Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Howie23 07-19-07, 06:13 PM	Debate Proposition: Arcane Prestige Classes Don't Give Two Free Spells Most prestige classes for spellcasters give improved spellcasting. This is usually defined as spells known and spells per day. It is generally considered to include caster level. It doesn't include other benefits of the class. However, wizards add two new spells to their spellbook each level. This is another benefit of the class. It is not covered by spells known (a term specifically related to spontaneous casters). Spellbook maintenance and growth is described in the wizard class under a different header than spells. This isn't the majority treatment. Where am I wrong? David While a number of folks agree with this interpretation per the RAW, others view Known Spells as including spellbooks. Additionally, as a practical matter, it's pretty much a jinni that has been released from the lamp. A query to customer support garnered a reply that wizards taking a prestige class gain new spells, w/o explanation. This may be something that has migrated during the years. By the time we get to Complete Mage, the designers seem pretty clear that PrCs grant new spells. A protest was made about the title of the thread, and it has been changed in response. Posts 22-36 largely have left the original topic to implications of the topic and judging style.
dkay807 07-19-07, 07:00 PM	Resolved: Arcane Prestige Classes Don't Give Two Free Spells Most prestige classes for spellcasters give improved spellcasting. This is usually defined as spells known and spells per day. It is generally considered to include caster level. It doesn't include other benefits of the class. However, wizards add two new spells to their spellbook each level. This is another benefit of the class. It is not covered by spells known (a term specifically related to spontaneous casters). Spellbook maintenance and growth is described in the wizard class under a different header than spells. This isn't the majority treatment. Where am I wrong? David Wow, good point. I don't know whether or not you're correct on this matter and would be interested in hearing what others have to say. I hope you're not, as I don't know ANYONE that doesn't do this...
jstorrie 07-19-07, 07:09 PM	I think that this is the right interpretation. However, it's not the one that anyone uses! It may be a case where the rule is simply ignored because no one follows it. Circular.
JJeff 07-19-07, 08:53 PM	I have enforced that rule on my side. It's tough for those that have always though otherwise, but it's normal for those that have always thought this way. I think switching from 2nd ed to 3.0 to 3.5 really screws with our heads... Some people still think Identify takes 8 hours and only reveals the least powerful ability of the item...
solbergb 07-19-07, 09:23 PM	Resolved: Arcane Prestige Classes Don't Give Two Free Spells This isn't the majority treatment. Where am I wrong? David The wording is like this on most of the PRC's. "the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class" The majority treatment assumes that the spellbook is the wizard's equivalent of "spells known". While those exact words aren't said anywhere, aside from read magic or "spell mastery" spells, the effect is precisely the same - if it ain't in the spellbook, the wizard can't cast it directly. While I agree that the majority treatment is weak in "rules as written" it seems pretty clear that the "rules as intended" probably want wizards to get their spellbooks boosted as they PRC up. Otherwise they won't have the expected capabilities if they level anywhere that doesn't have a well-stocked scroll-store handy. (I've been in campaigns where a wiz above 8th level would have no options EXCEPT his levelup spells - he'd outlevel all the NPC's on the continent...and in LG, wizards don't have many choices after 4th level scrolls, especially if any other PC wizard didn't get levelup spells either)
Lupo 07-20-07, 02:05 AM	Resolved: Arcane Prestige Classes Don't Give Two Free Spells Most prestige classes for spellcasters give improved spellcasting. This is usually defined as spells known and spells per day. It is generally considered to include caster level. It doesn't include other benefits of the class. However, wizards add two new spells to their spellbook each level. This is another benefit of the class. It is not covered by spells known (a term specifically related to spontaneous casters). Spellbook maintenance and growth is described in the wizard class under a different header than spells. This isn't the majority treatment. Where am I wrong? David i treat the "spells known" part as granting wizard prestige classes new free spells in their spellbook. otherwise the wizard prestige classes would be the only spellcaster characters that actually LOOSE gp for leveling :confused: and the LG campaign would need a VAST amount of non DMG scrolls with spells right away . . . . . . :rolleyes: ciao martin m.
pedr 07-20-07, 07:56 AM	I asked Customer Support this. Here's the discussion thread: Discussion Thread Response (Sam S.) 12/19/2006 09:34 AM Hi there Peter, Yes, they learn new spells normally just like the base class' spellcasting ability describes. Take Care and Good Gaming! :) We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire. To login to your account, or update your question please click here. Sam Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST Customer (Peter Griffith) 12/19/2006 09:11 AM When a wizard gains a wizard level she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels she can cast for her spellbook. (PH 57) What is less clear is whether a wizard gains these new spells when she takes a level of a PrC which progresses her spellcasting, such as Loremaster or Geometer. Please could you help me out?
