Spell Books

[Severus Snape]

In a game I'm running, I have a player who is a Goblin Witch. Yes, a Goblin Witch. This is one of the many reasons I love Palladium - there are so many options to choose from. But I'm digressing and getting away from why I'm writing this thread. Anyhow, as part of his character's pact, the Goblin has the ability to Sense Magic. And while this is pretty straightforward in what the ability does, I have a question as to a specific item and whether or not it can be detected/sensed with this ability. So I have the following question:

Are spell books inherently magical? Or are they merely books that happen to have formulae for spells written in them?

The players are coming up to a part of the campaign where they will have the opportunity to find a minor spell book with a couple of low level spells in it. Now, they could spend forever and a day searching the room that the book is in - which will take a while as it's been dumped in what amounts to a garbage heap by a very dim-witted monster who wouldn't know what a spell book was if you hit him in the face with it - and that's all fine and dandy. But the Goblin Witch has Sense Magic, which would make finding the book far easier IF the book is inherently magical.

Now, I looked in the book, and I couldn't find anything one way or the other. That doesn't mean it isn't in there, just that if it IS in there that I'm completely blind and incapable of reading. But I have to ask to see if there is a canon answer that I missed, or if there is a general consensus as to which way it goes.

I realize I could just house-rule it to be one or the other. But I can see both sides of the coin, and the argument for each is pretty strong:

1. I can see that it may be inherently magical because of the inks and parchment used to write down the formulae for all the spells.
2. I can see that it may not be inherently magical because the written word is not channeling arcane power.

So which way does this go? Did I miss something in the book? Or is this not yet defined in the books and is open for massive amounts of interpretation?

[The Beast]

My understanding is that spell books aren't magical just because mages write down their formula, notes, and what-have-you in them. Having said that, many mages put protections on them so that only they can touch and/or use them (See MoM).

[Severus Snape]

My understanding is that spell books aren't magical just because mages write down their formula, notes, and what-have-you in them. Having said that, many mages put protections on them so that only they can touch and/or use them (See MoM).

And that was my understanding as well. But there is nothing canon in the books that I can find...at least...um...what is MoM?

[eliakon]

The reason you cant find anything is that there is nothing canon in the game on spell books.
HOWVER there was a Rifter article on them, if you use that article a 'true spell book' is a minor magic item. Otherwise, officially, its just a book with writing in it.

[The Beast]

My understanding is that spell books aren't magical just because mages write down their formula, notes, and what-have-you in them. Having said that, many mages put protections on them so that only they can touch and/or use them (See MoM).

And that was my understanding as well. But there is nothing canon in the books that I can find...at least...um...what is MoM?

Mysteries of Magic.

[Glistam]

A spell book would only register as magical if the mage had placed magical protections upon it (Wards, for example), or if it was one of the magical books that alchemists can make. Otherwise just writing down the notes for how spells work doesn't make the book magical.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Are spell books inherently magical? No.
Or are they merely books that happen to have formulae for spells written in them? They are notebooks for the mage who used them to record their research. Any "spell formula" will be fragmented and/or encrypted.

[Severus Snape]

Ok, I think I'm just gonna rule that the book itself, regardless of whatever is written in it, is non-magical. If it has wards/circles/runes/protections/a naval warship on it, then it's magical.

Thanks everyone for the help!

[The Dark Elf]

Ok, I think I'm just gonna rule that the book itself, regardless of whatever is written in it, is non-magical. If it has wards/circles/runes/protections/a naval warship on it, then it's magical.

That would be my thoughts on it too.

[Library Ogre]

I don't think they count as magic, unless someone has preserved the pages with a silver rune, or something of that sort.

[URLeader Hobbes]

Are spell books inherently magical? Or are they merely books that happen to have formulae for spells written in them?

The books themselves nor the writing aren't magical so sense/detect magic won't work. However should the pages of the book be made indestructible via a silver rune then the pages will be detectable as magical.

The writing isn't magical unless someone has placed an active ward on the book and then that ward will register with sense magic.

1. I can see that it may be inherently magical because of the inks and parchment used to write down the formulae for all the spells.
2. I can see that it may not be inherently magical because the written word is not channeling arcane power.

Lacking any active or present magical effect the book is just as ordinary as any other book when trying to detect magic.

You might wish to put a minor PPE battery in the book as a place holder if you wish to clue in your players and toss the mage in the party a nifty minor magic item in addition to the book.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Just had a thought, if there is a spell stored as a "spell scroll" with in the pages of the book then it might be detectible by sense magic.

[kiralon]

Spell books in my world are magical as I allow the spells to be cast out of the spell book like a scroll (no ppe required), but then adios spell as the magical writings disappear. The wizard then has their IQ in days to write the spell down again without fault, after that time spell failure is possible as they introduce errors from not quite remembering it correctly (this applies to casting it after this amount of time as well), and it takes 1 day per level of the spell to redo. (plus 1000gp per level)

burning a spell book is then always interesting as it releases an uncontrolled amount of ppe and sometimes with random spell effects.

