Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Glitch2 10-27-05, 04:17 PM	Some people (including me) have been arguing about this for some time on a thread about archivists. We were posting more than the people talking about archivists, so they told us to make our own thread and here it is. Established Facts Deciphering- First Step To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in written form in another’s spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell’s level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers a magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic. Divine spells can be written down and deciphered just as arcane spells can (see Arcane Magical Writings). Any character with the Spellcraft skill can attempt to decipher the divine magical writing and identify it. However, only characters who have the spell in question (in its divine form) on their class spell list can cast a divine spell from a scroll. (spellcraft) 20 + spell level Decipher a written spell (such as a scroll) without using read magic. One try per day. Requires a full-round action. (use magic device) Decipher a written spell 25 + spell level (read magic) By means of read magic, you can decipher magical inscriptions on objects—books, scrolls, weapons, and the like—that would otherwise be unintelligible. So a wizard can decipher any spell that is on a scroll or in a spellbook so long as she makes the apropriate checks or uses read magic. Also note that both divine and arcane magical writings use the same exact rules, not mechanically identical rules. This means that they can be they can be treated the same unless a condition is set elsewhere (such as by 'However, only characters who have the spell in question (in its divine form) on their class spell list can cast a divine spell from a scroll.' from the end of the paragraph). Copying into Spellbook- Second Step A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from her specialty school. She cannot, however, learn any spells from her prohibited schools. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, below). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment. 15 + spell level Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll (wizard only). No retry for that spell until you gain at least 1 rank in Spellcraft (even if you find another source to try to learn the spell from). Requires 8 hours. To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. So a wizard can copy a spell from a magic scroll from any source into her spellbook once she makes the apropriate checks and deciphers them. The only conditions that I have found on this are that she cannot copy spells that are from the prohibited school of a specialist wizard and that she must have an Intelligence score of 10+ the spell level. Preparing Spells- Step 3 Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, she chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that she has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells. A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory. To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. So a wizard prepares spells from a spellbook. She can only prepare spells that are recorded in her spellbook except for read magic (or other spell mastery type spells). Another restriction on preparing is that she must have an Intelligence score of 10 + the spell level. Casting Spells- Step 4 First you must choose which spell to cast. If you’re a cleric, druid, experienced paladin, experienced ranger, or wizard, you select from among spells prepared earlier in the day and not yet cast. To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, you must concentrate to cast a spell. To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time. So, excluding the last statement for now, A wizard can only cast spells she has prepared for the day and has not yet cast. She must execute all the components and she must have an Intelligence score of 10 + the spell level. Now, for the bolded statement. This is where the confusion lies. All of the above facts seemed to generally be accepted by those discussing this subject but the bolded statement is where we split. A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. I argue that 'spells are defined as being arcane and drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list if they are cast by a wizard' and that 'Spells a wizard casts is not restricted by this statement (the bolded one)'. What I mean by this is (in an if,then statement, the simplest kind of statement) that 'If a spell is cast by a wizard, then it is defined as being arcane and defined as being drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list'. I say this because the statement lacks any restricting words, such as 'only' or 'can only'. Since we already established what a wizard can cast, she is only limited by the previous conditions we established. The others argue that it does restrict spells that a wizard is able to cast. This would make a wizard be unable to cast spells that are not on her spell list, even ones granted by feats, independent research (because independent research only adds it to your spells known, not your spell list. It uses the same copying rules as scrolls), and class abilities (unless it adds the spell directly to their spell list). Here is some new information that I did not consider previously. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). Whether a spell is arcane or divine, and whether a character prepares spells in advance or chooses them on the spot, casting a spell works the same way. Even if the bolded statement does not make all spells that a wizard casts into arcane spells, this new one does. The other statement doesn't seem to do anything we haven't established but it might be important in the future. Now, the real question is 'Do wizard spells have to be drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list in the following statement? A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list.'. Please discuss. Edit - My very first edit of this post. It has come to my attention (Thanks to a revelation from Kisinith. Thank you.) that there is also another rule pertaining to scrolls. To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements. The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class.) The user must have the spell on his or her class list. The user must have the requisite ability score. Please note the bolded part. This does restrict the copying of the scrolls into a wizard's spellbook. However, there is a simple way around this. If the wizard took ranks in Use Magic Device, he could use the skill's 'Use a scroll' ability to be able to use scrolls. This only adds an extra step to Copying the scroll into a wizard's spellbook. Additional Part of Step 3 If the spell is divine, make a DC 20 + Caster Level check for the skill Use Magic Device so that you can use it, and therefore copy it into your spellbook.
Caelic 10-27-05, 04:48 PM	So what you're saying, in essence, is "A wizard can cast any spell because IF he casts a spell, it becomes a spell he can cast." Slightly more elaborately: "A wizard casts spells from the wizard spell list. If he casts a spell that's not on the wizard spell list, it becomes part of the wizard spell list, and since it's on the wizard spell list, he can cast it." Circular logic. The Sorceror/Wizard spell list is well defined; it is subject to modification by the DM (as all portions of the rules are) and to a limited extent by the player (through spell research.) I have yet to see a single quasi-official rules source respond to a query about wizards copying divine scrolls into their spellbooks with anything other than a resounding, "Uhh...no."
Glitch2 10-27-05, 05:00 PM	I have yet to see a single quasi-official rules source respond to a query about wizards copying divine scrolls into their spellbooks with anything other than a resounding, "Yes". This is because I have yet to see any quasi-official rule source respond to a query about wizards copying divine scrolls into their spellbooks at all. My logic is actually this. A wizard casts arcane spells. If a wizard casts a spell, it is considered part of the sorcerer/wizard spell list. See that wizards are not restricted to only casting spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. The spell being added to his spell list would only help him activate wands/scrolls/other things you need the spell on your class list to activate. BTW, spell research does not add the spell to the sorcerer/wizard spell list, it only copies it into your spellbook. It uses the same rules as copying scrolls into your spellbook. Good luck never casting those spells you just researched. Actually, while I was waiting for a reply, I managed to type this up. A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. ‘Which’ is a relative prounoun that is linking the following two clauses. A wizard casts arcane spells. Arcane spells are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Now, if arcane spells were limited by having to be from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, then a bards, sorcerers, and wizards could only cast spells that appear on both the bard and the sorcerer/wizard spell list. This is because the bard has the same wording in his spell section. “A bard casts arcane spells, which are drawn from the bard spell list.” Or A bard casts arcane spells. Arcane spells are drawn from the bard spell list. If arcane spells are restricted by the things after ‘which’ then the only arcane spells are ones that are on the bard, the sorcerer/wizard, and any other class list that uses the phrase “*class x* casts arcane spells which are drawn from the *class x* spell list. Similarly, divine spells would be limited to spells that are on the class spell lists of all classes that use the phrase “*class x* casts divine spells which are drawn from the *class x* spell list. Do you really want to be casting spells from an every shrinking list of castable spells? Oh, yes, you can still learn the spells that are not on all arcane spell lists, but you cannot cast them because you are required to cast arcane spells. The only spells that are arcane are the spells that are on all spell lists. The only other option would be to say that for a wizard to cast a spell, that spell is not required to be on the sorcerer/wizard spell list.
Caelic 10-27-05, 05:07 PM	Your parsing of the sentence is incorrect. A comma would be necessary to give the sentence the meaning you want it to have, thus: "A wizard casts arcane spells, which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." The absence of a comma indicates the vernacular usage of "which" as synonymous with "that."
colm_l 10-27-05, 05:12 PM	One point - if what you say is correct - why would they bother creating the "sorceror/wizard" spell list? Surely it would simply be the sorceror list & wizards would have access to it purely because of what you've been saying.... (If Wizards had a similar ability to that of the archivist it would likely reference the sorceror list in a similar manner to that of the archivist & cleric- or refer to it self as the sorceror/wizard(common) spell list)
Quenditar 10-27-05, 05:33 PM	My logic is actually this. A wizard casts arcane spells. If a wizard casts a spell, it is considered part of the sorcerer/wizard spell list. See that wizards are not restricted to only casting spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. The spell being added to his spell list would only help him activate wands/scrolls/other things you need the spell on your class list to activate. Let me try rephrasing that. I speak the English language. If I speak words, they are considered part of the English language. See that I am not restricted to only speaking words from the English language. The word being added to my vocabulary only helps me communicate with people who understand the word. So if I say "Bultenejanoj, kiuj privortobataladas magiajxojn magiistajn, estas malsagxaj," I am speaking English - you just don't know the words. (For the record, that's Esperanto.)
Glitch2 10-27-05, 05:40 PM	Your parsing of the sentence is incorrect. A comma would be necessary to give the sentence the meaning you want it to have, thus: "A wizard casts arcane spells, which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." The absence of a comma indicates the vernacular usage of "which" as synonymous with "that." "A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." It is synonymous with that. 'That' is, of course refering to arcane spells. It is two clauses, "A wizard casts arcane spells" and "which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." You can seperate things in the same manner when it means the same as that. An Example. A boy drinks milk. Milk is white. A boy drinks milk that is white. or A boy drinks milk which is white. One point - if what you say is correct - why would they bother creating the "sorceror/wizard" spell list? By what I am saying, wizards still require scrolls to write non-sorcerer/wizard spell list spells into her spellbook. If it was only the sorcerer list, it would need something similar to the archivist's wording with cleric spells for them to actually learn them at their 2 spells/spellcasting level up. As it is, all spells in the sorcerer/wizard spell list can be refered to as wizard spell or as sorcerer spells as is shown in the SRD here: A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells Edit- the wizard can also learn spells that only she can learn (not the sorcerer) like Mnemonic Enhancer
Caelic 10-27-05, 05:54 PM	"A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." It is synonymous with that. 'That' is, of course refering to arcane spells. It is two clauses, "A wizard casts arcane spells" and "which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." You can seperate things in the same manner when it means the same as that. An Example. A boy drinks milk. Milk is white. A boy drinks milk that is white. or A boy drinks milk which is white. Neither of those, however, is synonymous with "A boy drinks milk, which is white." Consider the difference between these two sentences: "Microwaves are a form of radiation which causes cancer." "Microwaves are a form of radiation, which causes cancer." The first establishes causality--ie, that microwaves cause cancer. The second establishes that microwaves are a form of radiation and that radiation causes cancer without making explicit linkage between microwaves and cancer. "A boy drinks milk that is white" indicates that the boy drinks only white milk--he would, for example, avoid chocolate milk. "A boy drinks milk, which is white" indicates that milk is by definition white--which would exclude the possibility of chocolate milk. Commas matter. Commas change meaning significantly. Now: in this particular case, the fact that you misquoted the text muddies the waters. The actual text does, in fact, feature a comma...but it also features another parenthetical clause.
X-Codes 10-27-05, 06:13 PM	If you have to rules lawyer this much to convince people that there is a tiny tiny loophole in the rules that betrays the commonly accepted facts of wizards casting one type of spell and clerics casting another, then you will never actually put this plan of yours into practice because of something called the Dungeon Master. Also your steps are misleading. Your "step 4" is actually printed in the book *before* the others (under Wizard where the others are printed under the Magic chapter), and Caelic's first post is correct. You are trying to say "A wizard casts spells on her spell list. If a wizard casts a spell not on her spell list, it is put on her spell list and she can cast it." There is nothing in the books to suggest that a wizard can prepare and cast any spell in the game, and under the class description itself it states that a wizard casts spells only from the wizard spell list. This does not prohibit a wizard from casting Divine Power because of being a level 10 Rainbow Savant, however, because of Rainbow Savant's class abilities which modify the character's personal spell list. I am going to finish my post thusly: Intentionally misreading the rules is the same as blatantly cheating. This means that you are a munchkin, and you will not recieve validation for your misguided efforts by any of the regulars on this board because we strongly stick to the Rules As Written (RAW) since we know that any deviation from this WILL get you shut-down by your DM.
Docrailgun 10-27-05, 06:17 PM	No, the real question is: why do you claim that the act of inscribing a divine spell into a wizard's spellbook suddenly change that spell into an arcane spell. There's no reason, in the RAW or in common sense, to think that is so. A divine spell is always a divine spell. Wizards cast arcane spells only. The "wizard/sorcerer list" is a wider question, but really isn't as basic as what I've mentioned above: Wizards cast arcane spells. The act of inscribing a spell does not change the nature of that spell. The Now, the real question is 'Do wizard spells have to be drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list in the following statement? A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list.'. Please discuss.
Sang-Drax 10-27-05, 06:18 PM	This assumption is simply absurd. A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. How in the name of Mephistoteles could they've been more specific?? Really, if you were the author, how would write this sentence if you wanted the wizard to cast spells only from his own list (as if the spell list name wasn't obvious enough, cnsidering there's one list to each of the core classes)? A wizard can only cast arcane spells from his spell list. Not from the Druid's, Cleric's, Paladin's, Ranger's, or Bard's. No, no, buddy. Only from his own list, did youi hear me? Well, my point is: if the wizard writes the spell in his book, he can cast it, and, thus, it's also in his spell list. Thus, he can cast every spell in the game! Sure, this was the author's true intention... the wizard would be suck a weakling otherwise Or maybe "A wizard can only cast arcane spells from his spell list. Not from the Druid's, Cleric's, Paladin's, Ranger's, or Bard's. No, no, buddy. Only from his own list, did youi hear me? If the wizard - the same wizard, I mean - finds a scroll with a spell that's not in his - the wizard's - list, even then he won't be able to cast it - no, mister. That given spell must be in his spell list - and, by that, I mean the spell list as written in the Player's Handbook - that very very list". A-ha, but what if the wizard has one level of cleric? Than, the cleric list is his, too, which overrules that. Plus, if it overrlues that, it means that the rest of the rule doesn't fit for him either, so, he can cast any spell and wield greatswords. Come on, guys... there's ALWAYS rooms for double interpretation. There are quite a few people in these boards with the distinct talent of twisting anything in the player's favor. It's obvious that the wizard can't cast all the spells in the game. The PHB would look like one of Tasslehoff's tales in no more than 1000 pages just for some people accept certain obvious stuff. (and I'll leave the technical issues of the language to Caelic)
Mistwell 10-27-05, 06:28 PM	Sigh. You know they cannot cast cleric spells. I know they cannot cast cleric spells. EVERYONE knows they cannot cast cleric spells. This is purely sophistry. You're just playing with linguistics to debate a rule that you know darn well doesn't mean what you are claiming it means. Cut it out. Lot's of ACTUALLY debatable rules to discuss without turning to silly linguistics games like this one.
catharz 10-27-05, 06:36 PM	HERE (http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=1&thread=598&postnum=0) are some nice points made in favor of both interpretations.