MatteBlack 07-20-07, 10:32 AM	I asked Customer Support this. Here's the discussion thread: I am glad that is, at least, the Customer Support response. I am pretty certain that was the intention. I would abide by a DM citing that the RAW don't grant the spells but, would probably avoid that judge in the future. Luckily, this void in the rules does not effect my characters. Hopefully no DM would rule that way and it could be included in the FAQ somehwere. Lee
solbergb 07-20-07, 11:41 AM	It's pretty unlikely a GM in LG could ever know you took the spells or didn't. I don't remember ever seeing an audit of wizard spellbooks. It's one of the many things we do on the honor system in this campaign.
magebeast 07-20-07, 06:41 PM	I am glad that is, at least, the Customer Support response. I am pretty certain that was the intention. I would abide by a DM citing that the RAW don't grant the spells but, would probably avoid that judge in the future. Luckily, this void in the rules does not effect my characters. Hopefully no DM would rule that way and it could be included in the FAQ somehwere. Lee It's notable that the CS response doesn't actually grant the Wizard new spells in their spellbook - because it says they gain what's in the "spellcasting" section which isn't where the two new spells in the spellbook upon levelling up are listed. That's in the spellbook section.
pedr 07-20-07, 07:55 PM	Customer service is not populated by (rules) lawyers. Their responses are neither legal briefs nor binding rules text. I presented the thread without comment as I am aware that the status of customer service replies is controversial. For me, however, whether as player or GM, the response is sufficient to convince me that the rules mean that wizards taking a level in a PrC which grants an effective wizard spellcasting level gain two spells precisely as if they had taken a wizard level instead.
JJeff 07-20-07, 10:35 PM	I will play as written. No two free spells. If players don't want to play with me because of that, so be it. Until there's an offiical answer to this, ie, not a Skip ruling or CustServ ruling, I'm sticking by that if you don't mind... Just don't think we should play by what we feel is more convinient
pedr 07-21-07, 07:12 AM	I'm intrigued by how you 'enforce' this. In general I agree that GMs are entitled to decide on unclear areas of the rules, but it seems that it is unenforceable unless you ask every wizard with a PrC whether he or she took the spells or not, and then spend considerable time with them at each table firstly explaining your ruling (and arguing about it for a few minutes, if the player isn't inclined to immediately accept your authority) then giving the player reasonable time to identify those spells acquired at each PrC level, also possibly removing magic items crafted by the use of those spells - which in your view the PC never had access to so could never have cast - and possibly deciding whether or not to allow the PC to re-tool purchases of scrolls/extra scribing so that the spellbook was as the player expected (difficult to play effectively if you rely on a few spells which you are suddenly denied access to). I'll note two additional points. Firstly, the rules as written do not indisputably say that the Wizard does not get these spells. "spells known (if applicable)" is unclear. "(if applicable)" can mean either: 'for spontaneous casters' or 'for all classes where spells available are a subset of the class' spell list' (i.e. wizards, sorcerers and bards in the core rules, not clerics, paladins or rangers). There is very very little evidence to suggest that either of these interpretations is the most textually accurate one, so my hermeneutic approach is to see which is the 'best' interpretation in the context of the way I believe the rules show the unclear rules item was intended to operate. It seems considerably more likely that the intent was that the PrCs act as a wizard level for the purposes of spellcasting - and a wizard's spellcasting advancement includes additional spells. It clearly doesn't include familiar progression or bonus feats, but learning new spells is part of the spellcasting progression. My query to customer services was intended to provide additional evidence of the intent of the rules. It confirmed my existing belief, rather than being determinative of my interpretation. Secondly, the campaign-specific system in LG relies almost completely on higher-level wizards having access to spells in this way. The purchase of scrolls of spells above a certain level is very heavily restricted. I find it unlikely (on a balance of probabilities) that the campaign administration expect wizards with PrCs to have few or no spells above that cut-off level which they didn't acquire either from the spellbooks of other PCs (either pure wizards or who similarly acquired the spells from the spellbooks of another wizard) or the relatively rare spellbooks of NPC wizards. Were this the situation, I believe there would be considerable additional campaign-specific mechanisms for acquiring spells, such as a GM who ruled in the same way as JJeff would place within a home-campaign. I do not assert that any of these points makes it illogical to interpret the rule differently to the way that I do. I do, however, think they are strong enough to support the interpretation as being fully based on the rules as written, not just "what [I ] feel is more convenient" and, on balance, the most appropriate interpretation both of the rules as they stand alone and the rules as they interact with the additional rules and procedures of LG. Sorry for the length!
pupz 07-21-07, 07:28 AM	in your world, what a sorc to due .... never take a PRC ? since a sorc could never learn spell in your scenerio,,, a sorc in a full casting PRC better have empower and max... cause you are learning no more spells ? we know how you handle a wiz but now what about a sorc ?
