Scrolls&Wands, Simple question Options

[Salk]

Hello!

I am at the moment unable to verify directly but I wonder if I remember well.

Is it true that both in Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 a magic user (both divine and arcane) can use wands or read scrolls with spells that are of much higher level than he/she could actually master ?

In short, is it true that I can, example, read and start the effects of a Lightning Bolt scroll having a second level Mage read it ?

If this is true, I think it would be definitely something that I'd like to see corrected. I don't know what the AD&D 2ed. says about this but I'd think it shouldn't be at all allowed.

If instead I am just misremembering then sorry for the stupid question!

[balduran]

I am not very sure of the exact D&D definition, but spellcasting is done by speaking the right words in the right order. Any idiot can do it using a scroll, provided that he/she can read the language, but only an experienced mage is able to understand to true meaning of the words and repeat them without having the scroll around.

[Salk]

Ehm, Balduran...

Thanks for your your post but it doesn't really answer my question, does it ?

[Baronius]

In short, is it true that I can, example, read and start the effects of a Lightning Bolt scroll having a second level Mage read it ?

In Baldur's Gate, yes. Even your 1st level mage can use e.g. a Chaos scroll.

[Salk]

Baronius,

it would be nice if some modder here at The Black Wyrm would like to create a simple tweak that would forbid Magic and Divine user to take advantage of scrolls and items that contain spells that are beyond the comprehension of a practitioner.

Do you think it's technically possible to do something like this ?

In short, I'd like to create a Mod that, according to me and perhaps others, would fix a critical inconsistency of the ufficial rules. I don't know how to mod myself so I'd be just willing to have this idea implemented by someone else.

The idea would be to either gray out such scrolls/untill the user has the skill that comes only by the combination of a high enough ability (Int or Wis or Cha) and level. It's simpli ridicolous that a first level Mage with Intelligence might cast a Wish spell only because it's written on a scroll. I wonder actually why nobody else has though of such thing before...

What do you think ? It should not be too hard, should it ?

This post has been edited by Salk: Oct 1 2005, 06:25 PM

[Baronius]

I guess it would be possible to restrict scroll spellcasting by editing all of the scroll ITM files (not a tempting task, and I think it would work only in BG2), I can't think of an elegant solution at the moment, I'd need to look into it. I'm sure someone else who reads this topic will be able to give a precise answer to your question.

By the way, I agree with Balduran in this matter (i.e. this setting of scroll reading is acceptable in my opinion).

[Rabain]

I'm not sure if it is implemented but isn't there also a chance of failure if trying to cast a scroll higher in level than the caster?

I don't mind the reading high level spells from scrolls as the logic behind it is that the scroll itself is magical, which is why it disappears after being read. The magic has been used up.

[Baronius]

Though just like with several other parts of AD&D, I don't agree with the rule that the scrolls are magical as physical objects, and not the magical words themselves, the caster's knowledge/power.

I'm not sure if it is implemented but isn't there also a chance of failure if trying to cast a scroll higher in level than the caster?

In BG1 there isn't any. Neither in BG2, to my knowledge.

[Rabain]

Well the scroll is magical only if a spell is written on it. A blank spell scroll is just a piece of paper.

Caster's vary in knowledge and power so their ability to read scrolls should vary accordingly but the amount of magic in the scroll (with spell) is not less if successfully read by a lesser mage.

[Baronius]

What I find ridiculous is this 'amount of magic in the scroll'. I agreed that it's okay that spellcasters can use higher-level spell scrolls than their own level, but this doesn't mean that I like these 'magic-storing scrolls'. In this interpretation, the scroll is an enchanted object and that's idiocy. In this way it is not solved well enough. Just like tomes: books don't disappear if someone reads them -- some 'hardcore' players would now say: 'but then you could use it more times in the game...' which is also ridiculous because the whole system should be better then. I think I can accept the simplified use of these books though (i.e. the instant reading of more than thousand pages).

/I like AD&D but it has many stupid things (such as the aforementioned 'Magic-Storing' books & scrolls), I don't know it too much, but I am only interested in it as long as affects any of the Infinity Engine games. I use my own concept in my mods, naturally./

Well the scroll is magical only if a spell is written on it. A blank spell scroll is just a piece of paper.

This is what I never agree with: dogmatically accepting something because 'rules say so'. A scroll is magical only if a spell is written on it? Why is it magical? Is it enchanted? Then why isn't it a wand with charges? Why does it disappear if someone reads it? Someone familiar with AD&D will probably explain this, I'd be interested in a logical explanation of these 'magic-container scrolls'. In classic forms of mythology and tales, spells are written into scrolls and anyone who can read the letters can cast a spell -- a scroll is a piece of paper with text on it and nothing more. Easy and logical.

[Salk]

I fail to see any kind of logic and/or consistency in allowing a mind to unleash the power of what is beyond comprehension.

The fact that such power is not memorized or directly granted by God but written in a scroll doesn't help and I have a really hard time accepting such a rule.

A spell requirements shouldn't be any different depending on what the source is. We reach a paradoxical situation where a first level Cleric might be able to cast a difficult spell like Resurrection, just because it's written on a scroll.