Fwib 10-27-05, 06:40 PM	I am going to finish my post thusly: Intentionally misreading the rules is the same as blatantly cheating. This means that you are a munchkin, and you will not recieve validation for your misguided efforts by any of the regulars on this board because we strongly stick to the Rules As Written (RAW) since we know that any deviation from this WILL get you shut-down by your DM.I think I know what you mean, but best not to insult people, even if you feel they deserve it. Besides what you are saying is even worse than reading the rules in a possibly counterintuitive way - you are trying to assert the primacy of 'this is how I think the authors meant it, therefore I am right' - and that is bad. Carefully rereading your post, actually, you might well not have been trying to go with the 'this is what I think the authors meant' school of thought - but I still say that attacks on other posters, rather than their reasoning is a bad thing.
Glitch2 10-27-05, 07:26 PM	To Caelic: The first establishes that "Microwaves are a form of radiation" and "a form of radiation causes cancer." The second establishes that "Microwaves are a form of radiation" and "radiation causes cancer." Now: in this particular case, the fact that you misquoted the text muddies the waters. The actual text does, in fact, feature a comma...but it also features another parenthetical clause. I did not misquote. SRD, under classes 2, under wizard, under class features, under spells. There is no comma. In fact, I just checked it now because you mentioned it and there is no comma. To X-Codes: That is not what I am trying to say. I am trying to say A wizard DOES NOT need the spell to be on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in order to cast it. I am also trying to say that after a wizard casts a spell, it would be considered to be on their spell list. Intentionally misreading what I have said (or not reading it at all) in order to prove I am a "blatant cheater" is hypocritical. So what if step 4 is put into the book before the others? It does not change the fact that it is a rule. Yes, Rainbow Servent works, but what about Recaster, or Extra Spell, or Indepentent Research? All of which let you copy the spell into your spellbook and know the spell, but you do not get it on your spell list. To Docrailgun: No, that is not the real question. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). That is from the SRD. That means If a spell is cast by a wizard, it is arcane. If a spell is cast by a (for example) cleric it is divine. To Sang-Drax: If I wanted to be more specific about wizards only casting wizard spells, I would have said this. "A wizard can only cast arcane spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." That is exactly how I would word it and there would be no confusion. The wizard ONLY has the ability to cast arcane spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. No other spells. This is not what it says and because you said exactly the same thing, this is the most obvious thing to say to get that point across. Why would they not have said that then? To Mistwell: I am not trying to get this implemented into a game. I am merely trying to prove, that by RAW wizards can cast any spell in the game. The creator of Pun-Pun was congradulated for making the best character ever. He was once responded to with "why do you make him when a DM will never allow him" and someone else defended him, saying "Character Optimization is not for making the best charcters that a reasonable DM would allow. It is for making the best characters that the rules allow." To Fwib: Thank you Fwib. You said a very similar thing that I said to him. Those of you who say it must be on his list in order to cast it, I have a question for you. You rule makes the Independent Research rule in the SRD useless. He can scribe the spell into his spellbook, but it is not on his class list. You cannot say it is on his class list because it uses the same scribing rules as copying from scrolls into your spellbook. Your rule also restricts casting as I pointed out in my second post (the third post of the thread). Why would they put such contradictory rules in the same rule set? Your ruling would also make Recaster, Arcane Disciple, and Extra Spell useless. With my rules, all of them have a good benefit. Even the Rainbow Servent's ability still lets him learn cleric spells from his 2 spells he gets at a spellcasting level up instead of only getting the spells from scrolls. While I don't have the book it is in, someone else said that the Sandshaper adds spells to his spells known, but not to his class list. Your rule would also make that class feature useless. Why would they nullify so many abilities? Edit- I provided rebuttles for all statements except this one. Sorry. To Caelic: "A boy drinks milk that is white." Does not say that he only drinks white milk. It says that the boy drinks milk and milk is white. It means the boy only drinks milk. It is flawed to say that Milk is only white because there is other milk that is not white that the boy could drink. It is also flawed to say that spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list are the only arcane spells. The wizard casts only arcane spells. Arcane spells are spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. There is also a statement that I previously pointed out that makes all spells a wizard casts arcane. And by the reasoning of the statement, if the spell is arcane, then it must be on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. "A boy drinks milk, which is white." Yes, that does exclude the possibility of non-white milk. This is not the case as there IS NO comma in the statement.
Fwib 10-27-05, 07:41 PM	I never did any proper study of logic, but doesn't "A boy drinks milk that is white" mean "Of the things the boy drinks, some of it is white milk"? err... or maybe "Of the milk the boy drinks, it is white milk"... ehh... perhaps we should only speak Loglan or similar on this board?:)
g23armani 10-27-05, 07:41 PM	I have one simple question for you: Do you honestly believe that the 3.x rules creators intended for Wizards to to be able to learn and cast any spell through your proposed mechanism? Or is this just some sort of excercise in arguing semantics?
Seeker of Truth 10-27-05, 07:48 PM	"A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list". This is exactly how I would phrase the ability gained by wizards. If you started adding words like "only" then you add confusion about whether a cleric/wizard can make use of his cleric spells since he can only cast wizard spells. To clarify your position ... you propose that any spell cast by a level 1 Wizard/leve 1 cleric is both a spell on the wizard list, and on the cleric list, and a divine spell, and an arcane spell? is that correct?
X-Codes 10-27-05, 07:48 PM	Fwib: I was going with the "This is how D&D has been played since before I started about 15 years ago" thought. Glitch: Fine, you aren't trying to say that... you ARE saying that, and just don't realise it yet. Second, I am not a hypocrite, and calling me as much when I point out that you are a munchkin is both twice insulting and twice false. I rarely even optimize my characters when I go play an actual game with DM's because I just don't care that much, I just want to have fun. Also, the SRD is a compilation of many of the rules listed in the PHB, DMG, MM, and XPH. Independant Research is in the DMG, and is noted as requiring DM involvement for every step of the spell creating process. If it was not used as such then Shapechange would be level 0 and turn you into the Tarrasque with only CL 1. Finally, it does matter that your "Step 4" was placed in chapter 2 instead of chapter 8. It's an indication that the listing under Wizard is assumed throught the rest of the book, and that you have to take that knowledge FIRST before reading any of the other rules. Wizards cast spells from the wizard/sorcerer spell list. If a wizard casts a spell not on the wizard/sorcerer spell list then they damn well better be a multiclass wizard or the DM is going to shove the PHB up their ass open and sideways. Nothing short of a feat or class ability ever puts spells on a Wizard's spell list, and they cannot cast spells not on the wizard/sorcerer spell list.
Fwib 10-27-05, 07:50 PM	I have one simple question for you: Do you honestly believe that the 3.x rules creators intended for Wizards to to be able to learn and cast any spell through your proposed mechanism? Or is this just some sort of excercise in arguing semantics?I certainly do not think that the authors intended wizards (or whatever caster class) to be able to cast any spell they liked, and I do believe that this is an exercise in arguing semantics/logic/whatever. I hope that if there is enough discussion, then WotC will fix the rules in such a way that discussions like that will be impossible or less significant (or at least fix some of the things which are not precise and capabe of only one interpretation), like the way they FAQ'd Supernatural Transformation not to work for Warlock incantations, or any non-racial SLAs
Fwib 10-27-05, 07:59 PM	Fwib: I was going with the "This is how D&D has been played since before I started about 15 years ago" thought.I've not been playing that long myself, but I do remember 2eAD&D, and the rules for that, I think you will agree, were much less precise and had many more contradictions than 3e/3.5e I think that the greatly increased precision of the rules is the reason for threads like this: We now have the expectation that the rules should be sufficient unto themselves (mostly) without recourse to the DM as arbitrator. I very much doubt that most of these extreme-case arguments are intended as 'this is what I actually want to play' things - more that these are the results of people taking that expectation of sufficiency a little too far.. (and as I said above, to try to encourage WotC to make things better still)
Tleilaxu_Ghola 10-27-05, 07:59 PM	Without going into contextual analysis we should look now at a more mathematical proof of the argument at hand. This is a simpler way to re-write the argument. 1. A wizard can decipher and read a divine spell -- True 2. A wizard can copy and write a divine spell in his book -- True 3. A wizard can cast any spells out of her book -- Contested. If the 3rd statement were true, as the Glitch2 is implying, then he would have found the greatest loop-hole in existence. Alas, I cannot find a contradictory statement, nor a direct statement that affirms it. Kudos to Glitch2... ;)
catharz 10-27-05, 08:54 PM	3. A wizard can cast any spells out of her book -- False. Where in the rules is this clearly stated?
Tleilaxu_Ghola 10-27-05, 09:18 PM	By jove... I don't know. I think that we may have a funny little problem on our hands. I now have full access to my books and after poring over each entry regarding wizard preparation I didn't see a point in which it says that a wizard cannot prepare any spell out her book! HMMM... now I need to edit my original post. There is one statement that is questionable. "A wizard cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her book except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory." This statement's cotrapositive if true would validate Glitch2's argument, however, in my mathematical experience the contrapositive of a theorum is often not true... so we cannot make an affirmative case for Glitch2's argument based off of this statement. As is, I now find no contradictory statements that would negate the truth of the contrapositive of the quotation aforementioned. To you rule lawyers with more time: find a contradiction to this last and final statement, for it is the only thing that will negate Glitch2's logic: "A wizard can prepare any spell recorded in her book" It has been shown quite eloquently by Glitch2 that a wizard can record a divine spell in her book. BTW: defn of contrapositive in math speak: original statement if not X, then not Y. Contrapositive: if X, then Y. Do you see how the contrapositive of the quoted statement aforementioned is the real question we should be answering.
Caelic 10-27-05, 09:20 PM	To Caelic: The first establishes that "Microwaves are a form of radiation" and "a form of radiation causes cancer." The second establishes that "Microwaves are a form of radiation" and "radiation causes cancer." Uhh...no. The first establishes that "Microwaves are a form of radiation" and "Microwaves cause cancer." I did not misquote. SRD, under classes 2, under wizard, under class features, under spells. There is no comma. In fact, I just checked it now because you mentioned it and there is no comma. So be it. I checked the PHB, which has slightly different text, apparently. I was trying to be charitable to your case, but I'll take your word for it. If there's no comma, then you have no case; "A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list." means that the arcane spells the wizard casts are drawn from that list. It does NOT mean the same thing as "A wizard casts arcane spells, which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." Edit- I provided rebuttles for all statements except this one. Sorry. To Caelic: "A boy drinks milk that is white." Does not say that he only drinks white milk. It says that the boy drinks milk and milk is white. It means the boy only drinks milk. It is flawed to say that Milk is only white because there is other milk that is not white that the boy could drink. It is also flawed to say that spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list are the only arcane spells. The wizard casts only arcane spells. Arcane spells are spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. There is also a statement that I previously pointed out that makes all spells a wizard casts arcane. And by the reasoning of the statement, if the spell is arcane, then it must be on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. "A boy drinks milk, which is white." Yes, that does exclude the possibility of non-white milk. This is not the case as there IS NO comma in the statement. I'm trying to think of a way to say this tactfully, but I'm not sure I'm going to succeed: you need to work on your understanding of logic and semantics. I'm having difficulty figuring out how to respond to the above mess, because honestly, you've mixed up quite a lot of what's been said thus far. Rebuttal point by point: "A boy drinks milk that is white." Does not say that he only drinks white milk. It says that the boy drinks milk and milk is white. No. It means that boy drinks milk, and the milk that the boy drinks is white. It does not mean "Milk is white" as a general statement. It is flawed to say that Milk is only white because there is other milk that is not white that the boy could drink. I never claimed that milk is only white. Nor did I claim that "A boy drinks milk that is white" implied that milk was only white. The wizard casts only arcane spells. Arcane spells are spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. There is also a statement that I previously pointed out that makes all spells a wizard casts arcane. And by the reasoning of the statement, if the spell is arcane, then it must be on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Astoundingly spurious logic. Let's clean it up a bit. 1. The wizard casts only arcane spells. 2. Arcane spells are spells on the sorceror/wizard spell list. 3. ALl spells a wizard casts are arcane. 4. Therefore, if the spell is arcane, then it must be on the sorceror/wizard spell list. Number two is a faulty premise; some arcane spells are not on the sorceror/wizard spell list. It would be correct to say "Spells on the sorceror/wizard spell list are arcane." Even that, though, does not lead to the conclusion you desire. A logically-equivalent construction: 1. I eat only beef. 2. Beef is red meat. 3. All meat I eat is beef. 4. Therefore, if the meat is red, then it must be beef. It does not follow. "A boy drinks milk, which is white." Yes, that does exclude the possibility of non-white milk. This is not the case as there IS NO comma in the statement Uhm...you do realize that you're arguing against yourself at this point, don't you? Let's review. 1. "A boy drinks milk which is white." This statement merely establishes that the milk which the boy drinks is white. 2. "A boy drinks milk, which is white." We agree that this statement excludes the possibility of non-white milk; it says that the boy drinks milk and that milk is white. 3. "Wizards cast arcane spells, which are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list." THIS is the statement you WANT, because it establishes that wizards cast arcane spells, and that arcane spells are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list. HOWEVER... 4. "Wizards cast arcane spells which are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list." This is NOT the statement you want, because it does NOT have the comma, and therefore establishes only that wizards cast arcane spells and that those specific arcane spells are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list. You're attempting to use semantics to prove a point, and your grasp of semantics doesn't seem to be strong enough to do so.