MatteBlack 07-21-07, 08:31 AM	I wish their was something more official than a Customer Support response but, its a step in the right direction. My major reason for avoiding such a DM is largely because it would mean they went hunting for such controversial minutia. As I said, I would abide the ruling but, I find that folks looking to find and make such a ruling often tend to like to exert their game knowlege and DM perogative for the sake of it. For what evidence it is, I don't think any of the PrCs in question list this limitation in their descriptions. It seems like they would have highlighted this point in at least one of them by now, if they wanted.
gomeztoo 07-21-07, 09:30 AM	In Complete Mage, the Master Specialist has two abilities relevant to the topic. First: Spellcasting: At each level, you gain new spells per day and an increase in caster level (and spells known, if applicable), as if you also gained a level in the wizard class. You do not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. Which refers to 'known spells' in combo with the wizard class. Could be a bad case of copy/paste, except that the next ability says: Expanded Spellbook: When you reach 2nd level, you can add one spell of your chosen school to your spellbook. The spell [...] is in addition to the normal spells gained when increasing your level. Master Specialist does not explicitly allow gaining new spells, but makes a reference to the ability. That means, imo, that all prestige classes allow it. This is the only statement I know referring gaining spells when leveling in a Prestige Class. It supports that you gain the spells.
magebeast 07-21-07, 10:55 AM	in your world, what a sorc to due .... never take a PRC ? since a sorc could never learn spell in your scenerio,,, a sorc in a full casting PRC better have empower and max... cause you are learning no more spells ? we know how you handle a wiz but now what about a sorc ? If English is your first language please put forth a little more effort. Sorcerer's spells known are listed under "spellcasting" and are therefore unaffected by this debate. You get the new spells without a doubt.
JamesMaissen 07-21-07, 11:37 AM	The wording is like this on most of the PRC's. "the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class" The wording actually varies to quite a degree if taken very literally. Some mention spells known, others do not for example. Take a look at the DMG and you will find at least three different versions of this. This is a place where table variation is just wrong to have. It's not as bad as others (ie Arcane Hierophant and Wild Shape) but unless the player is expected to rewrite his/her character for a given 4 hour time slot, there's problems with having non-standard rulings that impact the character like this. I can understand the circle not wanting to/able to make core rules calls, but this is one place I would rather have them rule upon than not. -James
Howie23 07-21-07, 03:13 PM	My major reason for avoiding such a DM is largely because it would mean they went hunting for such controversial minutia. As I said, I would abide the ruling but, I find that folks looking to find and make such a ruling often tend to like to exert their game knowlege and DM perogative for the sake of it. There is a tendency to see the worst in the motivation of others, while thinking the best in terms of our own. That said (for both your benefit and mine), my original motivation on looking into this has in comparing PrCs for my own wizard character. It's the same reason that I pushed on the minutae regarding crafting: I didn't start a crafting character until that was resolved. This question was renewed recently by a conversation with Lomiat. As a practical matter, the spellbook sharing system in LG makes this into a tangled mess, for which there is insufficient documentation to suggest it can be unraveled, assuming something ever happened to make that desirable in the first place. Additionally, were someone following this interpretation to play a wizard seeking to share spellbooks, he cannot. Not only that, but when dealing with 5th and higher level spells (and the nearly universal absence of pure wizards), he can be close to assured that any spell obtained by trade above 5th level ultimately came from a PrC character's level-up spell, however many tables up the chain. David
Howie23 07-21-07, 03:16 PM	Master Specialist does not explicitly allow gaining new spells, but makes a reference to the ability. That means, imo, that all prestige classes allow it. This is the only statement I know referring gaining spells when leveling in a Prestige Class. It supports that you gain the spells. I suspect that there has been a migration in the rules system from differentiation between classes with respect to caster level and this issue. Within the DMG the approach to how PrCs advanced spellcasting is presented in several ways from a language perspective, all of which have merged in popular thinking. Note that Complete Mage is recent; while this doesn't confirm my opinion, it is consistent with it. Personally, I think that there is value in diversity with respect to different prestige classes having different progression in this matter, but I also recognize that as my bias. In the LG environment, keeping it consistent is probably prefered. David
Howie23 07-21-07, 03:28 PM	Secondly, the campaign-specific system in LG relies almost completely on higher-level wizards having access to spells in this way. The purchase of scrolls of spells above a certain level is very heavily restricted. I find it unlikely (on a balance of probabilities) that the campaign administration expect wizards with PrCs to have few or no spells above that cut-off level which they didn't acquire either from the spellbooks of other PCs (either pure wizards or who similarly acquired the spells from the spellbooks of another wizard) or the relatively rare spellbooks of NPC wizards. Were this the situation, I believe there would be considerable additional campaign-specific mechanisms for acquiring spells, such as a GM who ruled in the same way as JJeff would place within a home-campaign. It isn't clear where the cause and effect mechanism is here. I get the sense changes to the rules system (both the core game and the campaign) evolve to some degree in response to pressure from the players. If there is no pressure, there is no reason to change things. Whether that lack of pressure derives from there really not being a problem, or from a cultural solution of ignoring the problem, doesn't really matter, until it is called into question. Part of your argument is based on the assumption that a wizard should have a large number of spells at hand. That is something that is campaign specific. I would suggest it is inconsistent with early Greyhawk canon, maybe less so for more recent sources. How much we seek to preserve the early canon is another story still. :) David
MatteBlack 07-21-07, 06:50 PM	There is a tendency to see the worst in the motivation of others, while thinking the best in terms of our own. That said (for both your benefit and mine), my original motivation on looking into this has in comparing PrCs for my own wizard character. It's the same reason that I pushed on the minutae regarding crafting: I didn't start a crafting character until that was resolved. This question was renewed recently by a conversation with Lomiat. As a practical matter, the spellbook sharing system in LG makes this into a tangled mess, for which there is insufficient documentation to suggest it can be unraveled, assuming something ever happened to make that desirable in the first place. Additionally, were someone following this interpretation to play a wizard seeking to share spellbooks, he cannot. Not only that, but when dealing with 5th and higher level spells (and the nearly universal absence of pure wizards), he can be close to assured that any spell obtained by trade above 5th level ultimately came from a PrC character's level-up spell, however many tables up the chain. David Don't think I was criticizing having brought this up here. The forums are a great place to bring up and smooth out issues like this. I just think that looking over your player's characters for this problem during a mod seems unnecessarily critical until more can be understood about it.