[Glistam]

Curiously, if just writing a spell isn't magical, why does it require a spell to be able to read one? Mind you, I still believe it shouldn't be magical, but I was mulling this over and isn't there a spell to "Decypher Magic" that Wizards learn?

[Library Ogre]

Curiously, if just writing a spell isn't magical, why does it require a spell to be able to read one? Mind you, I still believe it shouldn't be magical, but I was mulling this over and isn't there a spell to "Decypher Magic" that Wizards learn?

Just because I wrote a spell, doesn't mean you can read it.

If my native language is Northern Human, and I wrote my spell in Northern Human, there's going to be a lot you, a reader of Elven, can't understand in my description. Likewise, if I wrote a scroll, it's useless to you... I might not even use the same alphabet. If I'm a former diabolist (mommy always wanted me to be an alchemist), I might write it entirely in runes. Decipher Magic shortcuts that... it's like Eyes of Thoth, but only for magical stuff.

[Razorwing]

There is a very good article in Rifter 40 about spellbooks... who useses them, their benefits and weaknesses and a bunch of other very useful information that I have since made standard in all the games I run (where spellbooks are even viable at least... not much use for them in a Splicers game).

[glitterboy2098]

since spellbooks are also the mage's notes, and most mages are going to be super protective of their knowledge, odds are the books will also be written in custom shorthand, personal codes, special writing, etc.. they might use things like Kennings to disguise vital terms or instructions (they'd know what they meant, but another reader would have to puzzle it out), might write in backwards script (like DaVinci's lefthand writing), and so on..

so even if you know the language, you might still have to decode the thing to use it.

[Razorwing]

Hence the reason it will still take time to learn any spells contained within (2 days per spell level plus 1 to 4 weeks or more... depending on the level of the spell, how unfamiliar to the area it might be... assuming one spends a minimum of 8 hours a day studying the book). Of course this is also where having the spell Eyes of Thoth can be invaluable.

[42dragon]

I have read the Rifter article and MoM, yet still have never really understood the use of Spell Books in any of the Palladium Books lines. This isn't D&D where you have to keep refreshing your knowledge. In the Palladium Books lines if you know a spell you know it for life. There are no mechanics for forgetting a spell or not being able to recall the proper spell during periods of high stress. A GM would have to apply some house rules to make you not be able to recall a spell.

Even if you are using notes, in the background, during that time during a level when you are supposedly studying and trying to figure out a new spell or two which you would automatically learn once you reached the new level. Why would you keep those notes in a book, after you have learned the spell? Those notes don't help you learn other spells faster nor are they required so you don't forget the spell at some future point. And even if your notes are in code many mages hoard their knowledge and don't want to share so why take the chance someone else could decipher your work.

Spell books are great hooks for adventures, and a way for characters to learn spells they might not normally have access to (via levels, or alchemists, or teachers). But the reason they exist at all is dubious at best in the Palladium Books line.

[Glistam]

The history/stories behind the spellbooks in the Library of Bletherad are some good example of why a mage in the Palladium system would make a spellbook. Check them out if you can.

[jaymz]

Rifter 40. AMAZING article that is applicable to any Palladium game with magic in it.

[Library Ogre]

I have read the Rifter article and MoM, yet still have never really understood the use of Spell Books in any of the Palladium Books lines. This isn't D&D where you have to keep refreshing your knowledge. In the Palladium Books lines if you know a spell you know it for life. There are no mechanics for forgetting a spell or not being able to recall the proper spell during periods of high stress. A GM would have to apply some house rules to make you not be able to recall a spell.

In my rules, it's less a matter of "don't remember the spell" as "have written down observations about a spell over time." Using spells is a matter of constant improvement; you learn the limits and specifics of the spell better and better. Eventually, you level up, but using a spell book helps you recall what you've learned about the spell over time, much like studying for a test helps you recall things you've learned but don't have in active memory all the time. If you're an American, you probably learned a fair bit about the Revolutionary War in school, and could give a reasonable outline that was mostly correct. But if you spent some time studying it, you'd be able to answer a lot more quickly and completely when called upon... but you'd also forget details as time went on, and would need to study again to give that same level of completeness.

[glitterboy2098]

I have read the Rifter article and MoM, yet still have never really understood the use of Spell Books in any of the Palladium Books lines. This isn't D&D where you have to keep refreshing your knowledge. In the Palladium Books lines if you know a spell you know it for life. There are no mechanics for forgetting a spell or not being able to recall the proper spell during periods of high stress. A GM would have to apply some house rules to make you not be able to recall a spell.