Caelic 10-27-05, 09:23 PM	I think that the greatly increased precision of the rules is the reason for threads like this: We now have the expectation that the rules should be sufficient unto themselves (mostly) without recourse to the DM as arbitrator. It's a false premise and an unrealistic expectation, Fwib. As I've frequently pointed out, the idea of RAW as self-sufficient without DM interpretation is a myth. It is impossible to play the game without DM interpretation of the rules; this is an absolute.
Tleilaxu_Ghola 10-27-05, 09:26 PM	Argument by analogy will get us no-where. Let us deal with this problem like real men: using logical principals of mathematics. See above posts... which I'll admit get us no-where, but I don't feel like doing the requisite research right now. To Caelic... I think you're missing the meat of this argument. It lies not in what a wizard casts, but in how he prepares. Because it is easy to show that a wizard can cast what he can prepare. Now the tricky part is a direct negation or affirmation of whether or not the wizard can prepare ANYTHING that is written in his book.
Caelic 10-27-05, 09:31 PM	Spurious logic is spurious logic, TG--the analogy is simply there to demonstrate that his conclusions do not follow his postulates. We don't "have a problem," any more than we "have a problem" because the Sorceror doesn't explicitly say that it can't choose spells from any list at any time. We don't "have a problem" any more than we "have a problem" because the rules don't explicitly provide any penalties for the condition of "dead." A scant handful of very pliant DMs may have a problem because of this, but if they're so wishy-washy that they actually let such flawed logic persuade them, then I have no sympathy. Ultimately, this assertion is based on two things: 1. A misreading of the clauses in a complex sentence. 2. "The rules don't say I can't!" The former, I have attempted to correct already; the latter is the single biggest source of fallacy in rules arguments.
Tleilaxu_Ghola 10-27-05, 09:36 PM	... this need not be solved, nor can it be in a sane matter, by "semantics" or contextual analysis... commas, complex sentences, etc are meaningless. We need proof that a wizard cannot prepare ANY given spell out of her book --besides, Caelic you're trying way too hard poor ol' Glitch2 sound like an idiot. This is not constructive... and in your multitude of redundancy you're beginning to sound like an idiot... of course I've repeated myself about 3 times, but that's besides the point... :D
Glitch2 10-27-05, 10:08 PM	To Seeker of Truth: Only would confuse nothing. Spells a cleric casts are divine. Spells a wizard casts are arcane. A cleric 1/wizard 1 could only cast ARCANE spells from the sorcerer/wizard list and only cast DIVINE spells from the cleric list. You only cast spells as a wizard from spell slots you get from being a wizard. You only cast spells as a cleric from spell slots you get from being a cleric. No confusion. To X-Codes: That is not what I am saying. That is what you think I am saying. I have repeatedly pointed out what I AM saying. I will not respond to you anymore if you continue to try to tell me what I am trying to say when I clearly am not trying to or saying it. To Catharz: Where in the rules is this clearly stated? Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, she chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that she has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells. A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory. A wizard prepares spells from her spellbook. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic. Therefore, a wizard can prepare any spell in her spellbook. First you must choose which spell to cast. If you’re a cleric, druid, experienced paladin, experienced ranger, or wizard, you select from among spells prepared earlier in the day and not yet cast. A wizard can cast any spell she has prepared earlier in the day and not yet cast. There. A wizard can prepare any spell in her spellbook and cast it as long as she has not yet cast it. This strait out says what you are asking. Now, to see if this is 100% true, you must see if there is ANYTHING, ANYWHERE in the book that says otherwise. If you read my entire first post, you would have seen this. The thing in questions is this statement. A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. To Caelic: You do not have to take my word for it. Behold! The SRD in all it's glory. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 I personally like www.d20srd.org better. This is why I had to check when you said I had it wrong. I thought, well maybe d20srd.org had it wrong. They have always had the same things, word for word, as the SRD any other time i contrasted them. This whole 'that' argument is confusing me, especially so since there is no 'that' in the original argument. Here, I will try to make this sentence confusion as simple as possible. In the above, bolded statement, 'which' is a relative pronoun. Relative pronouns are used to join two clauses. Clauses can exist independent of each other if they fulfill the (Subject)(Verb) structure. Which is used as a stand in subject for the second clause in addition to joining the two clauses. A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. Seperate the clauses. Fill arcane spells (this is what 'which' is a relative pronoun of) in for which. A wizard casts arcane spells. Arcane spells are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. The only thing that I see limiting the wizards ability to cast spells is the spells he casts have to be arcane spells. They are already arcane because of this rule. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). I am tired. I have gone through this as slowly and as simply as I think I could have while maintaining the same example I wanted to have. This is my last post for thursday. I will be free to argue tomorrow after school. Goodnight everyone.
Caelic 10-27-05, 10:13 PM	Well, setting aside the irony inherent in telling someone they sound like an idiot right after you complain that telling someone they sound like an idiot isn't constructive, TG, your assertion doesn't hold water. You're demanding that we prove a negative, a feat that's generally impossible except in very specific cases. In any case with open-ended variables, it is impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove that little invisible men do not occupy my sugarbowl. You can't prove that there's not intelligent life in outer space. You can't prove that wizards can't cast any spell from their spellbook, because that is an open-ended variable: it's one of the areas of the rules left to DM discretion. The correct answer to the initial question--the only correct answer to the initial question--in fact, the only possible correct answer to the initial question--is "Yes, if the DM allows it." Quixotic quests for absolute black or white answers in areas of the rules that are explicitly left to DM adjudication are pointless.
20goingon1232 10-27-05, 10:21 PM	I wrote this in the other thread before spotting this one. I'll leave both in place for those that want to rebutt me: "There are two ways to look at the issue: The first is that a wizard (or an archivist for that matter, since they both use similar mechanics) cannot cast any spell that is not on any wizard/sorceror spell-list. That is, you take that line in the PHB to the extreme. If this is the case, then any spell that is not on that list, the wizard cannot cast, even if he CAN prepare them or have access to them. It is the phrase "from the wizard/sorceror spell-list" that prevents any spell, even if he knows them or have access to them or can prepare them, from being cast by the wizard. There is no exceptions. It makes all those PrCs virtually useless as the wizard cannot CAST the spells. What he can do is to use items with those spells. That is it. The second is Glitch's interpretation of it, which would make the PrCs more useful. That phrase applies to where the wizard USUALLY draw/research/learn their spells. There is nothing preventing the wizard from learning anything else. They just, by default, pick from that list, unless they do something special like spend time researching it. Given the limited number of spells wizards get (less than a cleric, let alone a sorceror) and the lack of special abilities (like a druid), and the fact that he suffers greatly from ASF and a severe lack of any profficiencies or skills other than a very narrow band, and an extremely low HD, I do not see any problems with wizards being able to scribe and prepare divine spells. Granted, my campaigns tend to be fast paced, with very little (if any) downtimes, and long times between rests or the party is on a schedule, and so, wierd combinations of spells tend not to crop up and magic Walmarts non-existent. Which wizard is going to spend a slot preparing CLW when Grease is more likely to stop that charging giant from turning his buddy into paste? Or more importantly, the Shield that is likely to prevent HIMSELF from being turned into paste by said giant?" As a side note, Caelic, you are being smarmy. Which is okay, as far as I am concerned. Just don't deny it.
catharz 10-27-05, 10:34 PM	The correct answer to the initial question--the only correct answer to the initial question--in fact, the only possible correct answer to the initial question--is "Yes, if the DM allows it." Caelic, I think you've finally got it :)
Caelic 10-27-05, 10:38 PM	The thing in questions is this statement. A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. This whole 'that' argument is confusing me, especially so since there is no 'that' in the original argument. Here, I will try to make this sentence confusion as simple as possible. In the above, bolded statement, 'which' is a relative pronoun. Relative pronouns are used to join two clauses. Clauses can exist independent of each other if they fulfill the (Subject)(Verb) structure. Which is used as a stand in subject for the second clause in addition to joining the two clauses. A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. Seperate the clauses. Fill arcane spells (this is what 'which' is a relative pronoun of) in for which. A wizard casts arcane spells. Arcane spells are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Ah. I see the confusion. You're confusing restrictive relative clauses with non-restrictive relative clauses. A restrictive relative clause lacks a comma, and provides essential information about the specific subject or object. This clause cannot be dissociated from the independent clause. You cannot seperate the clauses in a restrictive relative clause. Non-restrictive relative clauses contain commas, and provide additional information which is not essential to the specific subject or object and can be deleted. In essence, the relative clause is a distinct thought which can stand on its own. You can seperate the clauses in a non-restrictive relative clause. If the sentence contained a comma, the usage of "which" would be as you describe it. "A wizard casts arcane spells, which are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list" is a non-defining relative clause in which the clause can be seperated from the subject. "A wizard casts arcane spells" and "Arcane spells are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list" are, indeed, two independent thoughts in this instance. That is not, however, the case. The actual sentence: "A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list" involves a defining relative clause providing specific information about the object (the arcane spells cast by a wizard.) "which are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list" is, in this case, part of the complete object. This sentence does not express the independent thought "Arcane spells are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list." It also does not express the independent thought "Wizards cast arcane spells." The thoughts cannot stand alone. Another way to illustrate the difference between the sentence with the restrictive relative clause and the sentence with the non-restrictive relative clause is with parenthesis. RESTRICTIVE: Wizards cast (arcane spells which are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list.) NON-RESTRICTIVE: Wizards cast arcane spells (which are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list.) I, too, am tired, and probably not explaining this as well as I could be; if that's the case, I apologize. Teaching the finer points of grammar is my least favorite part of being an English teacher to begin with.
Tleilaxu_Ghola 10-27-05, 10:40 PM	Yay! Good job Caelic! You've correctly discovered that my last little jab was hypocritical, and is therefore ironic --as you've astutely stated. Now for the other part of my argument: proving that the contrapositive is either true or false. Again, you have correctly found the underlying problem in this arguement: it cannot be solved... easily. Without a direct statement from a higher source we may never resolve this issue. This is, of course, what I am trying to say... but couldn't properly express until Caelic's "discounting" of my argument. That said, I think that Caelic is right... though he seems to have arrived at a much different conclusion than I thought he was driving towards. Therefore I conclude that Glitch2's argument is neither RAW, nor is it illegal, and thus falls under the jurisdiction of WotC, should they decide to take up this fight, or by default under the jurisdiction of the DM. (Note, glitch2 thinks that the essential argument lies in the definition of the sor/wiz spell-list. I however, think that this is not the core question, as the sor/wiz list is (at least to me) a clearly defined thing. I hope Glitch2 does not take offense to me putting words into his mouth... no harm was intended.)
RadicalTaoist 10-27-05, 10:42 PM	Since everyone is into semantics... Linguistics and cognitive science teach us that meaning in language depends on context, and does not necessarily follow solid rules based on the form of the language. For example, when I say car repair, you know I'm talking about the car being the object that receives repair. When I say expert repair, you know I'm not talking about the expert getting repaired, I'm talking about the expert doing the repairing. The only way to prove that these lines mean the Wizard can cast any bloody spell he wants once he's prepared it from any scroll he can get his hot little hands on is to disprove the possibility that there is a safe semantic interpretation of the rules text which denies the Wizard this ability. Too late, that's impossible; Caelic has just proven that the text can be interpreted to that end. As far as I can tell, grammatically, logically, and semantically his interpretation is rock solid, and resistant to different context (that is to say, the context must be radically different for Caelic's interpretation to lose any meaning). So the best Glitch2 and anyone else wishing to prove the core Wizard can cast Divine Power can hope for is semantic ambiguity, and as Caelic has alluded, DMs deal with semantic ambiguity. The Divine Power-seeking wizard won't get any better than "The DM can choose between both interpretations and be safely in RAW." Of course, that's more or less saying "My wizard can do this if my DM lets him." Which is nice. My rogue can drop CL 50 supernatural Words of Chaos as a free action every round if my DM lets him.
Lokiyn 10-27-05, 10:43 PM	i'm in a hurry so i haven't time to go into this much but is there not a difference between Arcane spell slots and Divine spell slots? Character class (wizard) slots, Character class (sorc), Character Class (cleric), Character Class ( x ) slots? Spell lists from one class and spell lists from another class? You also might argue that a Wiz1/Sorc X can learn every spell like a wizard and cast them all spontaneously. so even if you have a divine spell in your book you don't have a divine slot to put it into. I might have a chance to get back to this later.
Caelic 10-27-05, 10:44 PM	As a side note, Caelic, you are being smarmy. Which is okay, as far as I am concerned. Just don't deny it. Smarmy? I deny it uncategorically. Supercilious, perhaps. Cantankerous, undeniably. Bombastic, all too frequently. But smarmy? You wound me, sir.
20goingon1232 10-27-05, 10:54 PM	i'm in a hurry so i haven't time to go into this much but is there not a difference between Arcane spell slots and Divine spell slots? Character class (wizard) slots, Character class (sorc), Character Class (cleric), Character Class ( x ) slots? Spell lists from one class and spell lists from another class? You also might argue that a Wiz1/Sorc X can learn every spell like a wizard and cast them all spontaneously. so even if you have a divine spell in your book you don't have a divine slot to put it into. I might have a chance to get back to this later. Not really. Take a level 10 Rainbow Servant's access to clerical spells. Divine or arcane? And note that the book (Complete Divine) also states that if the spells being cast (including Holy Word/Blasphemy, which is a heck of a lot more scary than Divine Power) are NOT on any wizard/sorceror spell list, they are cast as DIVINE spells. However, a wizard still has to know it, have it in a spellbook (does not have to be his) and have it prepared in order to cast it. BUT he CAN still cast it. At least according to the rules as written. Now, according to the FAQ, the PHB trumps just about everything. If the PHB states absolutely (as many are arguing here) that a wizard cannot cast any spell unless it is in a wizard/sorceror spell list, then the entire utility of the Rainbow Servant is made useless. He cannot cast most of the spells (and those he can cast, he can already do so without being a RS), and can only use items tied to those spells. This goes for any PrC that grants domains and/or divine spell access of any type that is tied to his arcane spellcasting class (including Divine Oracle and Sandshaper). The only logical conclusion is that the PHB's wording is NOT absolute, as it is proven that being absolute makes no sense. This is the only way I know of to prove a negative.
