You won't find a satisfactory answer to this. There's a lot of things in 3.x that just don't hold up to scrutiny.

>>316999
Not that second or fourth have really done anything to fix scrolls.
The way it's always been explained to me is there's an actual enchantment bound into the words on the scroll, which only lasts for one use, while a spellbook is more of an in-depth thing of how to cast the spell.
The scroll is an IKEA kit for tossing a fireball, with the invisible ingredients stuck into the paper.
The spellbook is an essay on cabinetmaking, with no tools, no pieces, and no raw materials.
Transferring the spell into the spellbook ruins the magic because you have to take the kit apart to see how it fits together.

>>317001

The worst part is that you can't replace scrolls with something more sensible like single charge wands, because wizards as written would be unable to copy spells from it or would be abke to learn spells by analyzing regular wands, staves and meaybe even other magic items.

>>317001
Close. It's more like instant muffin mix. You have all the ingredients (magical words and component replacements) there, in the box (on the scroll). You need a pan and oven (magical talent and understanding of that particular magic) to create the muffins properly (cast the spell effectively). You can take the ingredients out and study them separately (read the scroll without casting it), or you can actualy take apart the ingredients themselves to figure out why this mix makes these specific muffins though that reduces the mix to uselessness since you've elimated the makeup of the ingrediets (copy it into your spell book, destroying the scroll). Different mixes produce different muffins, but you have to be a baker to make them, and only a baker with the appropriate training can use the mix perfectly; other people can try, but only with some modicrum of training and skill (use magic device).

>>317006
Analyze Dweomer will tell you how to create the magic item you use it on.

>>317015

But you made divination opposite school because it kind of sucks due to being underrepresented. Seriously, there are like 3 times more transmutation spells than divination ones. Sure divination has few powerful effects, but chnces are DM things they are too powerfull so he screws you over.

>>317016
Making Divination your forbidden school would be a poor choice from an optimization standpoint. Even were this not the case, that's just how trade offs work.
It is certainly possible that you might occlude it for roleplaying reasons, but saying "this isn't valid because it doesn't fit my character" is rather pointless. A system could certainly be devised where it was impossible to limit yourself, but you're better off not selecting optional limitations if that's how you want to play.

>chances are DM thinks they are too powerfull so he screws you over.
This is not a universal thing DMs do. DMs who do this usually have no idea what is and isn't powerful, and thus you may tailor your character to take advantage of good things he doesn't see as overpowered while ignoring things he thinks of as overpowered regardless of their actual utility.
Nonetheless, we here on the internet do not have DMs with the same taste as yours. The fact that your DM often thinks divination effects are too powerful has no bearing on anyone else.

>>317020
I suspect he's going off the assumption that divination magic is difficult to work around.
If you ask the dead guy who stabbed him in the chest, he's going to have a pretty good idea. If you scry on an enemy wizard, it either works or it doesn't.
And it's much easier to go 'Nope, no effect' when the wizard scries something unexpected.
So inflexibility is the problem, not personal tastes.

>>317016
That is presuming I use 3.5 rules, which I don't.

Aside from which, certain divination spells are universal, Analyze Dweomer being one of them. Divination is a good drop if you want to use 7 out of 8 schools, rather than 6 out of 8. divination is also pretty pointless in most games I play, because, again, I don't play 4e or 3.5.

The read-and-discard system of magic scrolls came right from Jack Vance's fiction. D&D adopted his vision and didn't redesign it until 4e.

>... the word sounds, when combined into whatever patterns are applicable, are charged with energy from the Positive or Negative Material Plane. When uttered, these sounds cause the release of this energy, which in turn triggers a set reaction. The release of the energy contained in these words is what causes the spell to be forgotten or the writing to disappear from the surface upon which it is written.
That's 1e DMG.

So theoretically, you could tear a page from your spellbook and use it as a scroll. I would allow that in my game. The trade-off is that you get to cast from a scroll and thus don't have to memorize it, but effectively lose the spell.

Yeah, I pulled that from http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4alum/20110513

>>317026
I am sorry, but writing the spells into yout spellbook is free. So there's probably something missing from "spellbooked" spell, so I wouldn't allow it.

>>317034
Well that's one of those loopholes that would get blocked very soon. You can't re-add a spell "for free" since, according to the D&D magic system, you only "knew" these spells because they were recorded in your personal spellbook in the first place (and a personal spellbook is, supposedly, filled through extensive study). Tear them out and you can't put them back anymore because you no longer "know" those spells.

On a less related note, magic in D&D is a pain indeed, but designing a viable spellcasting system from scratch is considerably harder than it might seem at first glance. I tried that during my attempt to create a lightweight MLP: FiM roleplaying system and I'm still on the fence on how it turned out. My group's unicorn doesn't cast much and more playtesting is needed.

I feel I wasn't clear enough. Think about spells in terms of tab A slot B.
"A" is your word, gesture, thought, whatever - it's always with you. "B" is everything else. It takes a lot of time and effort to create the B part. Those come either from you spending months of off-screen studies or by a scroll scriber who makes a living out of it.

So when you prepare a spell, you sort of copy the B part into your mind for the remaining day and voila: the spell's at your disposal. When you cast from a scroll you just use someone else's effort.

Logically, if a player wants to use their spellbook page as a B-part blueprint, I see no reason to turn them down, but later they won't be able to just write it back in a minute, because they only know the A part.

>>317034
It didn't used to be, however - to ink a spell into your book actually was quite costly, except for the very, very few spells you learned for your class abilities.

>>317043
yeah, think 200G per page. and a spell is one page per lvl. so a 4th lvl spell cost 800G in magic ink and stuff to write into your book. in 3.5 at least.