In my rules, it's less a matter of "don't remember the spell" as "have written down observations about a spell over time." Using spells is a matter of constant improvement; you learn the limits and specifics of the spell better and better. Eventually, you level up, but using a spell book helps you recall what you've learned about the spell over time, much like studying for a test helps you recall things you've learned but don't have in active memory all the time. If you're an American, you probably learned a fair bit about the Revolutionary War in school, and could give a reasonable outline that was mostly correct. But if you spent some time studying it, you'd be able to answer a lot more quickly and completely when called upon... but you'd also forget details as time went on, and would need to study again to give that same level of completeness.

bingo. memory recall is not perfect**, especially on complex or esoteric subjects, or when your learning many subjects at once. magic is complex enough a topic you don't want to rely entirely on memory. spellbooks are how you avoid relying on memory alone.

or in the words of Henry Jones, Sr. “I wrote them down in my diary so that I wouldn't have to remember.”




**(just look at all the people who swear they saw things in the game books that prove to be houserules)

[42dragon]

I completely get what all of you are saying. However, there is no in game mechanic for this. If a GM has some house rules to incorporate all this (and make things more realistic) then yes, there is absolutely a reason. But barring that, the Palladium System has no mechanics in place to necessitate a spell book. Even if some flavor... MOM, Library, or Rifter imply otherwise. And if I used my spell book for some of these flavor reasons, once I have that spell mastered/known I being selfish or worried it might fall into the wrong hands would totally destroy my notes. Even looking at the published adventures in the PFRPG books, there is almost never a spell book to be found as part of treasure or NPC possessions.

As to the OP (since I forgot to address that originally), unless the spell book was warded or protected with active spells, contained ready made scrolls (maybe), or each page was marked with runes. No, it wouldn't register as magic.

[Library Ogre]

I completely get what all of you are saying. However, there is no in game mechanic for this. If a GM has some house rules to incorporate all this (and make things more realistic) then yes, there is absolutely a reason. But barring that, the Palladium System has no mechanics in place to necessitate a spell book. Even if some flavor... MOM, Library, or Rifter imply otherwise. And if I used my spell book for some of these flavor reasons, once I have that spell mastered/known I being selfish or worried it might fall into the wrong hands would totally destroy my notes. Even looking at the published adventures in the PFRPG books, there is almost never a spell book to be found as part of treasure or NPC possessions.

Now, I can't remember what got printed, but I know the Mysteries of Magic manuscript had rules in it for spellbooks, and others like the rules from Rifter #40. If the rules did get printed in MoM, though, how is that no mechanics in the Palladium system?

As for why you'd keep it? For the MOM rules, it's because you have to keep studying... you can master things for a few days, but then details start to slip and if you want the same mastery, you have to go back over your notes (and likely make new ones). With the Rifter rules, it becomes a matter of notes being additive; something you made note of back in your apprenticeship days becomes valuable later. I've done this myself, spelunking in old bibliographies of works I wrote to bolster a point in the current work.

[glitterboy2098]

palladium has no mechanics that require textbooks or even schools to obtain new advanced skills.. should we say that textbooks and schools are pointless in palladium's settings too?
sometimes things exist for fluff reasons first and foremost.. lack of hard game rules for something is not a measurement of worth.

[Razorwing]

Do wizards NEED spellbooks in Palladium games?

No... of course they don't. In fact... many spellcasters wouldn't benefit from them even if they did use them. Some wizards are even illiterate and wouldn't be able to read one if they happened across them.

The fact is... nearly every Magical character can gain spells on their own at each new level without the need to actively seek additional spells from other sources. In fact... for many spell casters, this is the only way the can even learn spells... so few even bother to try to do otherwise. But for those few spellcasters who can use spellbooks, the benefits are great... and the drawbacks are equally great.

So... why bother with spell books in the first place? Rifter 40 goes into a lot of details as to the benefits and drawbacks of having spellbooks. The big difference however is this... people forget things... important things. No... a mage that has committed a spell to memory won't forget that spell... but he may forget key lessons he learned in the course of memorizing that spell... lessons that could aid him in learning his next spell. For the mage who keeps his notes in a spellbook however, those important lessons learned are right there in front of him... he may have forgotten them but with the spellbook to help remind him he doesn't have to worry about trying to remember that key lesson and can instead focus more on his next spell.

This is the key difference and reason why keeping a spellbook is important... not because you need it to cast spells you already know, but because it can help you master new spells faster and easier than you could without the spellbook.

Let's put it another way... why do you use a textbook in school? Surely the teacher can provide you with all the information you need, yes? So why do you buy that text book... or even that note book to write down the information your teacher can provide you? More to the point... why do need a text book and a notebook... surely one or the other would be more than enough, yes? Wrong. People are not perfect... and even a teacher can make a mistake. Textbooks provide us with the same information, but often in a different context than what a teacher will provide (one that may be easier or harder to understand)... while the notebook you write often conveys that same information in a way that you understand... let like your teacher... it too may be flawed... thus checking with the text book every now and then to make sure the details are correct is essential.

The same is true when learning magic... or so nearly every game that has it makes it seem. Magic is a very complex subject to learn... often requiring one-on-one mentoring or regulated classes to learn (except for those few gifted individuals who learn mangic intuitively). Now... one can get through a magic class and even an apprenticeship without the use of a Spellbook... just as someone can get through high school and even college without taking any notes... but chances are one will do better if one uses a spellbook (or takes notes).