20goingon1232 10-27-05, 10:55 PM	Smarmy? I deny it uncategorically. Supercilious, perhaps. Cantankerous, undeniably. Bombastic, all too frequently. But smarmy? You wound me, sir. And I'll settle for that, my dear man. Death by a thousand cuts :D
catharz 10-27-05, 11:00 PM	Hey, what about PrCs like Sandshaper? Can a Wizard/Sandshaper scribe every Sandshaper spell into his spell book, but only cast those which appear on the sorcerer/wizard list?
Caelic 10-27-05, 11:00 PM	I'm just going to point out one more thing: you're arguing that the existence of prestige classes creates a contradiction with the PHB text. I would suggest that it does not. A wizard can only cast spells from the sorceror/wizard spell list. A Wizard/Rainbow Servant is not just a Wizard, though, and has capabilities that a straight wizard lacks. Just as a wizard/cleric can cast spells granted by his wizard class and spells granted by his cleric class, a Wizard/Rainbow Servant can cast spells granted by both of HIS classes. Abilities are additive; that's one of the basic premises of the game. And on that note...as it just finally occurred to me that I'm spending my free time attempting to explain restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, which I don't enjoy doing when I'm working, I will bid you all good evening.
RadicalTaoist 10-27-05, 11:01 PM	Hey, what about PrCs like Sandshaper? Can a Wizard/Sandshaper scribe every Sandshaper spell into his spell book, but only cast those which appear on the sorcerer/wizard list? I don't have Sandstorm on me. Please quote the relevant text of the ability.
20goingon1232 10-27-05, 11:06 PM	I don't have Sandstorm on me. Please quote the relevant text of the ability. The relevant text does not matter if the PHB states *absolutely* that wizards cannot cast any spell that is not in a wizard/sorceror spell list.
RadicalTaoist 10-27-05, 11:10 PM	The relevant text does not matter if the PHB states *absolutely* that wizards cannot cast any spell that is not in a wizard/sorceror spell list. Untrue. The PHB states that Quickened spells are free actions not swift actions, and we're past that aren't we? Stuff can be created afterwards that produces exceptions. Like the Rainbow Servant. 50% of the stuff out in new books now would be useless if they weren't allowed to create exceptions to the new rules. Please. Settle for being able to scribe and craft items with these spells; isn't that enough? EDIT: What Caelic says below. Thanks for an example.
Caelic 10-27-05, 11:10 PM	The relevant text does not matter if the PHB states *absolutely* that wizards cannot cast any spell that is not in a wizard/sorceror spell list. To reiterate: what a wizard can and cannot do is not the same as what a wizard/sandshaper can and cannot do. A sorceror can never learn the spell "Mordenkainen's Lucubration." A sorceror/wizard, however, CAN learn this spell. A prestige class may well allow a class to transcend an otherwise-absolute restriction. Druids cannot wear metal armor and retain their class abilities; this is an absolute. Foculucan Lyrist, however, allows the Druid to transcend that absolute restriction.
catharz 10-27-05, 11:12 PM	I don't have Sandstorm on me. Please quote the relevant text of the ability. Desert Insight: As a member of this class, you gain knowledge of additional spells (see the list below). If you were a caster who previously prepared spells (such as a wizard), you can prepare these spells just like any other spell to which you have access. If you are a spontanious caster...These spells become options for you when you gain access to the appropriate spell level. [list] So, we know that wizards can scribe spells which aren't on the sorc/wiz spell list into their spell books, and we know that wizards prepare spells from their spell books. The question is if wizards can cast spell which they have prepared which aren't on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. If they can't, "Desert Insight" is useless to wizards (unless it grants them a spell which they could normally cast at a lower level than normal). The text of Anyspell gives evidence that the wizard would be able to cast the said spells. Althought it never specifically grants clerics the ability to cast the arcane spells which they have prepared, it does assume that they can. And I'd argue that [QUOTE=RadicalTaoist]...the Rainbow Servant is for sorcerers and Warmages. [Another edit] Here is where that thing about preparation comes from: Spells Copied from Another’s Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). [It continues, but never specifically mentions the Sorcerer/Wizard list] Actually, the "PREPARING WIZARD SPELLS" section actually never specifically says that wizards can only prepare spells which are in their spellbooks, just that they must have their spellbooks to prepare spells. It probably says the magic words elsewhere.
g23armani 10-27-05, 11:17 PM	A wizard prepares spells from her spellbook. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic. Therefore, a wizard can prepare any spell in her spellbook. This is flawed reasoning. Let us think of an example to illustrate this: Let's say you have these two statements, which are analagous to the statement about wizards and spellbooks: A seal eats things from the sea. A seal cannot eat anything not in the sea except for seagulls. Would we then conclude that a seal could eat anything in the sea? Can a seal eat a shipwreck? Can a seal eat a submarine? There is no context that would make us assume that a seal is capable of eating a shipwreck or a submarine--even though those items reside in the ocean--just as there is no context that supports the idea that a wizard can prepare a divine spell. The statement does not prove that a wizard can prepare any spell in their spellbook, it simply means he can prepare read magic without the use of a spellbook, and that all his other spells are drawn from his spellbook. On a further note, Caelic is right about the use of grammar. This sentance--A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list--Is read like this: A wizard casts (arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list). You need a comma after arcane spells to interpret the sentance in a way that supports your argument. And one more note referring to my first question: do you honestly believe that the 3.x rules intended for wizards to be able to learn any spell? Because if the vast majority of gamers are very clear about this rule, and even those that believe you COULD argue that wizards can cast any spell through this loophole realize the true intent of the rules (READ: Wizards are not supposed to be able to cast divine spells), I see no reason for WotC to make changes to or clarify the rules as written. G23armani
nihility 10-27-05, 11:27 PM	I see no reason for WotC to make changes to or clarify the rules as written.Quite so. This thread has successfully convinced me, mostly thanks to Caelic, that this notion of unfettered casting is not supported in the rules. It never even occurred to me that one could try to read the text to mean anything else, Caelic has demonstrated why one shouldn't to excellent precision, and I can't imagine why the text should be revised. Indeed, I doubt that the text could be revised in such a way as to be both readable and to utterly resist this sort of interpretation. I'd like to be able to contribute something, but I feel as though all the salient points have been made. Thus, I shall simply throw in my support with a rather pointless "me too" post.
20goingon1232 10-27-05, 11:29 PM	To reiterate: what a wizard can and cannot do is not the same as what a wizard/sandshaper can and cannot do. A sorceror can never learn the spell "Mordenkainen's Lucubration." A sorceror/wizard, however, CAN learn this spell. A prestige class may well allow a class to transcend an otherwise-absolute restriction. Druids cannot wear metal armor and retain their class abilities; this is an absolute. Foculucan Lyrist, however, allows the Druid to transcend that absolute restriction. The only sticking point with Glitch's argument is the fact that you are not convinced that it is not an absolute fact that wizards cannot cast non-arcane spells or arcane spells that is NOT drawn from the wizard/sorceror spell list. Or, to stop using all the negatives (which is probably making Caelic's eyes bleed, given his profession), the PHB, according to you, states absolutely, that wizards can only cast spells that is in a wizard/sorceror spell list. According to the FAQ, anything that clashes with the PHB is wrong. If there is such an absolute statement in the PHB, then anything that clashes with it is automatically wrong. This includes ALL PrCs, as the PHB even trump the DMG, IIRC. So, there you have it. Either it is absolute, which would invalidate or weaken to the point of "why bother" a few PrCs, or it is not, which would mean that wizards can cast just about anything they can scribe. To err on the side of caution, nerfing the PrCs is the better option without a doubt. But is this the real case? That we do not know nor do we have the right to say absolutely. By the way, the swift action argument is not valid simply because there was no swift action when the PHB was written. There was, however, divine and arcane spells.
RadicalTaoist 10-27-05, 11:55 PM	According to the FAQ, anything that clashes with the PHB is wrong. That's ridiculous. Even PrCs (which require the DMG to exist) are trumped. Tons of new material is absolutely useless if you take this to the extreme. By the way, the swift action argument is not valid simply because there was no swift action when the PHB was written. There was, however, divine and arcane spells. There was no Rainbow Servant either. Looking at Desert Insight, it does screw wizards, doesn't it? Unless you use the Anyspell interpretation Catharz mentions (although I have less sympathy there; Anyspell deserves the ban). That does raise two issues, though. If Catharz' second edit (about needing a spellbook to prepare spells, not preparing spells from their spellbook) is true, that might cut out deciphered scroll spells from the spellbook (you could still use them to supply spells for crafting items, though).
20goingon1232 10-28-05, 12:05 AM	Actually, none of the PrCs in the DMG causes clashes with the PHB in this way. Most PrCs don't cause clashes with the PHB in this way. This is actually the first time I have seen something like this happen and on such a scale. Now, you see the problem I am having with the less liberal interpretation of that phrase? And there was PrCs, which means the RS has a precedent... of sorts. Swift action was introduced in the Psi Handbook, I believe. Catharz is correct, except that in the spell preparation part of the PHB, it also says the wizard must read his spellbook to prepare the spells. Which would include all of the spells in the spellbook (scribed from a scroll or not, and including any divine spells he happened to have doodled into the book). He can prepare any of them. To my knowledge, nowhere does it say you can prepare spells from any other source than a spellbook (and it need not even be your own, although you will need a spellcraft or concentration check to pull it off, I can't remember which one exactly).
catharz 10-28-05, 12:56 AM	Catharz is correct, except that in the spell preparation part of the PHB, it also says the wizard must read his spellbook to prepare the spells. Which would include all of the spells in the spellbook (scribed from a scroll or not, and including any divine spells he happened to have doodled into the book). He can prepare any of them. To my knowledge, nowhere does it say you can prepare spells from any other source than a spellbook (and it need not even be your own, although you will need a spellcraft or concentration check to pull it off, I can't remember which one exactly). I think you're missing the point. You have to read your spellbook to prepare spells, but I don't see where it says that the spells you prepare while reading your spellbook must actually be in the book.
Tleilaxu_Ghola 10-28-05, 01:18 AM	I think you're missing the point. You have to read your spellbook to prepare spells, but I don't see where it says that the spells you prepare while reading your spellbook must actually be in the book. Umm... care to read that one out loud to yourself and ponder its meaning? If you are right... which I don't care to check... then wizards are just like clerics and can prepare any spell they want so long as it is on their list even if it's not written in their book. *sigh* I can't believe this is still going on. It's quite clear to me that by RAW no argument can be properly made either way... but MOST CERTAINLY by the spirit of the law it is clear that wizards are unable to do this. Since the buck stops at the DM... and we assume the DM to have basic cognitive functions... I think it is safe to assume this trick will never be allowed, as the reasoning supporting it is far too weak. By the way, :cookie: Cookies to Caelic for excellent use of the word Quixotic. Holy crap it almost gave me shivers down my spine. Quixotic quests for absolute black or white answers in areas of the rules that are explicitly left to DM adjudication are pointless. simply beautiful... no sarcasm... seriously
Mistwell 10-28-05, 01:36 AM	To Mistwell: I am not trying to get this implemented into a game. I am merely trying to prove, that by RAW wizards can cast any spell in the game. The creator of Pun-Pun was congradulated for making the best character ever. He was once responded to with "why do you make him when a DM will never allow him" and someone else defended him, saying "Character Optimization is not for making the best charcters that a reasonable DM would allow. It is for making the best characters that the rules allow." Pun-Pun was funny. It was done for a laugh. Sophistry is not funny. It's done for ego.
catharz 10-28-05, 01:54 AM	I've never seen so many philosophers and english majors in one thread...
X-Codes 10-28-05, 02:10 AM	A DM would sooner allow Pun-Pun than this. Pun-Pun exploted rules that said what you can do. This exploits rules (or rather lack thereof) that nothing says you can't do it. I still consider this a failed attempt to cheat. It goes against all the preconceptions of wizards from the days of old and simply bugs me to no end in much the same way the Archivist does. No sane person could possibly have wanted the wizard to be able to cast all the spells in the PHB without noting at least once somewhere along the lines that the wizard can cast any spell she has written down. I'm tempted to change my major to psycology just to prove it, too.
BurgerKing 10-28-05, 07:10 AM	Yey! My turn to add... interesting thread... 1) If i ever find a DM who says a 'Yes' to this thread title (Can a wizard cast any spell?) I will only play a wizard and laugh at all the other casters' puny spell lists. I think no one else will play another type of caster. 2) If i am the DM, and my player comes up to me with his thread printed out and trying to be funny with me, I smack him in the face with my PHB and say 'READ LIKE A NORMAL PERSON! Left to right, top to bottom!' As any normal educated person know, how do you read a book, sentence or paragraph? Top to bottom, left to right. What's the first important statement that comes along in the PHB wizard entry under 'Spells'? 1) A wizard casts arcane spells... blah... prepare her spells ahead of time. - PHB page 56, column 2, line 11, under 'Class Features', sub-heading 'Spells' 2) She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook. - PHB page 57, column 2, line 6 from top, under sub-heading Spellbooks. 2) If the magical writing was a scroll and the reader can casts arcane spells, she can attempt to use the scroll. - PHB page 178, column 2, 2nd paragraph, 4th line, under sub-heading Arcane Magical Writings. It's so clear to me... I don't care about red, blue or white beef, I don't care about green, yellow or white milk, I don't care about microwaves or radiation (actually i do care... gona have to throw my old microzave away) or commors, periods or whatever funny analogies. To me, first and foremost, a wizard casts arcane spells. He can cast spells from his rear end or nose or wand or eyes or whatever, he casts arcane spells. Then next, he can only cast spells from a special group, the Wizard/Sorcerer list. I don't care if the mother of all gods gave him a book of arcane cleric spells, a tome of arcane paladin spells or what not. As long as the spell is not on that list, the wizard has no access to it (of course this is where PrCs come in to expand his horizons). By way of common sense, all spells within this special group should be arcane or those spells will be useless. Next look at page 178, as i quoted from above, if the wizard use Read Magic and found a divine scroll, can she use it? When i say use, i meant in the most broadest way possible. 'No' (unless through UMD) to using the divine scroll as a napkin, 'no' to using the divine scroll to fold paper planes and difinately 'no' to scribing it to her spellbook as I believe 'scribing' a scroll is 'using' a scroll. So consider this, if she CANNOT SCRIBE the divine scroll into her book, how can she prepare that divine spell since the divine spell is not in her spellbook? No spell in book, no divne spell to cast. Remember, always read left to right anf top to bottom.