SYB 07-22-07, 10:32 AM	I will play as written. No two free spells. If players don't want to play with me because of that, so be it. Until there's an offiical answer to this, ie, not a Skip ruling or CustServ ruling, I'm sticking by that if you don't mind... Just don't think we should play by what we feel is more convinient You know, if you were DMing at a convention or other LG event, I would avoid you. Not because of this specific ruling, but because I have seen your stance on rules in general. In every rules discussion that is even a tad unclear, you have claimed that your interpretation of the RAW is whatever is the absolute worst interpretation for the player. This says to me that you are an adversarial DM who has forgotten that the goal of the game is entertain. -SYB
JJeff 07-22-07, 09:14 PM	Actually, most of my opinions I post here on the boards is after discussion with my regular players as to what their opinion is and what we should implement in our games. I'm sorry that you feel that way, and I'll make sure that I continue to double-check myself and my game to make sure I'm am not becoming adversarial. Thank you.
control freak 07-22-07, 10:52 PM	if you did that you would effectivly nullify every high level arcane caster and TPK a 15th level party playing APL16 simply beacuse you wanted to be so spesific about these rules and in a GM appeals you would probably be over turned (i could be wrong but this is just absurd) as this would mean - you get no high level spells - you lose ALOT of magic items - gain TU (inablity to craft said items) - possibly lose a PrC and several levels in it (ability to cast level X type X spells) which could invalidate an entire build and un qualify him for feats - gain gold (ALOT if you saved half on each item crafted) - about an hour prior to the game determineing EVERY little minute detail that occurs because he cant cast his spells any more so let me get this straight your going to remove 1 hour (or so) from your 4 hour convention time slot to chastise a player and get appeals and then run the game, because any arcane caster that you tell this rule to will be like "no you are wrong" (enters debate for 10-15 min) "oh i give up" (grabs a head DM) and the head DM will either over rule you (far more likely imoh) or the player will probably leave right there as soon as you werent over turned as that would mean correcting (around ) 50+ ARs and wrecking their characters i could be wrong on this but the way greyhawk is set up if they did this this would render wizards unable to enter PrCs almost compleatly
Samwise 07-22-07, 11:41 PM	i could be wrong on this but the way greyhawk is set up if they did this this would render wizards unable to enter PrCs almost compleatly Highly unlikely. Since most prestige classes can be entered at 6th level, most require knowledge of particular spells of only 3rd level or less. Unless someone entered half a dozen spellcasting prestige classes with requirements to know spells of 4th level and higher, this would never affect them.
JJeff 07-23-07, 01:21 AM	I do trust players and do not actuvely audit their c-sheets to such a detail, but if I am asked for an opinion or ruling on the matter, I will give my stated and discussed opinion. Heck, my players are mostly the ones that decided that there was no 2 free spells and have been buying scrolls for new spells with great fevour and are extremely glad when they get spellbooks on ARs... I just make sure that most of the players that I know abide by this decision. It really isn't that bad you know...
Lupo 07-23-07, 03:06 AM	I do trust players and do not actuvely audit their c-sheets to such a detail, but if I am asked for an opinion or ruling on the matter, I will give my stated and discussed opinion. Heck, my players are mostly the ones that decided that there was no 2 free spells and have been buying scrolls for new spells with great fevour and are extremely glad when they get spellbooks on ARs... I just make sure that most of the players that I know abide by this decision. It really isn't that bad you know... so, according to your interpretation, does a cleric who enters a prestige class continue to get domain spells for spell levels he gets due to prestige class advancement? :confused: as strict as you are for wizards, it should be NO, shouldn't it??? sounds only fair to me :rolleyes: IF your interpretation is correct . . . . . ciao martin m.
Mattastrophic 07-23-07, 11:27 AM	The bigger problem that gets brought up, though, is how to resolve table variation that renders an entire PC unplayable or "illegal?" We can't expect someone to make permanent changes to a character when the character will be just fine next DM. -Matt
Mommy was an Orc 07-23-07, 11:37 AM	The bigger problem that gets brought up, though, is how to resolve table variation that renders an entire PC unplayable or "illegal?" We can't expect someone to make permanent changes to a character when the character will be just fine next DM. -Matt It doesn't sound as if JJeff is making a character illegal to play or telling them to make permanent changes. He's simply stating that if a player asks his opinion, he'd give it to them. If they're a member of his group, they all play that way already. The only instance where I can see a problem is if someone has a Wizard/PrC already in play and wants to join JJeff's group. Then there's an issue, but that presumably gets solved in a way fair to all - or they decide not to game with each other or with that specific character.