In the end... it really is up to you how you want to do things. All we can do is provide you with options and suggestions in the hope that you might take them to heart and expand your horizons to create a richer, more detailed and vibrant game. Whether that includes spellbooks or not is your choice.

[Glistam]

I think though the issue with scrolls here is who's creating them. The Scrolls one gets from an Alchemist are the ones that activate as you read them, while the ones a Wizard makes with the spell have to be read aloud. The ones an Alchemist makes also have the title of the spell clearly listed, or the titles of the spells clearly listed when there are more than one per scroll.

If you're muted or in a globe of silence, it seems like having a Scroll as made by an Alchemist may be valuable. It strikes me as two different processes yielding two different, yet similar results.

[glitterboy2098]

hmm.. i'm seeing a literal 'spell book'.. a bunch of blank pages bound together, then multiple scrolls inscribed on them. toss an index in the front and a quick find edge system (indents or something on the pages to make it quick to jump between sections)

casting would be as simple as opening up to the desired section, flipping a few pages to find an active scroll.. then reading aloud..

would be expensive as heck, but interesting

[Library Ogre]

Oh... and as far as the topic of actual spell books... I think we more or less covered all the options in that regard. Still, as the history of writing has shown, books as we know them are not the only ways of preserving knowledge. There were cultures that used scrolls and even stone tablets to record things. If lugging around the average sized tomb seems like more effort than it is worth... imagine using unbound scrolls (not spell scrolls as have been discussed here) or even stone tablets as a spell/note book. Not quite the inconvenience to lug around a 5 pound book when put in such a context now is it?

For the Romans, "books" refered primarily to scrolls, instead of tomes. They'd carry the books around in buckets, which protected the book and made it quite convenient to carry. I could also see them developing several varieties of scroll cases... either leather sheathes into which the scroll is slid, or something akin to a briefcase.

[Razorwing]

Yes, the origin of spellbooks as we envision them likely started with various methods to make scrolls a little more portable... various kinds of scroll cases and such. Still... carrying around a dozen or more scrolls is never going to be as easy as carrying a single bound tome... and then there are the cultures that used stone tablets to record their knowledge... each one weighing 10 pounds or more... hope you have a cart and a strong oxen to pull it if you ever want to move your collection.

Then again... with mages being a rather innovative lot, it is possible that one from such a culture developed a tablet that could record, store and retrieve information similar to what an electronic tablet might. Hmmm... wasn't there a device like this in the Stargate series... one booby-trapped to kill the Goa'uld (a more high-tech version, yes, but still looking like a carved stone tablet)?

[Library Ogre]

Yes, the origin of spellbooks as we envision them likely started with various methods to make scrolls a little more portable... various kinds of scroll cases and such. Still... carrying around a dozen or more scrolls is never going to be as easy as carrying a single bound tome... and then there are the cultures that used stone tablets to record their knowledge... each one weighing 10 pounds or more... hope you have a cart and a strong oxen to pull it if you ever want to move your collection.

Really depends on amount of data you can fit on volume of paper though, doesn't it? At least with regards to scrolls. If the tome contains X words, and 3 scrolls also contain X words, then the tome MIGHT be easier to carry... but you might also put Scroll A in one part of your bag, Scroll B in another, and Scroll C in a third.

It's like having a choice... do you want 1 3 liter bottle, or 3 1 liter bottles? Depending on your situation, either could be useful.

[Lukterran]

Really depends on amount of data you can fit on volume of paper though, doesn't it? .

Good point. Especially in regard to Tome of Images. How much text or other information and you squeeze into one of this things?

[Razorwing]

Actually... I don't think your analogy of water bottles quite fits.

Bound or unbound, there is only so much information you can fit on an average page. Even if the scroll is longer than the average page, it will still take up quite a bit of space. So... say you have a 300 pg tome... compare that with scrolls (each one long enough to contain 3 pages worth of information)... you would still need 100 of these scrolls to contain the same amount of information as you could in the book... and even if you rolled 10 or 20 of these scrolls together in one scroll case... it would likely take up more space than a single tome that contained the same amount of information. Even increasing the length of a scroll doesn't make it easier to carry as one still has to roll it up for transport (which does take a surprising amount of space) and one may not have the space one needs to unroll it to find that obscure piece of information one was looking for. This is where books have an advantage, with pages all bound and of uniform size... it doesn't take as long to flip through the pages to find something when compared to unrolling a scroll (or multiple scrolls) to find the same piece of information. The longer the scroll, the longer it is likely to take to find the information one needs.

To put it in a different perspective... take the Book of Magic from Rifts... a massive 352 page book. Now take 4 issues of the Rifter... nearly the same number of pages (give or take a few). Individually, it is easier to transport any one of the Rifters, but together as a collection, the Rifters are a little more difficult to transport because they are each separate works, while the Book of Magic is much easier as a single work. And this is just as books. Imagine the Rifters were an unbound collection of pages... even containing them would take up a fair bit of space (scroll cases are a little bulky so as to provide protection to the scrolls within them).