Part-Human2 10-28-05, 07:58 AM	I can't believe this is up to 2 pages. Why do people try to read the rules so hard looking for loopholes -- so hellbent on looking for loopholes they turn off common sense? I mean people, the books don't say that you have to fire an arrow from a bow with the pointy end toward the enemy. Does that mean DMs should allow PCs to fire the arrow sideways with the end of the bow instead of the bowstring? My logic is actually this. A wizard casts arcane spells. If a wizard casts a spell, it is considered part of the sorcerer/wizard spell list. This hurts my brain! Why would you think a Wizard could even Cast the spell to get it on his list if he can't cast non-arcane spells not on his list? That's not logic; that's insanity. It's something Spock would say to confuse a computer. My God. Now I'm drawn into this. Stop the insanity!
Lilt 10-28-05, 08:22 AM	A wizard prepares spells from her spellbook. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic. Therefore, a wizard can prepare any spell in her spellbook. Not true. A->B =/= !A->!B Logic tables for implication ( -> ) A B Result 0 0 Valid 0 1 Valid 1 0 Invalid 1 1 Valid Notice that swapping 1s for 0s and 0s for 1s does not result in the same set of results. This is a basic logical fallacy, in this case A is "The spell is in the wizard's spell book" and B is "the wizard can cast the spell". You're saying that A->B because !A->!B, which is false.
Fwib 10-28-05, 11:55 AM	It's a false premise and an unrealistic expectation, Fwib. As I've frequently pointed out, the idea of RAW as self-sufficient without DM interpretation is a myth. It is impossible to play the game without DM interpretation of the rules; this is an absolute.I didn't intend it to be a premise, I intended it as commentary on the change to 3rd Ed. I agree it is probably impossible to create a usable system requiring no DM interpretation and I didn't intend to claim it as an ironclad expectation - but I do think it would be better to reduce the workload on the DM by having rules which are less capable of multiple contradictory interpretations. I don't claim that the RAW are perfect, they are certainly capable of being greatly improved.
DDogwood 10-28-05, 01:30 PM	Now, the real question is 'Do wizard spells have to be drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list in the following statement? A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list.'. Although I have enough training in formal logic to poke holes in your argument, a number of other posters have already done a good job at this. In an attempt to nail this coffin shut, however, I raise the following point: You want to take the statement "A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list" and interpret it such that the Wizard can cast any spell which is defined as Arcane. I took a look at the spellcasting abilities of other base classes, and found that they each use virtually identical phrasing. For example: A bard casts arcane spells, which are drawn from the bard spell list. A cleric casts divine spells, which are drawn from the cleric spell list. A druid casts divine spells, which are drawn from the druid spell list. A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Beginning at 4th level, a paladin gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells, which are drawn from the paladin spell list. By your reasoning, Bards and Sorcerers can also learn to cast any spell, as long as some Wizard has written it down somewhere as an Arcane spell. The SRD does not specify that Bards and Sorcerers have to choose new spells from those lists, therefore they can choose spells from ANY list. Likewise, all Divine spells are drawn from the Cleric list. Or from the Druid list. no, wait, they are drawn from the Paladin list. Sigh - the only possible way we can interpret this, without horrible paradoxes, is that each class can only learn, prepare, and cast spells that exist on the list referenced in the class description. By a really strict ruling, of course, Clerics can't actually cast some Domain spells - they can only prepare them. See, not all Domain spells are on the Cleric list.
catharz 10-28-05, 02:37 PM	I don't think that anyone is arguing that spells which aren't on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list are on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. It is that wizards can cast spells which are on the S/W list, and spells which arent (provided the spells have been prepared). The argument is that wizards (only wizards and those who prepare & scribe spells in a manner identical to the wizard) can (1) scribe any spell from any scroll they decipher into their spell books, (2) prepare any spell for their spell books, and (3) cast any spell which they have prepared. One of the arguments for wizards being able to cas any spell which they have prepared is that researched spells can be cast, and are arguably not on the Sorcerer/Wizards spell list. Another is classes (like Sandshaper) which allow the wizard to learn (scribe into his spellbook) spells which are not on the sorcerer/wizard list.
NineInchNall 10-28-05, 03:35 PM	You're demanding that we prove a negative, a feat that's generally impossible except in very specific cases. In any case with open-ended variables, it is impossible to prove a negative. Um, Caelic? That's not precisely true. Proof of negative ontological statements is very possible, and in fact it must be possible. The only type of proof of a negative statement that is capital-H Hard is a strong inductive proof. Deductive proofs can easily prove negative ontological statements. There are also real world, empirical proof methodologies that are logically valid. For example, if person A claims that he ground up person B's computer and sent its remains to the four winds, then we should be able to look at B's computer desk and see that his original computer is not there. If it is not, then A's claim is false. This second type is essentially what we are attempting here. :) (If you already knew all of that, then I apologize. It's just that, "you can't prove a negative," is one of my pet peeves.) In any case, to go back to an earlier issue, I would contend that to say, "A boy drinks milk that is white," does not indicate that the boy only drinks white milk. To wit, one can say, "The boy drinks milk that is white, and the boy drinks milk that is brown," without hint of contradiction. Would you agree, Caelic, or am I talking out of my posterior again? Of course, I'm (once again) with you on this one. A wizard's ability to cast spells outside his spell list should be left up to a group's interpretation. And so it's with a heavy heart that I consign this issue to the same cabinet where I keep things like my observation that nowhere does it say that summon monster spells are limited to summoning the most basic version of a given monster. *sigh*
Glitch2 10-28-05, 04:04 PM	Thank you Cathraz. To Caelic, Page 2, Post 1: Yes. We are telling you to prove the negative. We have already proved the positive (a wizard can cast a spell he has prepared and has not yet cast) with this rule. First you must choose which spell to cast. If you’re a cleric, druid, experienced paladin, experienced ranger, or wizard, you select from among spells prepared earlier in the day and not yet cast . So a wizard CAN cast any spell he has prepared, unless another rule says he cannot. It is your job to prove that there is another rule that says he cannot. Now to Caelic's second post on page 2: It does not matter if it is a restrictive relative clause. It would restrict arcane spells. It would not restrict spells a wizard can cast. If Arcane spells are restricted to being on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list, then they are also restricted by having to be on the Bard list too because that uses the same wording. Is this what you are saying? If it is non-restrictive (as I say it is), spellcasters can actually cast spells that are uniquely on their spell list. To Radical Taoist: If you take Caelic's interpretation, it totally screws over MANY, MANY, MANY feats, classes, and PrCs. Divine spells would also be restricted to having to be on the Cleric list and on the Druid list in order for ANY cleric or druid to cast them. Is this what you are saying? To Lokiyn: It does not say you need a divine slot to prepare divine spells. It only says "A Wizard can not prepare any spell not in her spellbook". This also means "Wizards can only prepare spells in her spellbook." There is no other restriction on what spells a wizard can prepare. If it is in her spellbook, she can prepare it. To Caelic on post number 42 on the second page: Yes, Rainbow Servent can cast cleric spells by your reasoning. On the otherhand, by your wording, spells learned from Sandshaper, Arcane Disciple, Extra Spell, Recaster cannot be cast at all. Also, Anyspell does not allow the a cleric to cast the arcane spell by your reasoning. These are reasons why your statement is false. To Radical Taoist on post number 45 on page 2: It says he adds the spells to his spells known but not his spell list. He could not cast it by Caelic's ruling. This is not directly from the book, this is what other's have said his ability is. To Caelic on post number 46 on page number 2: It does not add the spell to his spell list, so unless it says "The Sandshaper can cast these spells even though they are not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list." he cannot cast them. To Cathraz on page 2 on post number 47: Thank you. Your reasonings agree with mine. Additionally, It only says "A Wizard can not prepare any spell not in her spellbook". This also means "Wizards can only prepare spells in her spellbook." There is no other restriction on what spells a wizard can prepare. If it is in her spellbook, she can prepare it. This is under spellbooks under class features, under wizard, under classes 2 in the SRD. To g23armani on page 2 on post number 48: This is a wrong conclusion on your part. A seal is limited by it's physical capabilities. There are no physical cababilities restricting the preparation of spells. The only restrictions are rules in the rulebook. There are no other restrictions for preparation of spells from a spellbook besides those I have said in this thread. To Radical Taoist on page 2, post number 51: Once again, It only says "A Wizard can not prepare any spell not in her spellbook". This also means "Wizards can only prepare spells in her spellbook." There is no other restriction on what spells a wizard can prepare. If it is in her spellbook, she can prepare it. This is under spellbooks under class features, under wizard, under classes 2 in the SRD. That is in my very first post. Wizards prepare spells from their spellbook and can only prepare spells in their spellbook. To X-Codes on page 2, post number 57: I said I wouldn't respond to you, and here I am, responding.... There is a rule that says wizards CAN cast any spell you prepare. The only way for a wizard not to be able to cast any spell he can prepare would be another rule saying he cannot. See this: First you must choose which spell to cast. If you’re a cleric, druid, experienced paladin, experienced ranger, or wizard, you select from among spells prepared earlier in the day and not yet cast . So a wizard CAN cast any spell he has prepared, unless another rule says he cannot. It is your job to prove that there is another rule that says he cannot. To Burgerking on page 2, post 58: You give no proof that the wizard does not have access to the spells. I have given proof that they do. BTW, there is a rule that says the spell must be on his spell list in order for him to even begin activating the spell from a scroll (or other spell completion item), so that argument fails also. I have already proven that a wizard can indeed scribe divine spells into her spellbook IN MY FIRST POST. Always remember, rulebooks must be taken as a whole. BTW things with proof always override things with no proof. To Part-Human on page 2, post number 59: The was I interpreted that, wizards can cast spells that are not on their spell list. After they cast the spell, it is considered to be on that wizard's spell list. To DDogwood on page 3 (thank God I am here) post number 62: By my reasoning, they have to prepare the spell before they cast it, or for spontaneous spellcaster, they must know the spell before they cast it. I wanted to provide something big to say now, but As I get here, I have less time than I need to prepare for work. I will provide my statement after work (9 PM EST). Once again, I have given reasons why those who disagree with me are wrong. Every person. Took me 1 hour, 15 mins just to respond.
RadicalTaoist 10-28-05, 04:40 PM	To Radical Taoist: If you take Caelic's interpretation, it totally screws over MANY, MANY, MANY feats, classes, and PrCs. Divine spells would also be restricted to having to be on the Cleric list and on the Druid list in order for ANY cleric or druid to cast them. Is this what you are saying? Take another look at my post on semantic ambiguity, and note I've never said your interpretation is unsound. What's to keep the DM from choosing one interpretation in one case and the other in others? If the rules are not consistent, there's no need for the DM to be, and considering that multiple interpretations are sound he's safely inside RAW either way. So a DM can take Caelic's interpretation on Wizard's without said feats or PrCs or whatever, take your interpretation on wizard's with Sandshaper levels or Arcane Disciple or whatever, and still be totally RAW. To Radical Taoist on post number 45 on page 2: It says he adds the spells to his spells known but not his spell list. He could not cast it by Caelic's ruling. This is not directly from the book, this is what other's have said his ability is. Ah, thanks for clearing it up. To Radical Taoist on page 2, post number 51: Once again, It only says "A Wizard can not prepare any spell not in her spellbook". This also means "Wizards can only prepare spells in her spellbook." There is no other restriction on what spells a wizard can prepare. If it is in her spellbook, she can prepare it. This is under spellbooks under class features, under wizard, under classes 2 in the SRD. That is in my very first post. Wizards prepare spells from their spellbook and can only prepare spells in their spellbook. That's good. That would make the Wizard an unlimited Sorceror. Frankly some of the possible extrapolations of the rules-interpretations make my head hurt.