Mattastrophic 07-23-07, 11:47 AM	And I'm not referring to just JJeff; I'm referring to Living Greyhawk table variation overall. How do we resolve it? Are judges allowed to just boot people from their tables because they think one of their players is running an illegal PC? Are they allowed to start stripping feats, spells, and items? -Matt
solbergb 07-23-07, 12:31 PM	Well...they are when it is clearly illegal with no grey. Like someone who fails to qualify for a feat after something awful happens to his character. He's stripped of his feat. If he's feebleminded, he loses his spellcasting. Paladin violating code. Etc. I don't think this is one of those cases though. I also think the master specialist PRC text argues pretty strongly to current thoughts on intent/spirit of rules by the authors. (that PRC gives extra spells to spellbook, which is why it gives extra mention)
control freak 07-23-07, 12:43 PM	also as to the domain spell thing that is under spellcasting so yes you would get it even if he was right and as i said you dont quite realize the magnitude of what you argue for, you argue that a player change 50 or so ARs based on your ruleing (which would be a minority ruleing) and may still be overruled by a master GM( i can assure you no player of a wizard with any PrC would tolerate this and would always get a master DM on you)
GorTeX 07-23-07, 01:45 PM	The title of this thread is Highly mis-leading. 1) it is by no means 'resolved' 2) even if it is 'resolved' the majority of the posters seem to be in favor of 'Arcane Prestige Classed DO give two spells per level'. (I'm mainly worried that someone not reading the thread would take the title as gospel.)
Howie23 07-23-07, 02:13 PM	And I'm not referring to just JJeff; I'm referring to Living Greyhawk table variation overall. How do we resolve it? Are judges allowed to just boot people from their tables because they think one of their players is running an illegal PC? Are they allowed to start stripping feats, spells, and items? This is covered in the section Troubleshooting in the LGCS p. 19. Effectively the idea is to work with the player to fix mistakes, which are generally presumed to be errors, not cheating. If you come across problems, fix them with the player. If you suspect cheating or find significant discrepencies, the PC should be removed from play until resolved by the Senior DM or Triad. I think what you are getting out is "what about grey areas." With regard to whether a PC can use a resource (does he have access?), that's covered by campaign documentation to show both access and acquisition. With respect to how a validly acquired rule works, that's pretty much up to the table judge. Looking at two hypothetical grey cases that speak to your question: 1) A newly minted 11th level diviner comes to the table. In the course of play, he casts 3 different 6th level spells, all of which are Open. The DM (an adversarial DM, why else would he seek to enforce his understanding of the rules) is curious about how the diviner got three different spells and asks. The diviner says that two are from levelling to 11th level, and the other he copied from a Egad the Blue several adventures ago, as shown on his AR. Done. The adversarial DM, gnashing his teeth, can make no progress toward destroying the game. (Yes, this is presented tongue in cheek.) 2) A player sits down at a four player homegame, APL4. In the course of getting ready for the game, the DM learns that the player's PC, cleric 4 / mindbender 2 / wizard 1, has Practiced Spellcaster (wizard) and Improved Familiar. Discussion ensues about whether the PC qualifies for mindbender via Practiced Spellcaster and whether the PC qualifies to take the shocker lizard as an improved familiar. For what it's worth, my position is that this character has been an illegal character for quite some time. Not only that, but it has been made worse by other DMs having let it slide. This is really in grey territory, and the DM makes a ruling to keep the game viable. He rules that the player may not use the shocker lizard and may not use any of the mindbender class abilities for this table. Trying to be a nice guy, he suggests the player contact Triad to see what to do with the illegal character. The player never does, and next time he sees the character, it is now cleric 7; the player rebuilt the PC unilaterally and explains, "I never would have taken wizard 1 if I had known...." Now what? Could the DM strip the PC of familiar and class abilities? I think it is a judicious choice given the conditions. It is effectively done by agreement, given the alternative of grounding the character until resolved by Triad, and thereby killing the table. David
Howie23 07-23-07, 02:34 PM	The title of this thread is Highly mis-leading. 1) it is by no means 'resolved' 2) even if it is 'resolved' the majority of the posters seem to be in favor of 'Arcane Prestige Classed DO give two spells per level'. (I'm mainly worried that someone not reading the thread would take the title as gospel.) Sorry, my unintentional error. I've changed the title on the first post. David
Howie23 07-23-07, 02:40 PM	also as to the domain spell thing that is under spellcasting so yes you would get it even if he was right and as i said you dont quite realize the magnitude of what you argue for, you argue that a player change 50 or so ARs based on your ruleing (which would be a minority ruleing) and may still be overruled by a master GM( i can assure you no player of a wizard with any PrC would tolerate this and would always get a master DM on you) If you would respond in reply to the post that contains the statement you are disagreeing with, or provide a quote for context, we might be able to understand what you are saying. As it is, you've responding to Solberg's post; I don't think it is your intent to suggest that the magnitude of being feebleminded is changing 50 or so ARs. If you are responding to the original topic, no, that isn't what I've argued for at all, nor is it a necessary response. David
RenewedFaith 07-27-07, 11:24 AM	PHB pg. 57 (highlights by me, for emphasis): "Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, page 179)." PHB pg. 179: "Once a wizard understands a new spell, she can record it into her spellbook." So, according to the PHB, the wizard's spellbook is simply a record of his/her spells known, which would seem to me to indicate that any PrC that adds to spells known allows for the 2 new spells/level. The mistake they seem to have made was two-fold: in leaving the spells known out of the spellcasting class feature, and in glossing over the 2 new spells entry under the wizard's spellbook class feature- both features should state that the wizard gains 2 new known spells that he/she can then record into his/her spellbook; they made the assumption that allowing the spells to be recorded under the spellbook feature implies they're known as well (based on the above clarifications). Intent confused by sloppy execution.