Now, mind you, there is nothing wrong with having options. Some cultures may not have the skill needed to make books as we know them (the Egyptians for example). How one chooses to record the information... in a tome, on scrolls or even a tablet, the information is not likely to take up any less space. If a 100 pg tome can hold 10 lvl 1 spells, it will still take an equivalent number of scrolls to hold the same information (if one scroll can hold the equivalent of 10 pages, it will still take 10 scrolls to hold the same number of spells as a 100 pg tome). Can 10 rolled up scrolls take up less space than a 100 pg tome? Maybe... depending on how tightly they are rolled, and whether they are rolled together or separately. Chances are however you will have 5 to 10 separate scrolls each with their own case taking up a fair bit more space than a single 100 pg tome would.

Does this make using scrolls or tablets better or worse than tomes? It really comes down to a matter of taste. Some wizards will see tombs as being far superior and easier to transport than the amount of scrolls needed for the same purpose... others will feel that scrolls are superior since loosing a single scroll isn't as big a loss as loosing an entire tome. And the weight of a stone tablet makes it unlikely that one will be easily stolen... though it also means transporting them is equally difficult. Each has advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into consideration. The choice of which to use of course is yours to make.

[Library Ogre]

You're assuming very short scrolls. Consider something more akin to Torah Scrolls, where each scroll isn't just a long sheet of paper, but more akin to old dot matrix reams of paper, all continuously feeding for hundreds of pages. If you rotate the text 90* from what most of those images show (so the text "scrolls up" and "scrolls down", rather than left and right), you even can avoid some of the margin space (though that was important, as it tended to be where commentaries were written).

Don't get me wrong, there's reasons they went with codicies over scrolls; it's easier to mark your place, both sides of the paper can be used, and so on. But scrolls were used for thousands of years because they worked quite well.

[victor15065]

Ha ha ha he said traps

[Razorwing]

I'm not saying that scrolls don't work... clearly they do since it was the standard for thousands of years (once paper and papyrus were able to be produced reliably).

However, there are some major drawbacks to using these for a spellbook. Yes, you can get a scroll long enough to hold just as much information as a tome... but such scrolls are not as common as shorter, more easily transported scrolls.

For the games I run and play in we've standardized the size of tomes used for spellbooks as having 150 pages, while a standard scroll can hold the equivalent of 10 pages. We've also ruled that it takes 10 pages of notes per spell level to contain the information of a spell. Thus a tome could hold 15 level 1 spells, while a standard scroll can contain only 1.

The advantage of scrolls is that they cost less than a tome... even a scroll long enough to hold the equivalent of a level 15 spell won't cost as much as a tome... though it will take a significant amount of space (think of a 150 sheet roll of Paper Towels compared to a 150 page book... not to mention you are only using one side of a scroll while you are using both sides of a page in a tome). I do make tomes and scrolls that will be used for "spellbooks" a little more expensive than usual... mostly because they need to be a bit better quality than the average book or scroll, but even then a long scroll will still be cheaper than the equivalent sized tome since one doesn't have to worry about covers and bindings (though a durable scroll case may offset that cost difference).

Scrolls are also the only medium I would allow one to use to contain the notes of spell on multiple items (15 standard scrolls for a level 15 spell). However, this comes at a significant cost to the wizard doing so. As per the rules lined out in Rifter 40, for a tome to offer the benefits of a Spellbook, it requires the investment of a single point of PPE into the tome (invested once the first spell in a book is learned). Only 1 PPE is ever invested into a single tome regardless of how many spells are in it. However, each scroll will require its own investment of PPE to give the same benefits... and in the case of multiple scrolls holding a single spell... that cost can become fairly significant (15 PPE for 15 standard scrolls containing the notes for a single level 15 spell). True, this can be offset by getting longer scrolls that can hold multiple spells (or fewer high level spells), but again the size of that scroll will be significant even when rolled up.

In the end, it is still a matter of choice as to how a player who seeks to use the spellbook rules in Rifter 40 wants to go about it... there are advantages and drawbacks to either choice... and if a player is willing to roll with it, I see no reason not to let him use scrolls as a "spellbook". It is part of the flavor of their character after all.

[Library Ogre]

For the games I run and play in we've standardized the size of tomes used for spellbooks as having 150 pages, while a standard scroll can hold the equivalent of 10 pages. We've also ruled that it takes 10 pages of notes per spell level to contain the information of a spell. Thus a tome could hold 15 level 1 spells, while a standard scroll can contain only 1.

Your argument reads "We've standardized it this way, so the other way is inherently worse, because of the numbers we've decided on".

