without spell slots, that's a magic item scroll. "still have the scroll to use for casting the spell once without spell slots. It's not game-breaking or a big deal, and makes more sense to me." That's literally describing a magic scroll imbued with a spell, not a spellbook copy of a spell. You literally can't have it both ways where you can transcribe it without destruction but use it to cast a spell. If that "makes no ****in' sense at all", then I don't know what to tell you. Part of how enchanting a magic spell scroll is that the spell is imbued into the parchment itself, you have to use the scroll in order to make the arcana check to see if you can understand it in time. If the transcription didn't destroy the scroll, then there wouldn't be the risk in the first place.
They can absolutely do this. A spell scroll of fireball takes 40 hours of work (there's no concept of this being modified by skill or anything - takes everyone the same amount of time) and 500 gp in materials, and, of course, has a static DC independent of the actual wizard's DC - it might be higher or lower than the wizard's. Why are you attacking Cybermind? They specifically said in the post you quoted that their rule was a homebrew, and you're going on about how it isn't RAW. Well, of course it isn't. That's what makes it a homebrew.