It's a little less "bad" when it comes about wands or other items which trigger en enchantment which is not directly bound to the caster's mind. The caster in this case becomes much more a "user" and perhaps it should be allowed - at certain conditions - this advantage.

It would be a big minus if however we could not modify this for Baldur's Gate 1 which is the game I am most interested in.

Thanks however Baronius and Rabain for your insight!

[Salk]

I personally don't agree at all with what Balduran and Baronius think of how scrolls should work.

The proficiens of reading magic should not allow at all any idiot to unleash the power of magic. The true meaning of magic and the power that comes out of it shouldn't be - in my opinion - a pure and simple exercise of speaking magic without KNOWING DEEPLY what it implies.

A certain amount of culture, of experience, of Intelligence (for mages) is a requirement, NOT ONLY, for memorizing a spell once for good in one's mind but also to trigger the enchantment (not to mention that most spells have not only the vocal component but also the somatic and the material).

Magic - in short - is not only words. I can read English, but can I understand Shakespeare or Wilde ? I have eyes to look around, but do I also see beyond the surface ?

A divine/arcane user must reach a certain degree of empathy to truly understand what lies beyond mere words. If we accept passively the fact that anyone able to read magic can master the content of a scroll containing any spell then we must also discuss why there are some requirements for learning those same spells!

If it's like you say, the magician or the cleric should just need to learn by heart a sequence of words and I can't accept it.

This post has been edited by Salk: Oct 2 2005, 02:51 AM

[Sir-Kill]

one point I'd like to make tho I do see your point is I can build a model ship but I do need the instruction book, now If I memorized that instruction book...
I guess is what I am saying is that you should have the abaility to read the scroll and you should have to read it at least once even to memorize it. then IF you fail to read it correctly then you'll have to find another one
Hmmm maybe a new thing to add to wtp he he

[Salk]

Sir-Kill, I don't believe the comparison between magic and an instruction book about how to build a ship is fair because there is not empaty that it's needed to create something mundane while instead magic (both arcane and divine) goes beyond that.

It implies the intimate knowledge of an art that is unknown to the most and that doesn't belong to the ordinary world. It's not enough to read magic to understand and master a spell.

A receptive mind is needed. A certain degree of knowledge is needed. It's not a simple repetition of a sequence of words that should trigger a successful enchantment.

This is why I do believe that scrolls' comprehension shouldn't be allowed to those practitioner that can read magic but can't grasp its content.

I hope Baronius will make me meet somebody who won't mind coding this for me. Eventually a release for TuTu and BG2 would cover all I'd like to see covered.

This post has been edited by Salk: Oct 2 2005, 08:00 PM

[Rabain]

This is what I never agree with: dogmatically accepting something because 'rules say so'. A scroll is magical only if a spell is written on it? Why is it magical? Is it enchanted? Then why isn't it a wand with charges? Why does it disappear if someone reads it? Someone familiar with AD&D will probably explain this, I'd be interested in a logical explanation of these 'magic-container scrolls'. In classic forms of mythology and tales, spells are written into scrolls and anyone who can read the letters can cast a spell -- a scroll is a piece of paper with text on it and nothing more. Easy and logical.

Nobody said they were accepting anything because 'rules say so', i am accepting this because this is the way magic has been portrayed in numerous fantasy settings, not just D&D.

I would argue with your statement that classic forms of mythology and tales have spells as something anyone can read. In most fantasy settings magic is spoken (invoked) in some arcane, little known 'magical' language. The words themselves and their pronunciation have a magical effect. A mage of power can bind these words to a scroll, only another mage can read them, because only another mage has the knowledge and understanding to release the magic in the words. Once spoken the spell disappears as the magic is used up. What is so hard about this concept to understand? Most of the myths/stories that involve some non-mage reading a spell relate to spell scrolls that are cursed or spelled to be auto-read by whoever tries to read them or we later find out that the said non-mage just happens to be the son of some long lost powerful arch-mage.

If a scroll with a spell on it was just some paper with words on it then any person (nobleman, commoner, cleric or whatever) could learn the words and call themselves a mage. This is never the case in any fantasy setting, even D&D.

Why do scrolls exist? Well in most fantasy settings mages have limits, in order to stop them being the most powerful creatures around. Each casting of a spell takes something away from a mage, in D&D this has led to the 'per day' limit of each spell level. Scrolls circumvent this because the mage has 'poured' some power into the creation of the scroll and need not draw on his own power again to cast it later. However the creation of the scroll is not as simple as "text on paper" otherwise anyone finding a spell scroll could simply copy it a hundred times and live happily ever after on the sale of the copies.

In fact I would say that it is much harder to justify the position of 'a scroll is a piece of paper with text on it and nothing more.' Just what do you need mage for then, once a spell is written on paper it becomes available to everyone if this were the case.

[Baronius]

i am accepting this because this is the way magic has been portrayed in numerous fantasy settings, not just D&D.

It is the same. I accept something which I find logical in some way, which I find creative but not too arbitrary. And thus it is a question of personal taste: creativity and sticking with the traditions (mythology) are opposites, so everything depends on the individual.

And perhaps if I read the precise AD&D definitions (if such exist), I would accept it better, I don't know.