DDogwood 10-28-05, 05:06 PM	To DDogwood on page 3 (thank God I am here) post number 62: By my reasoning, they have to prepare the spell before they cast it, or for spontaneous spellcaster, they must know the spell before they cast it. The rules don't state that a Bard or Sorcerer can only learn spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list; they state that they "cast arcane spells, which are found on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list". This statement, along with the similar statements in the class features of every base class, must be taken as exclusive. Because your reasoning hinges on the ability of a Wizard to make any spell into an Arcane spell, that necessarily allows Sorcerers and Bards to cast any Arcane spells, unless this statement is taken to be exclusive. So you are either arguing that Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bards can all cast any spell, or that they can only cast spells that are on their respective spell lists. There is no "option C". As follows: Adding Spells to a Sorcerer’s or Bard’s Repertoire A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time he attains a new level in his class and never gains spells any other way. When your sorcerer or bard gains a new level, consult Table: The Bard or Table: Sorcerer Spells Known to learn how many spells from the appropriate spell list he now knows. With permission, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of. While the rules say "from the appropriate list", they do not specify what list is "appropriate". Given your liberal interpretation of how Wizards cast spells, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that any list is "appropriate". Furthermore, there is a specific caveat in the Bard and Sorcerer section which tells us that they can select "new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of". If the dangling preposition there does not underscore the fact that the authors are not overly meticulous with their phrasing, the sentence can easily be interpreted to mean that they can learn spells from any caster provided that they have "gained some understanding of" these spells. There is not an option for Wizards to be able to learn "any" spell, and for Sorcerers and Bards to be limited in their spells. They can either ALL learn any spell, or NONE of them can learn "any" spell. Honestly, trying to argue that Wizards can cast "any" spell is the worst kind of rules-lawyering there is.
startide1 10-28-05, 05:15 PM	Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, she chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that she has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells. A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory. It doesn't say that a wizard is allowed prepare everything in his spellbook, only that it must be in his spellbook to even consider it. Nowhere does it say that a wizard can prepare divine spells from his spellbook. It also doesn't need to, because it is absurd to think you can. Divine spells can be written down and deciphered just as arcane spells can (see Arcane Magical Writings). Any character with the Spellcraft skill can attempt to decipher the divine magical writing and identify it. However, only characters who have the spell in question (in its divine form) on their class spell list can cast a divine spell from a scroll. That doesn't make it an arcane spell and it doesn't allow you to prepare it as a wizard. The text clearly states that you can not copy spells from a school you are prohibited from casting, and I think it goes without too much thought to say that wizards are prohibited from casting divine spells, because they don't even belong to an allowed school. So a wizard can copy a spell from a magic scroll from any source into her spellbook once she makes the apropriate checks and deciphers them The text you quoted does not say that at all. When it says "no matter what the source" it is refering to whether it comes from a scroll or a spellbook, like it mentions in the previous sentance. It does not say a scroll from any source. A wizard can decipher divine scrolls, but cannot cast off of divine scrolls. If he is not permitted to cast a spell from a scroll, it is no different than than him not being able to cast off of an evocation spell scroll if it is prohibitted (he can decipher those too). You cannot write spells into your spellbook from scrolls you cannot cast. You spend a day studying the scroll, and at the end of the day, you are still unable to cast it, so you cannot copy it into your spellbook. Last - nowhere in the PHB does it say that a 1st level fighter cannot spontaniously crap out a bowl of chicken soup, so they must be able to. - prove me wrong.
DDogwood 10-28-05, 05:34 PM	Last - nowhere in the PHB does it say that a 1st level fighter cannot spontaniously crap out a bowl of chicken soup, so they must be able to. - prove me wrong. I thought that was what happened when the Fighter fails a Will save vs. Fear. But good point.
Xeraph 10-28-05, 05:54 PM	Im sorry, this just seemed to fit very well in here. http://www.pricenetwork.ca/gallery/albums/userpics/10047/normal_lamepost.jpg Biggest discussion about the smallest loophole. Well, sorry again, carry on guys. :D
NineInchNall 10-28-05, 06:34 PM	It also doesn't need to, because it is absurd to think you can. It's wrong because it's obviously wrong? That doesn't make it an arcane spell and it doesn't allow you to prepare it as a wizard. ... that wizards are prohibited from casting divine spells, because they don't even belong to an allowed school. All spells belong to schools, except for wish and limited wish. By the text, a spell a wizard casts is arcane. It's not written an, "if it's arcane, then a wizard can cast it." That's the issue at hand. Last - nowhere in the PHB does it say that a 1st level fighter cannot spontaniously crap out a bowl of chicken soup, so they must be able to. - prove me wrong. That's something of a straw man. Tsk. :P
Caelic 10-28-05, 06:37 PM	The only sticking point with Glitch's argument is the fact that you are not convinced that it is not an absolute fact that wizards cannot cast non-arcane spells or arcane spells that is NOT drawn from the wizard/sorceror spell list. Or, to stop using all the negatives (which is probably making Caelic's eyes bleed, given his profession), the PHB, according to you, states absolutely, that wizards can only cast spells that is in a wizard/sorceror spell list. Well, no. No, it isn't. The sticking point with Glitch's argument is that it's predicated on such a heap of logical fallacies that trying to pin them all down is like attempting to duct-tape kittens. Just when you get one of them locked down, another one squirts out and you have to chase IT around. And, frankly, it's not worth the effort. I COULD spend another three hours attempting to explain the difference between definitive and non-definitive relative clauses to him, but it doesn't seem to have had any effect on his belief that "Wizards cast arcane spells which are drawn from the wizard/sorceror spell list" can be seperated into two independent clauses. I COULD once again point out the basic logical fallacy inherent in "Wizards cast prepared spells, prepared spells come from the wizard's spellbook, therefore the wizard can prepare and cast any spell in his spellbook"...but THAT doesn't seem to have had much effect. And I'm forced to ask: WHY are we doing this, again? His argument is irrelevant. He can make as many posts as he likes, and it will still BE irrelevant...because the game is not semantic arguments, ultimately; the game is something that is played, and the game is not played as he seems to think it should be. Ninety-nine point ninety nine percent of D&D games will go on just as they did before--with wizards preparing spells from the sorceror/wizard spell list, expanded by whatever sources the DM deems valid. If he wants to believe that he...and only he...knows the One True Way in which D&D should be played, then more power to him...and good luck to him in attempting to convince any DM to accept his rather unique brand of logic. So: as I said, good luck to Glitch in his quest to declare spell lists null and void. Me? I have kittens to duct tape.
RadicalTaoist 10-28-05, 07:45 PM	Me? I have kittens to duct tape. MRAOW! *shhhrripppp* As the coiner of a phrase now well-known on the Psionics board, I couldn't let this opportunity pass.
BurgerKing 10-28-05, 07:45 PM	To Burgerking on page 2, post 58: You give no proof that the wizard does not have access to the spells. I have given proof that they do. BTW, there is a rule that says the spell must be on his spell list in order for him to even begin activating the spell from a scroll (or other spell completion item), so that argument fails also. I have already proven that a wizard can indeed scribe divine spells into her spellbook IN MY FIRST POST. Always remember, rulebooks must be taken as a whole. BTW things with proof always override things with no proof. You have not proven anything my friend! Read my post slowly... 1) Like I said, read from left to right, top to bottom again. The first thing you read is that a sorcerer casts arcane spells. Then you read that they can only draw their spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list, therefore, if you have arcane cleric/druid/rogue/paladin/chickenhead spell list, they don't work. 2) I think you read my post wrong... I said a wizard cannot use a scroll if the scroll is not arcane, therefore if you find a divine scroll, can u scribe it? No cause scribing is also a form of using. That means so folding paper planes with divine scrolls, no wiping your rearend with divine scrolls. BTW, in your first post, I did not see any of the proof you mentioned. All I see is someone saying 'If the rule book did not say humans cannot drive without a driver's permit, that means all humans can drive without a driver's permit.' Sometimes, you need to read slowly and from left to right, and top to bottom... like a normal person. edit: So a wizard can decipher any spell that is on a scroll or in a spellbook so long as she makes the apropriate checks or uses read magic. I reread your first post... this is your interpretation right? HELLO! Can you say 'ARCANE SPELLS' only? Where does it say a wizard can scribe a divine scroll? Your so-called proof is not valid. If you are a DM, I do want to play in your game though.
kisinith 10-28-05, 09:19 PM	From the SRD --- To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements. *The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class.) *The user must have the spell on his or her class list. *The user must have the requisite ability score. If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell’s caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell’s caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll’s caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps, below). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. --- This defines it in 2 ways. First by type, Arcane or Divine, second by class list wizard/sorcerer or bard. As it is written A wizard cannot use a cleric scroll at all. It is divine thus failing the first requirement. A bard spell however is arcane so meets the first requriement but fails the second as it is not on the right spell list.
General_Ridley 10-28-05, 09:45 PM	to Glitch: The spells on the Wixard/Sorceror list are Arcane. A wizard could copy Miracle into his book, but simply because its in the book does not mean its arcane. To be Arcane, it must be on an Arcane spell list. for the wizard to be able to use it, it must be on the specific spell list entitled Sorceror/Wizard. Your point has been torn up here by members such as caelic, but I must tell you that arguing your point further will produce nothing beneficial for you, as you merely pull your arguments from your butt when you are beat.
catharz 10-28-05, 10:14 PM	It doesn't say that a wizard is allowed prepare everything in his spellbook, only that it must be in his spellbook to even consider it. Nowhere does it say that a wizard can prepare divine spells from his spellbook. It also doesn't need to, because it is absurd to think you can. It also doesn't say that a wizard can cast spells on tuesdays, but guess what, I assume they do because it doesn't say they can't. That doesn't make it an arcane spell and it doesn't allow you to prepare it as a wizard. The text clearly states that you can not copy spells from a school you are prohibited from casting, and I think it goes without too much thought to say that wizards are prohibited from casting divine spells, because they don't even belong to an allowed school. You don't understand what a "school" is. All spells are drawn from the same set of schools: Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, Transmutation, and Universal. If a wizard specializes, they loose access to one or more schools. So, for example, a Conjurer might not be able to cast Command undead (prohibited school: Necromancy), but could still cast Lesser Planar Ally. The text you quoted does not say that at all. When it says "no matter what the source" it is refering to whether it comes from a scroll or a spellbook, like it mentions in the previous sentance. It does not say a scroll from any source. Obviously. That isn't the important part, the important part is "A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook." No requirement that it must me on the S/W list, only that it must be on a scroll the wizard encounters. A wizard can decipher divine scrolls, but cannot cast off of divine scrolls. If he is not permitted to cast a spell from a scroll, it is no different than than him not being able to cast off of an evocation spell scroll if it is prohibitted (he can decipher those too). You cannot write spells into your spellbook from scrolls you cannot cast. You spend a day studying the scroll, and at the end of the day, you are still unable to cast it, so you cannot copy it into your spellbook. I think that I've already explained your confusion about what a "school" is. If we assume the second pary is true ("You cannot write spells into your spellbook from scrolls you cannot cast.") then a wizard is necissarily able to cast any spell it his spellbook. And so can cast any spell in the spellbook, even if it isn't on the S/W list. Last - nowhere in the PHB does it say that a 1st level fighter cannot spontaniously crap out a bowl of chicken soup, so they must be able to. - prove me wrong. Well, I can't prove you wrong, beyond saying that unlike wizards being able to scribe any scroll spells they decipher into their spellbooks, the chicken soup crap is a house-rule. From the SRD --- To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements... Deciphering and copying a scroll isn't actually "using" it. If it were that simple, UMD would be a fool-proof way of copying any scroll into a spellbook. P.S., is there any reason that everyone seems to be dealing with Glitch2's weak 'arguments' instead of my good ones? Is it just that I'm a bastard? :turkey:
Glitch2 10-28-05, 10:14 PM	To Radical Taoist: If you take my interpretation of the rule, all the rules are consistent and there is no need to alternate between multiple rulesHowever, Caelic's interpretation of the rule messes up other game rules. Is the interpretation that contradicts other game rules correct, or is the interpretation that does not contradict given rules correct? Is it that hard to see which is right? And how does that make him an unlimited sorcerer? He still cannot cast spontaneously. To DDogwood: There is also the rule that sorcerers and bards can only cast spells they know. There is also the rule that bards and sorcerers can only learn spells from the appropriate list. Appropriate means 'Suitable for a particular person'. Would the cleric list be suitable for a sorcerer, or would the sorcerer list be suitable for a sorcerer? Is that so hard to know? Yes, they can select "new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of". However, unlike wizards learning spells, there are no rules fro sorcerers learning any spell. This means they cannot learn spells not on the appropriate list unless the DM directly defines what "new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of" is. The wizard has how he learns spells already defined. To Startide1: So you are saying that he cannot prepare them because YOU THINK it is absurd when it clearly states wizards prepare spells from their spell book with the restriction of wizards cannot prepare any spell not in their spellbook. This means wizards can only prepare spells in their spellbook when they study from their spellbook. Divine spells have schools too. Of course that rule does not make it arcane. The rule refers to the Arcane Magical Writing rule and says that their own rules work in the same way that the Arcane Magical Writing rules work. The no matter the source does indeed refer to 'magic scrolls or another wizard's spellbook'. Notice that it does not say only arcane scrolls anywhere in that ruling. Note that both divine scrolls and arcane scrolls are magic scrolls. It is different. A wizard cannot cast a spell from a divine scroll because it is not on his spell list. A wizard cannot cast a spell from his prohibited school because there is a rule that specifically says wizards cannot cast spells from his prohibited school, even spells from scrolls or wands. There is nothing that says you have to be able to cast the spell on the scroll in order to copy it into your spellbook. It only says that you need to decipher it, and make the spell craft checks. To Caelic: I have spent a lot of time responding to each and every post that required a response. Do you think I wanted to spend that time that way? I did it to prove my point. Do you simply expect me to believe what you are saying merely because you are saying it? If you want to prove to me why I can't seperate the clauses, then explain to me WHY I cannot seperate the clauses. On the spellbook issue, the fact that you saposedly "COULD" do it has no effect on me because there is no reason for it to have an effect on me. If you want to even try to change my mind, please try to explain why I am wrong instead of merely saying "You are wrong. Give in to my ways. I could prove you wrong but I have not done so yet, and yet, for some reason you still have not given in to my ways." Once again, you are just saying "the game is not played as he thinks it is played" and you provide no proof that it is not played as I think it's played. To Burgerking: No. (we are on the wizard, not the sorcerer) First you read 'A wizard casts arcane spells' then you read 'which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list'. Which is a relative pronoun as I have said so you can fill in arcane spells (this is what which is being a pronoun of) in for 'which'. You get 'A wizard casts arcane spells. Arcane spells are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list.' For your second point, the rules specifically say a wizard can decipher and copy any magical scroll. Divine scrolls are magical scrolls. It does not say 'wizards cannot use divine scrolls' (edit-sorry, I didn't read the scroll rules all the way through. After I read Kisith's post I noticed that it DOES say wizards cannot use divine spells. I will clarify at the end of my post.) . Under the scroll section it says the following: To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements. The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class.) The user must have the spell on his or her class list. The user must have the requisite ability score. Copying is not activating. Deciphering is not activating. Casting a scroll spell is activating it. That is not what I am saying. This is what I am saying. There is a rule that says a wizard can cast spells he has prepared. It is this rule here, quoted from the SRD. First you must choose which spell to cast. If you’re a cleric, druid, experienced paladin, experienced ranger, or wizard, you select from among spells prepared earlier in the day and not yet cast See. If a wizard has a spell prepared and he has not yet cast it (multiple preparations of the same spell are treated as seperate spells. This is said elsewhere.), then you can cast it. This is the rule that says he can cast any spell (as long as he has prepared it). The only way he would not be able to cast any spell he has prepared would be if another rule says "wizards cannot cast XXX spells." or "wizards cast only XXX spells." There is no other rule like this. To your edit: It does not say 'Arcane Spells' only. It says "the wizard must first decipher the magical writing". Divine scrolls are magical writing. Arcane scrolls are magical writing. Just because it says (see Arcane Magical Writing) after it, does not mean deciphering magical writing is limited to arcane magical writing. If this were the cast, then Divine Magical Writing would only be able to be deciphered if it was Arcane Magical Writing because it too has (see Arcane Magical Writing) as the rules for deciphering. This is not the case, so a any magical writing can be deciphered using the rules in the Arcane Magical Writing section. Arcane and Divine. A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. What I say this means is, " If a wizard casts a spell, then that spell is an arcane spell. If a spell is an arcane spell and if a wizard cast that spell, then that spell is drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." See how spell list does not restrict arcane spell or spells cast by a wizard in any way whatsoever. People keep saying "what you said is ***" when that is not what I said. Hopefuly the above will clear that up. I don't see how you can muddle an If, Then statement. Edit-OK. I must admit you are completely right Kisinith. That throws a wrentch into my plans. Well... that just means the wizard now must make use of the Use Magic Device skill so that he can copy the spells now. To General Ridley: It does not say to be arcane it must be on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. If this is what it said, then all arcane spells would be required to be on all the spell lists of all arcane spellcasting classes. 'Your bard wants to cast Cure Light Wounds? He can learn it but not cast it. It is not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list, and therefore it is not arcane.' That is your reasoning. This cannot possibly be true because it would destroy the point of even HAVING spell list specific spells. And it is not being torn to pieces. They are saying things, but often not giving reasons behind them (Kisinith here being an exception). It may seem like I am pulling them out of my butt because I keep repeating myself. I am only repeating myself because people like you keep making the same arguments against my cause that I have given reason of why they are not true. This specific argument has been posted by Caelic multiple times, and it cannot be true because it not only destroys Spell research and spells list specific spells from the SRD alone, but also feats like Arcane Disciple and extra spell, and PrC's like the Recaster and SandShaper. These things add spells to your spells known, not your spell list, so by your reasoning, spellcasters would not be able to cast them.