A Torah scroll contains about 80,000 words... about the number in a 320 page novel, and weigh about 25-30 pounds (found via a couple quick Google searches). By comparison, the first page of Beowulf has 19 lines, and averages a bit under 6 words per line, for 240 words per sheet of paper (rounding up to 20 lines and a whole 6 words per line, then considering front and back). Your 150 page book would then contain about 18,000 words (average 240 words per sheet, with 75 sheets making a 150 page book), meaning you need 4 and a half of your tomes to equal one Torah-Scroll sized scroll, or two if you you're going to argue that you meant 150 sheets, but that would also double the effective page count of your book.* But, of course, one could likewise argue that a non-sacred scroll might be written on both sides (there are disadvantages to doing so, of course, but it's common enough, especially when one is a bit short of paper).

Mind you, I'm not arguing that long scrolls are better; just that they may be common, and that they weren't as inconvenient as you initially laid out. The Library of Bletherad hearkens back to the Library of Alexandria... and Alexandria's library was books, not tomes.

*Numbers are inherently fuzzy; I do a fair amount of rounding.

[MADMANMIKE]

I completely get what all of you are saying. However, there is no in game mechanic for this.

While it was done originally for RIFTS, I created Spell Learning Rules that were published on the RIFTS Game Master Screens the same year PF2E came out; Basically all the spells have a difficulty rating that determines a D20 roll when you attempt to cast; depending on your results you can fail and use PPE, fail and not use PPE, or succeed, and regardless of those results you get a bonus on further rolls and a percentile chance to learn the spell permanently.

The GM Shields can be found in .pdf format at Drivethrurpg.com Here.

...Some wizards are even illiterate and wouldn't be able to read one if they happened across them....

Uh, no.. the Wizard O.C.C. comes with 2 literacy skills of choice, as research is integral to learning spells.. Unless Mark changed this with the Mysteries of Magic book.. Or were you just using the word 'wizard' in lieu of repeating spell-casters? I'm curious now which classes learn spells like a wizard but don't have literacy as an O.C.C. skill...

[eliakon]

I completely get what all of you are saying. However, there is no in game mechanic for this.

While it was done originally for RIFTS, I created Spell Learning Rules that were published on the RIFTS Game Master Screens the same year PF2E came out; Basically all the spells have a difficulty rating that determines a D20 roll when you attempt to cast; depending on your results you can fail and use PPE, fail and not use PPE, or succeed, and regardless of those results you get a bonus on further rolls and a percentile chance to learn the spell permanently.

The GM Shields can be found in .pdf format at Drivethrurpg.com Here.

...Some wizards are even illiterate and wouldn't be able to read one if they happened across them....

Uh, no.. the Wizard O.C.C. comes with 2 literacy skills of choice, as research is integral to learning spells.. Unless Mark changed this with the Mysteries of Magic book.. Or were you just using the word 'wizard' in lieu of repeating spell-casters? I'm curious now which classes learn spells like a wizard but don't have literacy as an O.C.C. skill...

Round about....none of them.
Wizard, Diabolist, Summoner, Necromancer, Conjurer, Life Force Wizard, Forsaken Wizard, Half Wizard, and all Dragon Hatchlings start with literacy in at least one language.
I have not checked all the 'arcane/scholastic magic' classes in the other game lines yet....but they are not PF so I didn't think it was as important. I can though if its really wanted.

[Library Ogre]

Uh, no.. the Wizard O.C.C. comes with 2 literacy skills of choice, as research is integral to learning spells.. Unless Mark changed this with the Mysteries of Magic book.. Or were you just using the word 'wizard' in lieu of repeating spell-casters? I'm curious now which classes learn spells like a wizard but don't have literacy as an O.C.C. skill...

Modern day (i.e. Current time in PF), I imagine there would be very few wizards who are illiterate, and almost all of them would have Total Recall or some way of overcoming illiteracy. I've got some suggestions about shamans in the manuscript that make them a bit like this, but that's something else entirely, and who knows if it will see the light of day.

[Razorwing]

Your argument reads "We've standardized it this way, so the other way is inherently worse, because of the numbers we've decided on".

Please... don't put words in my mouth. I explained why we standardized them this way... to make the math quick and simple to follow. It had nothing to do with which way is better or worse.

We are not trying to determine exactly how many words you can fit in a tome or on a scroll. Take a dozen people and give them a blank, unlined piece of paper and tell them to write as many words as they can on it in their normal handwriting and you will get twelve pieces of paper with 12 different amounts of words on them. No two people have the same size of hand writing (mine is said to be rather small for example). The size of one's handwriting can change the amount of information that can be stored on a page... not unlike how you can fit more words on a page using 10 pt print as opposed to 12 or 14 pt print.

However... that is beyond the scope of the game. We wanted a fast an easy to remember rule of thumb to work with... and 10 pages per spell level seemed reasonable... magic is quite complicated (you are bending, if not flat out breaking, the laws of physics)... thus the calculations, power words and gestures one needs to memorize is likely to make even a theoretical physicist's head spin. The higher the level of the spell, the more complicated it will be, requiring even more pages to write down the notes and research one does learning it. However, since the books in the equipment section only hold 100 pgs, it would make using a spellbook to recorde the notes for anything higher than a 10th level spell impossible by this rule of thumb... so we changed the size of the books to accommodate the rule.