solbergb 07-27-07, 12:27 PM	The PHB pg 57 reference above convinces me. Not that I wasn't already pretty solidly in the camp, but one of the magic words "Know" is used.
JJeff 07-27-07, 12:46 PM	The PHB pg 57 reference above convinces me. Not that I wasn't already pretty solidly in the camp, but one of the magic words "Know" is used. But "Spells Known" is a "keyword" to a certain extent for Spon casters. It's like saying a Move-equivalent action has to involve moving a certain distance just because the word "move" is in the word. I'm just stating my opinions.... I know you guys think I'm wrong... But if the "spells known" applies to wizards and other non-spon casters, why add the words "if applicable" in the PrC class feature description for spellcasting? Let's see, all spontaneous casters have Spells Known and thus apply Druids and Clerics need "Spells Known" otherwise they won't get their spell list (which is every spell for that level that is open to them) If you say that Wizards have a "Spells Known". then who is the exception that requires the text: "If applicable"?
JamesMaissen 07-27-07, 01:47 PM	If you say that Wizards have a "Spells Known". then who is the exception that requires the text: "If applicable"? Well first if you will see the variation in the wording for the PrCs in this regard you will probably come to the conclusion that they were not very exacting in their choice, but have gotten better as time has progressed. Second, to answer your question there are also fixed list casters (warmage, beguiler, dread necromancer, etc). -James
TWG_Prometheus 07-27-07, 02:09 PM	This is what comes from treating the rules set for D&D the same way you do Magic: the Gathering. It doesn't work. The rules language is not as tight, and it isn't meant to be read in the same way. Spells known for a Wizard is their normal spellbook learning progression, and they get it even if they're in a PrC. Some casting classes don't even need that, as JamesMaissen just pointed out. While the formatting for your original post might have been OK had there been an actual debate on the issue, forums do not lend themselves to that particular style. Specifically, the style must be understood by all involved and there must necessarily be a well-prepared debate member for the opposite side. Neither condition applies in this forum, and it reads very poorly as a result. Changing the title is insufficient to fix the problem.
rutrow424 07-27-07, 03:11 PM	Let's see, all spontaneous casters have Spells Known and thus apply Druids and Clerics need "Spells Known" otherwise they won't get their spell list (which is every spell for that level that is open to them) If you say that Wizards have a "Spells Known". then who is the exception that requires the text: "If applicable"? Clerics/Druids and the focused spontaneous casters do not have spells known in the same sense as sorcerers; I don't have the exact wordings in front of me, but your argument that wizards don't get the spells could I believe also be stretched to be applied to these classes. Those same casters only gain new 'spells known' when they achieve a new spell level, so that provision would only apply every other level - hence the usage of "if applicable."