Glitch2 10-28-05, 10:38 PM	P.S., is there any reason that everyone seems to be dealing with Glitch2's weak 'arguments' instead of my good ones? Is it just that I'm a bastard? :turkey: Yes. It does seem that they are going for my 'weak arguments' only. Not only that, they also STILL have not answered my question of "Why would arcane spells be restricted to being on the sorcerer/wizard spell list when it would destroy so many other rules? Some of which are the following: Bards casting CLWs which is not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list, so by your argument it is not arcane. Arcane Disciple, Extra Spell, Independent Research, Recaster's Expanded Spell Knowledge ability, and the Sandshaper's spell learning ability (whatever it is. I don't have the book he is in) do not add the spells to your class spell list, so their spells would be uncastable by your rules. No one on 'the other side' has answered this question yet.
BurgerKing 10-28-05, 10:53 PM	You see Glitch... you are chopping up the whole thing to see only the parts you like. That is not how things are supposed to be read. Relax and take a long look. Remember to include Headings in your reading. Example: Section 1 Heading: Spells A wizard casts arcane spells drawn from the wizard/sorcerer spell list. Section 2 Heading: Spellbook A wizard cannot prepare spells not found in his spellbook (I'm at work now so no PHB to get a quote.) Section 3 Heading: Deciphering/Scribing scrolls A wizard may decipher any scroll and (if the scroll is arcane) use the scroll. The word 'use' is from the PHB. Scribing a scroll into a book consumes the scroll, therefore scribing the scroll is 'using' the scroll. Can you read chronologically? A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. What's there to mis-interpret? This statement clearly means a wizard casts arcane spells, and then his spells are selected from a sub-section called 'wizard/Sorcerer' list. No where does it says 'All spells cast by a wizard are henceforth arcane spells.' Maybe this will help. By the gods... read the entire conversation. Master Mage: My student, do you know the nature of the spells you can cast? Apprentice: Yes master. I can cast arcane spells only. Master Mage: Can you cast arcane bard spells? Or arcane wujen spells? Apprentice: No master because within the wide selection of arcane spells, I can master only the spells listed by the Great Coastal Wizards as 'Wizard or Sorcerer' spells. Master Mage: Very good. In the event that you found a magical unknown scroll, what should you do? Apprentice: I should try to find out if the scroll is of the divine or arcane variaty by using the methods you thought me. If the scroll turns out to be divine, I have no use for it master. However, if the scroll turns out to be arcane in nature, I must discover if the spells on the scrolls belong to the wizard spell list, if not I cannot use the spells on the scroll. However, I can learn how to use magic devices to 'trick' the scroll into thinking I'm a legit caster. Master Mage: So now I pass you this scroll of Barkskin. How should you make use of it? Apprentice: Master, this scroll contains only one divine spell. Since I can only cast arcane spells, I cannot make use of this spell on this scroll. Since scribing the spell into my spellbook consumes the scroll, scribing is considered as 'using'. Since I am not able to use the scroll, i cannot scribe it. Therefore if the scroll is not in my spellbook, I cannot prepare it. Which leads to me unable to cast it. Master Mage: Very good, my student.
RadicalTaoist 10-28-05, 10:57 PM	To Radical Taoist: If you take my interpretation of the rule, all the rules are consistent and there is no need to alternate between multiple rules And what, pray tell, is wrong with DM alternating if he's safely RAW either way? However, Caelic's interpretation of the rule messes up other game rules. Is the interpretation that contradicts other game rules correct, or is the interpretation that does not contradict given rules correct? Is it that hard to see which is right? Considering we're talking about taking a safe, easy rules interpretation and forcibly vivisected it please do not talk about easy or hard to see. I can still pick and choose on a case by case basis. Besides, you are not in a 'right or wrong' area. You are in a "which theory explains more?" area. Not unlike the field of cognitive science at this moment. Edit-OK. I must admit you are completely right Kisinith. That throws a wrentch into my plans. Well... that just means the wizard now must make use of the Use Magic Device skill so that he can copy the spells now. Will he now? Hold on...
catharz 10-28-05, 11:08 PM	You see Glitch... you are chopping up the whole thing to see only the parts you like. That is not how things are supposed to be read. Relax and take a long look. Remember to include Headings in your reading. Example: Section 1 Heading: Spells A wizard casts arcane spells drawn from the wizard/sorcerer spell list. Section 2 Heading: Spellbook A wizard cannot prepare spells not found in his spellbook (I'm at work now so no PHB to get a quote.) Section 3 Heading: Deciphering/Scribing scrolls A wizard may decipher any scroll and (if the scroll is arcane) use the scroll. The word 'use' is from the PHB. Scribing a scroll into a book consumes the scroll, therefore scribing the scroll is 'using' the scroll. Can you read chronologically? What's there to mis-interpret? This statement clearly means a wizard casts arcane spells, and then his spells are selected from a sub-section called 'wizard/Sorcerer' list. No where does it says 'All spells cast by a wizard are henceforth arcane spells.' ...Blah Blah Blah... Amazing how easy it is to find unquestionable support for your arguments when you misquote the PHB. :bored: For the record, here is all a wizard must do to scribe a spell into his spellbook: Spells Copied from Another’s Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above)... ARCANE MAGICAL WRITINGS To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in her own way. Another person’s magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until she takes time to study and decipher it. To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in written form in another’s spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell’s level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers a magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic. Once a character deciphers a particular magical writing, she does not need to decipher it again. Deciphering a magical writing allows the reader to identify the spell and gives some idea of its effects (as explained in the spell description). If the magical writing was a scroll and the reader can cast arcane spells, she can attempt to use the scroll. Copying spells continues... ...Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from her specialty school. She cannot, however, learn any spells from her prohibited schools. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, below). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment. If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. She cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until she gains another rank in Spellcraft. A spell that was being copied from a scroll does not vanish from the scroll. In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level x50 gp. That is all is takes. Everything else you're talking about is made up.
Glitch2 10-28-05, 11:15 PM	If a wizard casts a spell, then that spell is an arcane spell. If a spell is an arcane spell and if a wizard cast that spell, then that spell is drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. This is how I interpret that quote Burgerking. I'll add to your conversation Burgerking Master Mage: My student, you have heard what I have spoken to your peer. I give you this scroll of Righteous Might. What do you do with it? Apprentice 2: I bend the power in the scroll to my will, subjecting it to be used how I wish. As my arcane power courses through the spell, it becomes less divine and more arcane. Master Mage: That was an incorrect answer. You cannot do this my student. Apprentice 2 Uses Use Magic Device on the scroll to cast Righteous Might. This causes him to grow in size and increase in physical power. He then slays his defenseless master. Apprentice 2: You were saying? Now that I understand this spell of power and how to draw upon it's divine based strength by invoking it with my arcane power, I should find another scroll of it and copy it into my spellbook so that I can preserve it for the future. To Radical Taoist: So you are saying that you can take one rule, and use it in two completely opposite ways in two extremely similar actions? I just don't see why someone would use two interpretations of a rule when one of the interpretations works for all cases. It eliminates the need for a second interpretation. I can't say whether alternating is wrong or right, but I just don't understand why someone would alternate when they have the option of not alternating. Edited for Catharz: Technically, using the scroll is making use of it in any way, so copying it is using it. This means you would have to use the skill Use Magic Device in addition to the other skills in order to copy a divine spell. Other than that I see no problem.
Caelic 10-28-05, 11:26 PM	To Caelic: I have spent a lot of time responding to each and every post that required a response. Do you think I wanted to spend that time that way? I did it to prove my point. Do you simply expect me to believe what you are saying merely because you are saying it? If you want to prove to me why I can't seperate the clauses, then explain to me WHY I cannot seperate the clauses. I did. You either ignored it or completely failed to comprehend it. Why should I go to the trouble of explaining restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses to you again when you ignored it the first time? You cannot seperate the clauses because the sentence you quote contains a restrictive relative clause. A restrictive relative clause provides essential information about the subject or object of the sentence; it CANNOT be dissociated from said subject or object. It is, in fact, a part of the complete subject or object, and NOT an independent clause. How do I know it's a restrictive relative clause? Because NON-restrictive relative clauses involve a comma. As I've been saying since my very first response--and as you've been steadfastly ignoring since my very first response--the absence of a comma changes the meaning of the sentence. It does not mean what you claim it means. How much more plainly can I explain it? Would you like links to a good grammar website that explains relative clauses, since you're apparently not satisfied with my explanation? This is why I've frankly given up on attempting to have a logical conversation with you. You claim that you "respond to every post," but you generally ignore the substance of those posts. Your responses are frequently non-sequitirs or strawman arguments, and your preferred response seems to be, "I've already proved that you're wrong." Frankly, you can believe what you want. Heck, you can even believe that the majority of D&D players see it your way, if you like. Have fun with that. Let me know how it works out.
nihility 10-28-05, 11:34 PM	How much more plainly can I explain it? Would you like links to a good grammar website that explains relative clauses, since you're apparently not satisfied with my explanation?That might be pretty useful, actually. You are right, as a consultation of Strunk and White quickly confirms, but perhaps seeing it in an external reference would help. Actually, no, I doubt it would get anywhere in truth, but at least it would be there for the record.
Glitch2 10-28-05, 11:38 PM	I did. You either ignored it or completely failed to comprehend it. Why should I go to the trouble of explaining restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses to you again when you ignored it the first time? You cannot seperate the clauses because the sentence you quote contains a restrictive relative clause. A restrictive relative clause provides essential information about the subject or object of the sentence; it CANNOT be dissociated from said subject or object. It is, in fact, a part of the complete subject or object, and NOT an independent clause. You did not exlpain them. You said a restrictive clause lacks a comma. A non-restrictive clause has a comma. Then you went on to say what "A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." but you did not say why they ment what you said they ment. You said, This means XXX. This does not mean YYY. You did not say why it means XXX or why it does not mean YYY. You just claimed that I disregarded information you gave in your post when you DID NOT give that information in your post. And you just agreed with me. It reveals essential information about the OBJECT, Arcane Spells. When I split the sentence, I did not dissociate Arcane Spells from the restrictive relative clause. They remained together. "Arcane spells are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." They seem to be associated in that sentence. I will have to look into restrictive clauses more...
Caelic 10-28-05, 11:44 PM	Ugh. One more try, and then I honestly give up. Restrictive relative clauses are used when the object cannot stand on its own, because it needs to be more completely defined. Restrictive relative clauses give essential information to define the person or thing being discussed. This is only necessary if the thing being discussed is part of a larger subset, and would be difficult to identify without the restrictive relative clause. As an example: "Elephants who marry mice are very unusual." In this sentence, we understand that there are many elephants, but we are only talking about the ones who marry mice. Another example: "I don't trust people who smile too much." In this sentence, we understand that there are many people, but we are only talking about the ones who smile too much. Coming back to OUR sentence: "Wizards cast arcane spells which are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list." In this sentence, we understand that there are many arcane spells, but we are only talking about the ones which are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list. The mere presence of a restrictive relative clause demonstrates that there MUST be arcane spells that are not on the sorceror/wizard spell list--because restrictive relative clauses are used to define a subset of a larger set. Adding commas to any of these sentences will change the restrictive clause into a non-restrictive clause, and drastically change the meaning of the sentence. "Elephants, who marry mice, are very unusual." This means that elephants are both very unusual and marry mice. "I don't trust people, who smile too much." This means that I don't trust people, and that people smile too much. And, finally: "Wizards cast arcane spells, which are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list." This means that wizards cast arcane spells, and that arcane spells are drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list. Of course, as you have pointed out repeatedly, this is also not the sentence as it appears in the SRD. Capice?
nihility 10-28-05, 11:50 PM	For more on what a comma means and how the presence or absence of one alters the meaning of a sentence, please consult the delightfully small The Elements of Style by Strunk and White. Pages 2-5 contain particularly relevant information.