The fact is... books are fundamentally better than scrolls... hence the reason we have so many books and so few scrolls. Books however are a bit more difficult to produce... especially in a medieval setting like Palladium Fantasy... so in that setting, scrolls are still a viable option. Scrolls are cheap to produce... since one doesn't need to worry about a cover or bindings. However, the longer the scroll, the more space it will take up, thus most scrolls will come in an assortment of sizes, some more commonly available than others. This is simple market economics... very long scrolls (the equivalent of a 150 page tome) are not sold as often as smaller, more easily carried scrolls... thus the smaller scrolls will be more common and available in more places than the largest scrolls.

Then there is the mechanics presented in Rifter 40 for spellbooks... namely investing them with a portion of one's soul to make them far more resistant than normal books would be. While this can also be done with scrolls, the cost will tend to be much higher as the more standardized scroll size won't hold as many spells as a typical tome can. One tome, as per the rule of thumb we use in the games I play and run (note - this is meant as an example... not proof that our way is any better or worse than yours), can hold 15 level 1 spells and only costs 1 PPE when the first spell is learned to turn the book into a "spellbook" (with all the benefits and drawbacks presented in Rifter 40). By the same token, the average scroll will only hold enough notes for a single level 1 spell... thus the same 15 spells written on scrolls will take 15 PPE to make into an equivalent "spellbook". The cost per scroll is the same as for a tome... but the amount of information that can be stored isn't. On the plus side, the wizard using scrolls now has the equivalent bonuses of having 15 "spellbooks", but also the drawback of having the same. Additionally, while any one of those scrolls is likely to take up less space than the single tome the other wizard is using... 15 of them is probably going to take up a lot more space.

Now, as I said... it is likely that there are longer scrolls available than the most common size... just as there are undoubtedly larger tomes that a standard 150 page tome. However, these larger scrolls and tomes will cost more (and depending where one is... it may be a lot more) and are likely to be harder to come by.

Really it boils down to how much a mage wants to spend on a Spellbook... does he go with the cheapest option... a standard sized scroll that is easily obtainable from nearly any scribe shop... or a more expensive tome that can hold more spells (and thus is less of a drain on his PPE)... does he try to find a balance somewhere between that might still be cheaper but be a little harder to come by. Does he buy a few scrolls now while he has the chance, or does he wait until he reaches a large city where he might find more suitable tome.

This is the flavor we have encouraged within our group to help differentiate one wizard from another. Just as some wizards won't bother with spellbooks at all (since many are illiterate in many settings)... others will prefer the cheapest option (scrolls) so they can invest more of their gold into research (or buy another's research)... while another wizard chooses a more expensive (tomes) so as not to invest as much of his mystical power into his spellbooks. 3 wizards with more or less the same experience and power (at least at 1st level)... but very different attitudes. Which is better and which is worse? That isn't for me to decide... only to provide the option (though like everything else, one's choice will have consequences... and if you don't understand that... then you will have problems).

My argument has only been about those wizard and magic classes that can make use of spellbooks... any I provided examples from the games I play (and have run) to provide context as to why we made the choices we did. We aren't trying to create a realistic game where Wizard A has smaller handwriting than Wizard B and thus can fit more spells into his spellbook than Wizard B can. We are aiming for a reasonable and plausible rule of thumb... and a reason for why many wizards who use spellbooks prefer to use tomes over scrolls to store their notes.

One also has to remember that while many of the Magic Classes provide Literacy as a skill in the OCC write-ups... that is for Player Characters who are assumed to have had access to slightly better education. Undoubtedly there will be Wizards and others who have the option to learn spells at any time who are illiterate and couldn't use a spellbook even if they were given one.

Spellbooks are merely an option... not a requirement for wizards.

[eliakon]

Your argument reads "We've standardized it this way, so the other way is inherently worse, because of the numbers we've decided on".

Please... don't put words in my mouth. I explained why we standardized them this way... to make the math quick and simple to follow. It had nothing to do with which way is better or worse.

When you say that your math demonstrates that scrolls are inferior to books....and then you use your house rules as proof of the inferiority of scrolls though it IS a circular argument. Regardless of this though.....

One also has to remember that while many of the Magic Classes provide Literacy as a skill in the OCC write-ups... that is for Player Characters who are assumed to have had access to slightly better education. Undoubtedly there will be Wizards and others who have the option to learn spells at any time who are illiterate and couldn't use a spellbook even if they were given one.

Spellbooks are merely an option... not a requirement for wizards.

Outside of a custom house rule though, there is no way to have a mage that isn't literate. Even the forsaken wizard, who is explicitly offered as an example of a person with a sub-standard education....is literate. In point of fact, I am not aware of any 'scholastic/arcane' wizard class in ANY of Palladium Books games that can learn magic with out being literate.
So yes, full on spellbooks (especially the sort from Rifter #40) may be an option....but books are not.