SYB 07-27-07, 05:29 PM	It adds almost nothing to the conversation, but I recently looked at the Wizard of High Sorcery prestige class in Dragonlance Campaign Setting. It uses the same language as just about every other caster prestige class. But, WoHS is special in that, it is basically a base class in disguise. According to the DCS, all wizards are required to take this prestige class at 5th level (or horrible bad juju happens to them). Thus, it seems highly unlikely that a class that 99.9% of wizards that reach 5th level are expected to take (and expected to continue in until it is done) would be designed to prevent them from getting their bonus spells. Also, note, ONLY wizards (specialist wizards to be exact) can get into this class. No, this isn't proof. But, given the unlikelihood of a class of this nature not giving the bonus spells in a spellbook at each level, this suggests that the wording used is intended to give spells in spellbook at each level. -SYB
Howie23 07-28-07, 04:07 AM	PHB pg. 57 (highlights by me, for emphasis): "Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, page 179)." Yep, but learning new spells, and thus knowing them, is not directly to spellcasting level or progression. The spells that a wizard, or other spellbook using caster, knows are a function of being able to find/research the spell, a Spellcraft check, and the money for adding the spell to his book. David PHB pg. 179: "Once a wizard understands a new spell, she can record it into her spellbook." So, according to the PHB, the wizard's spellbook is simply a record of his/her spells known, Not quite. A spellbook is not a record of spells known. A wizard can record a spell that he understands into his spellbook. He does not have to. A wizard can prepare from his spellbook, or from one that is borrowed; a spellbook that he owns or prepares from necessarily the universe of the spells that he knows. He may have borrowed the spellbook. He may have lost his original spellbook and is now casting from a thin little thing that is a shadow of its former self.. He may have multiple spellbooks, and this is just one. He may have lost his master spellbook, and just have this little travelling spellbook left. The spellbook may contain spells he knows, but cannot cast. which would seem to me to indicate that any PrC that adds to spells known allows for the 2 new spells/level. A wizard gains two free spells each level. This is a class benefit. In game mechanics terms, it represents two Spellcraft checks and free ink. If this benefit did not exist, the wizard could still have a fat spellbook; that is a function of a given campaign, not of the core rules associated with the class. The mistake they seem to have made was two-fold: in leaving the spells known out of the spellcasting class feature, and in glossing over the 2 new spells entry under the wizard's spellbook class feature- both features should state that the wizard gains 2 new known spells that he/she can then record into his/her spellbook; they made the assumption that allowing the spells to be recorded under the spellbook feature implies they're known as well (based on the above clarifications). Intent confused by sloppy execution. This is one interpretation. It assumes the conclusion, that the two spells researched and added to the spellbook as part of the wizard’s activities have always been intended to be part of what is referenced by the PrCs. There is a fundamental difference between a spontaneous spellcaster’s spells known class aspect and the spells that a wizard knows and may or may not have in his spellbook. The sorcerer who gains a level that allows a new level of spells has no other way to gain a known spell. A wizard does. A prestige class that granted spells per day but no additional spells know would prevent a sorcerer based character from knowing spells of higher level. This isn’t true of the same prestige class built upon a wizard base class. That character could buy a scroll, gain a spellbook as loot, trade for the spell, etc. The prestige class must grant a sorcerer spells known to allow casting higher level spells; it does not have to for wizards. The consequences of the interpretation presented in the original post mean that, within the core rules, a wizard with a prestige class would likely have fewer high level spells. The pure wizard would be more flexible. The prestige classed character would have his special abilities along with fewer spells. The frightful vision of arcane casters without high level spells as a result of having chosen a prestige classes…that is campaign specific both with respect to the acquisition of higher level scrolls and the culture of choosing prestige classes. It may respresent a warping of perspective due to a de facto campaign administration position on a core rules issue. Ultimately I think this is an area where the rules have shifted toward the position that the 2 bonus spells are included in spells known. I don’t think it was the original intent. I don't think the campaign could correct it, even were it desired.
Howie23 07-28-07, 04:12 AM	While the formatting for your original post Who is this directed to? You responded in a threaded response to James, yet your content seems directed to me. David
gomeztoo 07-28-07, 07:53 AM	If you say that Wizards have a "Spells Known". then who is the exception that requires the text: "If applicable"? Any class/prclass with a fixed spell list, such as warmages, beguilers, dread necromancers, etc.
JJeff 07-29-07, 02:13 AM	I understand, but these classes didn't exist when PrCs first came out, which is DMG, before any of the Complete books.
Zanzibax 07-29-07, 09:46 AM	Let's see, all spontaneous casters have Spells Known and thus apply Druids and Clerics need "Spells Known" otherwise they won't get their spell list (which is every spell for that level that is open to them) If you say that Wizards have a "Spells Known". then who is the exception that requires the text: "If applicable"? Wizards with an inadequate intelligence.
RenewedFaith 07-29-07, 11:46 PM	Not quite. A spellbook is not a record of spells known. A wizard can record a spell that he understands into his spellbook. He does not have to. A wizard can prepare from his spellbook, or from one that is borrowed; a spellbook that he owns or prepares from necessarily the universe of the spells that he knows. He may have borrowed the spellbook. He may have lost his original spellbook and is now casting from a thin little thing that is a shadow of its former self.. He may have multiple spellbooks, and this is just one. He may have lost his master spellbook, and just have this little travelling spellbook left. The spellbook may contain spells he knows, but cannot cast. A wizard learns/understands a spell, then scribes it into his/her spellbook in order to keep it as a known spell. There's a mechanical reason why a player is required to keep his/her spellbook updated- it is a record of spells known. If I sit at a table and show the judge my spellbook and it doesn't have a certain spell in it, my wizard can't prepare/cast it. Period. There's no second list of "well, he learned these spells he just didn't scribe them into his book" spells. Could he try a Spellcraft check to prepare from someone else's spellbook? Yes, but he is limited to spells he already knows, which are recorded in his spellbook. PHB pg. 178: "A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook..." A wizard gains two free spells each level. This is a class benefit. In game mechanics terms, it represents two Spellcraft checks and free ink. If this benefit did not exist, the wizard could still have a fat spellbook; that is a function of a given campaign, not of the core rules associated with the class. The wizard learns two new spells. Period. You can make the arguement that he wouldn't get to scribe them freely, as that is a class feature, but the understanding of two new spells, which then allows for scribing them, is implied and has been a staple since 3.0 (to such an extent that they didn't feel the need to change or errata anything). There are no Spellcraft checks for the two new spells/level.