NineInchNall 10-28-05, 11:50 PM	Out of curiosity, Caelic, is it normally this difficult to explain restrictive vs. non-restrictive clauses to your students? Man, I always thought it a fairly clear distinction. :rolleyes:
Caelic 10-28-05, 11:57 PM	It takes them a while to get it, NiN...but I honestly expect that, since they're in seventh grade.
BurgerKing 10-29-05, 01:03 AM	Amazing how easy it is to find unquestionable support for your arguments when you misquote the PHB. :bored: For the love of all that is holy! Can you even read your PHB? Look at PHB 3.5 page 178, 2nd column under heading Arcane Magical Writings, 3rd paragraph, line 4. "If the magical writing was a scroll and the reader can cast arcane spells, she can attempt to use the scroll." Now look at the HEADING! What is the heading? ARCANE magical writing. Is the heading Divine Magical Writings? Is the heading All Magical Writings? Read from left to right, top to bottom. You don't make anything up if you don't have a PHB (or if you cannot read properly.) Again... BOLD is IMPORTANT. This is so simple... but I give up. If I meet a DM who believes in the ALL-SPELL-Wizard class, I wanna play a wizard! By the way Glitch, where is the rule that says any spell cast by the wizard is arcane? All I saw is Spells belong to a universal set, and Arcane Spells belonging to a subset. The wizard casts spells from this subset. Where does it say a wizard can take a divine spell and convert to arcane? (Southern Magician feat from Races of Faerun allows it 1/day.)
catharz 10-29-05, 01:06 AM	It takes them a while to get it, NiN...but I honestly expect that, since they're in seventh grade. Caelic, you probably should give up. I remember how bad 7th grade English was. No need to force yourself through the same crap here: I think you've allready made all of your best points.
catharz 10-29-05, 01:09 AM	For the love of all that is holy! Can you even read your PHB? No, I just channel words straight from the book into the computer. I have no actual understanding, nor do I understand what I am typing now. This is so simple... but I give up. If I meet a DM who believes in the ALL-SPELL-Wizard class, I wanna play a wizard! Good, because every single PC class should be desireable.
Tleilaxu_Ghola 10-29-05, 01:16 AM	Would someone please shut this thread down for the sanity of everyone? It's fairly clear that this forum is not an adequate format for this type of debate. We need pictures, sentence diagrams, logic truth tables, and heck maybe even some real-number theory to prove or disprove any arguments here. Anything that requires this much thought belongs in academia, not on a forum where people discuss a fictional game and attempt to have fun with it by designing optimal characters!
terulian 10-29-05, 02:45 AM	This is simple to solve. The sentence said that the spells need to be drawn from the wizard/sorceror spell list. There is a list of spells in the "spells" chapter, titled "wizard/sorceror". This, to any non-munchkin, would give the impression that wizard/sorceror spells are the spells that are labeled as such. As for the scroll argument, Divine scrolls cannot be scribed into a spellbook, because no divine class uses a spellbook. This is really just a case of supreme munchkin rule-lawyering in which someone is looking for a loophole in the wording that would let them make a super-character.
20goingon1232 10-29-05, 04:15 AM	All of you foaming at the mouth people that is jumping up and down screaming because someone said the wizard can cast any spell need to take a chill pill. First off, ALL of the wizardly restrictions still apply (ASF, to be precise). Second, the wizard still has that number of spells per day (4 across the board base at level 20), which is the lowest spell per day of any serious spell casting class in the PHB. Third, wizards have to PREPARE their spells, which means that if they didn't, they are sunk if they need a particular spell in a hurry. Fourth, the wizard still has to FIND the darned scroll in order to scribe it. Don't blame the poor guy if you have magic Walmarts in your campaign. Fifth, what spell is so great on the cleric spell list that a wizard will sacrifice one of his precious slots to carry it around on the off chance he'll need it? Or in other words, why he is mucking about with Divine Power when he can slot in a Chain Lightning or a Disintegrate and go to town? Sixth, the wizard still has a dinky d4 HD. Compared to Mr Cleric with his d8 HD, cast in armour, better weapon/all round skill selection, turn undead (and the attached Divine metamagic), etc., how is being more versatile as a wizard make the wizard the most uber spellcaster in the game? It does not. Your outrage is specious in the extreme. Laughable. Dismissable. The question at hand here is not one of balance. The cleric and druid has already thrown that out the window. The question here is whether that simple phrase in the PHB is an ABSOLUTE statement. If it is, then a lot of PrCs from splatbooks are toast. If it isn't then the nay-sayers do not have an argumentative leg to stand on. Either way is equally valid in the RAW. It is ultimately the DM's decision. And for you to blanket denigrate other DMs is the height of arrogance and stupidity.
colm_l 10-29-05, 06:44 AM	To Caelic: I have spent a lot of time responding to each and every post that required a response. Do you think I wanted to spend that time that way? I did it to prove my point. Do you simply expect me to believe what you are saying merely because you are saying it? If you want to prove to me why I can't seperate the clauses, then explain to me WHY I cannot seperate the clauses. Glitch - not to be rude but Caelic has a full time job. Why should he donate his free time to explain english grammar when that's his job? Teachers need a break as well as their students. As for the wizard spell list: please apply Occam's razor. The phb is worded for laymen -it should be read in the most straight forward way possible. If we want to get technical about it - wizards can't scribe scrolls into their spellbooks because it doesn't mention it in their class description (it mentions copying from spellbooks not from scrolls). There is some case to be made for wizards learning arcane spells from another arcane class list but have a little sense. Um, Caelic? That's not precisely true. Proof of negative ontological statements is very possible, and in fact it must be possible. The only type of proof of a negative statement that is capital-H Hard is a strong inductive proof. Deductive proofs can easily prove negative ontological statements. There are also real world, empirical proof methodologies that are logically valid. I think this is where we hit the problem of different definitions of proof between science & philosophy. In science, negative proofs are not accepted as proper proof- because a negative proof is only an absence of absolute proof of the opposing statement. As an example, Newton's laws were never proved (in fact they were proved to be in error for some outlying conditions but we use them as good approximations for common conditions).
Glitch2 10-29-05, 10:37 AM	Thank you Caelic. This is only necessary if the thing being discussed is part of a larger subset, and would be difficult to identify without the restrictive relative clause. Here is where you have now told me why the way I am interpreting it is wrong. Before you said this, the way I interpreted it was all 'modified noun' must be 'restricted by restrictive clause' or it is not a 'modified noun'. It is still restricting, so I thought it would still be a restrictive clause, but that is not what a restrictive clause is, as you have pointed out. The way you pointed it out here makes much more sense. 'Subject verbs objects which are restriction' would mean 'Subject verbs object only if object meets restriction.' So it would be, "A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list." and that would mean 'A wizard casts spells only if those spells are arcane and are on the Sorcerer/wizard spell list." This does make sense and it would mean wizards would not be able to cast a spell unless it is on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. To Bugerking: Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). This is the definition of arcane spells. If cast by a wizard, a sorcerer, or a bard, then the spell is arcane. If cast by a cleric, a druid, an experienced paladin, or an experienced ranger, then the spell is divine. To Cathraz: I actually laughed when I saw this This is so simple... but I give up. If I meet a DM who believes in the ALL-SPELL-Wizard class, I wanna play a wizard! Good, because every single PC class should be desireable. It's funny to me because all PC classes truly SHOULD be desireable. To Terulian: A wizard still can scribe divine spells into his spellbook, even by Caelic's interpretation (which I do now understand and accept). This rule says he can A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. It then goes on to describe the rules for copying it into his spellbook. Any magic scroll. There is no other rule that says he cannot follow the quoted rule. To colm_l: I already had a positive proof. The only way to disproove a positive proof is with a negative proof. This is the positive proof First you must choose which spell to cast. If you’re a cleric, druid, experienced paladin, experienced ranger, or wizard, you select from among spells prepared earlier in the day and not yet cast The negative proof that was in question is A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. I said the statement defines spells a wizard casts. Caelic said spells a wizard casts are restricted by it. As Caelic has finally made me realize, it does restrict a wizard's casting of spells and is a negative proof against my positive proof. I'm sorry for causing so much of a racous. Apparently I just didn't know what a restrictive relative clause is. I can't remember being taught that in gradeschool. I remember relative clauses, but not restrictive relative clauses.
Caelic 10-29-05, 11:13 AM	Glitch, The formal teaching of grammar (to any great extent) has fallen out of favor in the last several decades; I'm frankly not surprised that you didn't get restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in school. A lot of my students come to me with no idea of what a clause is, or how it differs from, say, a phrase. I apologize for not making my point clearer in earlier posts; as I said, although I do make it a point to teach grammar, it's not one of my favorite ways to spend my time, and having to attempt it online probably made me a bit more brusque than was strictly deserved.
colm_l 10-29-05, 11:50 AM	To colm_l: I already had a positive proof. The only way to disproove a positive proof is with a negative proof. This is the positive proof Was aimed at nineinchnall ;)
Sphendule 10-29-05, 02:05 PM	Even though I feel this might be a lost cause, I'm going to chip in my two cents of the matter. Being a student in a Discrete Mathematics class, I thought that I'd clear up what I noticed on page one of this thread, but before I do, might I just say that if you really want your wizard to cast divine spells, just give him ranks in UMD and use wands or scrolls or staves directly or take a prestige class from CD, rather than trying to add them to your class spell list or spellbook via "loopholes". A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory. One person misinterpreted the bolded statement. Let me rewrite this statement to get it into manipulative terms: She cannot prepare any spell that is not recorded in her spellbook. If a spell is not recorded in her spellbook, then she cannot prepare it. NOT (a spell recorded in person's spellbook) implies NOT (able to prepare it). What was done in a previous post was taking the inverse of an implication, which is just negating both sides of the implication. Thus, the inverse of "NOT p implies NOT q" is "p implies q", which is not a tautology, or something that is always true. However, a true contrapositive still negates both sides of the implication, but switches the order in which the two predicates are stated. Thus, the contrapositive of "NOT p implies NOT q" is "q implies p", which is a tautology. Thus, the contrapositive of the statement above and then worked back into standard grammar is as follows: (able to prepare a spell) implies (it's recorded in person's spellbook) If she is able to prepare a spell, then it's recorded in her spellbook. An implication "p implies q" is the logical equivalent of "q OR NOT p". If you write up a truth table for both, they will have the same values of T/F for each set of (p,q). Thus, I can rewrite the statement above as follows: (a spell is recorded in her spellbook) OR NOT (able to prepare the spell) Either a spell is recorded in her spellbook or she is not able to prepare the spell According to the definition of the logical OR, the entire statement is true if one or both of the statements surrounding the OR is true. Thus, even if there is a spell in someone's spellbook, they might not be able to cast it. Now to show that wizards, with their class spell slots, can only prepare or learn how to prepare arcane spells unless they multiclass into a prestige class or take a feat that says otherwise (since these essentially overwrite core rules when allowed). The best example I can find (which should be enough proof) is under Divine Spells: New Divine Spells in Chapter 10: Magic. Independent Research: *clip* The character can create a magic scroll (provided that he or she has the Scribe Scroll feat) or write a special text similar to a spellbook to contain spells he or she has independently researched. Other divine spellcasters who find the spell in written form can learn to cast it, provided they are of sufficient level to do so and are of the same class as the creator.(italicized for emphasis) Voilà! It's relatively easy to assume that the same goes for the spells not independently researched. Even though I just went through this long, time-wasting process of trying to show how the RAW's grammar and logic still disallows core wizards from casting divine spells, I still find this topic rather stupid. As has already been said before, why would you try to find such a tiny, microscopic loophole in the text just to make one class broken? I just don't understand what's wrong to some people with taking the rules as they were likely meant to be interpreted? Hmmm.... maybe it should've been five cents considering how long my explanation was...
Part-Human2 10-29-05, 03:10 PM	.... Even though I just went through this long, time-wasting process of trying to show how the RAW's grammar and logic still disallows core wizards from casting divine spells, I still find this topic rather stupid. As has already been said before, why would you try to find such a tiny, microscopic loophole in the text just to make one class broken? I just don't understand what's wrong to some people with taking the rules as they were likely meant to be interpreted? Hmmm.... maybe it should've been five cents considering how long my explanation was... Except for the smart-sounding stuff, my thoughts exactly!
General_Ridley 10-29-05, 03:41 PM	To General Ridley: It does not say to be arcane it must be on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. If this is what it said, then all arcane spells would be required to be on all the spell lists of all arcane spellcasting classes. 'Your bard wants to cast Cure Light Wounds? He can learn it but not cast it. It is not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list, and therefore it is not arcane.' That is your reasoning. This cannot possibly be true because it would destroy the point of even HAVING spell list specific spells. And it is not being torn to pieces. They are saying things, but often not giving reasons behind them (Kisinith here being an exception). It may seem like I am pulling them out of my butt because I keep repeating myself. I am only repeating myself because people like you keep making the same arguments against my cause that I have given reason of why they are not true. This specific argument has been posted by Caelic multiple times, and it cannot be true because it not only destroys Spell research and spells list specific spells from the SRD alone, but also feats like Arcane Disciple and extra spell, and PrC's like the Recaster and SandShaper. These things add spells to your spells known, not your spell list, so by your reasoning, spellcasters would not be able to cast them. you got my point completely backwards. I never said a spell had to be on the S/W spell list to be Arcane, I said thatit had to be arcane to be on the S/W list, and of all Arcane spells, only specific ones get to be on that list. Your argument that wizards can cast any spell, in your own words, 'destroys the point of having spell list specific spells.'
Josh_Kablack 10-29-05, 03:55 PM	TASTES GREAT!!!!