[Library Ogre]

Your argument reads "We've standardized it this way, so the other way is inherently worse, because of the numbers we've decided on".

Please... don't put words in my mouth. I explained why we standardized them this way... to make the math quick and simple to follow. It had nothing to do with which way is better or worse.

When you say that your math demonstrates that scrolls are inferior to books....and then you use your house rules as proof of the inferiority of scrolls though it IS a circular argument. Regardless of this though.....

Pretty much this, yeah.

If your rules assume short scrolls, even if it's just a "standard length" thing, fine. But short scrolls are not necessarily the only scrolls, just like 150 page books aren't necessarily the only books.

[Damian Magecraft]

Your argument reads "We've standardized it this way, so the other way is inherently worse, because of the numbers we've decided on".

Please... don't put words in my mouth. I explained why we standardized them this way... to make the math quick and simple to follow. It had nothing to do with which way is better or worse.

When you say that your math demonstrates that scrolls are inferior to books....and then you use your house rules as proof of the inferiority of scrolls though it IS a circular argument. Regardless of this though.....

One also has to remember that while many of the Magic Classes provide Literacy as a skill in the OCC write-ups... that is for Player Characters who are assumed to have had access to slightly better education. Undoubtedly there will be Wizards and others who have the option to learn spells at any time who are illiterate and couldn't use a spellbook even if they were given one.

Spellbooks are merely an option... not a requirement for wizards.

Outside of a custom house rule though, there is no way to have a mage that isn't literate. Even the forsaken wizard, who is explicitly offered as an example of a person with a sub-standard education....is literate. In point of fact, I am not aware of any 'scholastic/arcane' wizard class in ANY of Palladium Books games that can learn magic with out being literate.
So yes, full on spellbooks (especially the sort from Rifter #40) may be an option....but books are not.

best take another look at rifts classes...
I could swear there is one or two in there that do not start with literacy.

[eliakon]

Your argument reads "We've standardized it this way, so the other way is inherently worse, because of the numbers we've decided on".

Please... don't put words in my mouth. I explained why we standardized them this way... to make the math quick and simple to follow. It had nothing to do with which way is better or worse.

When you say that your math demonstrates that scrolls are inferior to books....and then you use your house rules as proof of the inferiority of scrolls though it IS a circular argument. Regardless of this though.....

One also has to remember that while many of the Magic Classes provide Literacy as a skill in the OCC write-ups... that is for Player Characters who are assumed to have had access to slightly better education. Undoubtedly there will be Wizards and others who have the option to learn spells at any time who are illiterate and couldn't use a spellbook even if they were given one.

Spellbooks are merely an option... not a requirement for wizards.

Outside of a custom house rule though, there is no way to have a mage that isn't literate. Even the forsaken wizard, who is explicitly offered as an example of a person with a sub-standard education....is literate. In point of fact, I am not aware of any 'scholastic/arcane' wizard class in ANY of Palladium Books games that can learn magic with out being literate.
So yes, full on spellbooks (especially the sort from Rifter #40) may be an option....but books are not.

best take another look at rifts classes...
I could swear there is one or two in there that do not start with literacy.

I am working my way through them. But since there are several hundred classes that get spell casting powers....its going to take a while to sift through everyone of them. I was hoping that if someone knew of an example they could share it. Otherwise....well it will take a while.

[MADMANMIKE]

best take another look at rifts classes...
I could swear there is one or two in there that do not start with literacy.

It's possible, but irrelevant to this debate on the Palladium Fantasy board..

[The Beast]

best take another look at rifts classes...
I could swear there is one or two in there that do not start with literacy.

It's possible, but irrelevant to this debate on the Palladium Fantasy board..

You're both right. Several Rifts mages don't have literacy, and are completely irrelevant in a discussion about the mage classes from PFRPG.

[Prysus]

best take another look at rifts classes...
I could swear there is one or two in there that do not start with literacy.

I am working my way through them. But since there are several hundred classes that get spell casting powers....its going to take a while to sift through everyone of them. I was hoping that if someone knew of an example they could share it. Otherwise....well it will take a while.

Greetings and Salutations. In Rifts, just look at the LLW (RUE, page 116). I see no mention of Literacy standard (nor do I believe any of their O.C.C. Skills have it as a requirement).

As others have said though, that doesn't influence a topic on the Palladium World (PF). Per Mysteries of Magic, Literacy is part of the first year of apprenticeship ... so before you even learn anything about magic you'd be taught to read. Hope that helps. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[gaby]

Well I put a limition like the ones in Nightban:TtGD on any Wizard that is self-taught from a SpellBook,the Writer put it in to cut down on Competiton,the Wizard must pass a test or something to free them selves of it.
it,s a Different I put between a Wizard who learn mentor and a Self-taught one from a book.