Howie23 07-30-07, 12:25 AM	There's no second list of "well, he learned these spells he just didn't scribe them into his book" spells. There is an implied list of the spells that have been learned, recorded, and thus could be prepped from another spellbook. In most cases, it isn't needed. If a wizard lost a spellbook and had to start from scratch, I know I would then make an explicit list of what had been in the old spellbook. The spellbook is not necessarily on a one-to-one relationship with the spells that the wizard knows. The wizard learns two new spells. Period. You can make the arguement that he wouldn't get to scribe them freely, as that is a class feature, but the understanding of two new spells, which then allows for scribing them, is implied and has been a staple since 3.0 (to such an extent that they didn't feel the need to change or errata anything). There are no Spellcraft checks for the two new spells/level. How does he know them? You say period. I'm asking how. I presented a view that is consistent with the game mechanics for how a spell is learned. A black box with the label, "And then a miracle occurs, period" has the result of shuttling the issue into the realm of "we really don't need to know." David
Howie23 07-30-07, 12:27 AM	Wizards with an inadequate intelligence. A wizard could choose two cantrips for his two new spells, if he wanted to. Inadequate intelligence clearly isn't the answer here. David
Zanzibax 07-30-07, 09:04 AM	A wizard could choose two cantrips for his two new spells, if he wanted to. Inadequate intelligence clearly isn't the answer here. David No a wizard cannot make that choice: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from her prohibited school or schools, if any; see School Specialization, below) plus three 1st-level spells of your choice.
RenewedFaith 07-30-07, 09:58 AM	There is an implied list of the spells that have been learned, recorded, and thus could be prepped from another spellbook. In most cases, it isn't needed. If a wizard lost a spellbook and had to start from scratch, I know I would then make an explicit list of what had been in the old spellbook. The spellbook is not necessarily on a one-to-one relationship with the spells that the wizard knows. If you're going to write a list of the spells in your old spellbook to prove that you know them then A SPELLBOOK IS A RECORD OF YOUR KNOWN SPELLS! Which means, yes, it is a one-to-one relationship of spells he/she knows. There is no "implied list" if the "implied list" is simply a copy of the spellbook. How is this a difficult concept? How does he know them? You say period. I'm asking how. I presented a view that is consistent with the game mechanics for how a spell is learned. A black box with the label, "And then a miracle occurs, period" has the result of shuttling the issue into the realm of "we really don't need to know." David OK, first of all, I've quoted directly from the game mechanics, show me a quote from the PHB, CAr, or any other book that supports your "consistent" (yet contradictory) view. Secondly, a wizard is allowed to scribe two spells into his/her spellbook at each new level. Is the scribing a different class feature? Ok, yes, and therefore the actual scribing costs the wizard (seems ridiculous as someone already mentioned that this would make the wizard the only class to actually lose gold should he/she choose to level in a PrC, but let's say it's the case). But the scribing feature does not say he/she learns a new spell. The learning is implied in the ability to scribe the spells. Since this implied learning is not specifically listed under the scribing class feature, it must be part of the spells/level feature of the class. The wizard levels, gaining the knowledge/understanding of two new spells, showing the experience gained from adventuring and researching. He/she then sits down and records these newly understood spells. Two different features- the new spells are learned as part of the spellcasting progression, and are recorded as part of the scribing into a spellbook. You can argue it, you can disagree, you can enforce it however you wish should I play at a table where you're judging and my character levels, but this is how I have understood the rules since 3.0 first came out, and, as I stated earlier, since there's been no errata or need for official ruling on the subject I don't see this as being a problem, except here where people want to debate the obvious or try to screw with a class they don't play or dislike.
Howie23 07-30-07, 12:17 PM	No a wizard cannot make that choice: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from her prohibited school or schools, if any; see School Specialization, below) plus three 1st-level spells of your choice. Just to be sure here... You are suggesting that under the core rules, a wizard researches a new cantrip. All other wizards immediately get that spell in their spellbook? :) That said, my point was that the 2 new spells can be of any level he can cast. Please substitute 1st level spell (requiring an intelligence of 11) for cantrip in my post. I will again state that this is clearly not the intent of that terminology: the wizards with 10 or lower intelligence that are leveling in a prestige class (most of which require ability to cast arcane spells). David
Howie23 07-30-07, 02:14 PM	If you're going to write a list of the spells in your old spellbook to prove that you know them then A SPELLBOOK IS A RECORD OF YOUR KNOWN SPELLS! Which means, yes, it is a one-to-one relationship of spells he/she knows. There is no "implied list" if the "implied list" is simply a copy of the spellbook. How is this a difficult concept? It isn't a difficult concept, it is merely incorrect. I suspect we might have a different understanding of what one-to-one means. This would explain why you are now starting to become abusive. "How is that a difficult concept" is a shorthand statement used to say, "This is easy to understand and you don't get it, therefore you are intellectually unable to understand it." Tone it down if you would like to proceed, pls. One-to-one relationship: you can match up everything on one list with exactly one element on the other list. When done, all elements are matched, and there are no left over members. This is true in all cases. A Vignette in A Private Room at the Wizards Guild: Arbuse the Abjurer sits down to talk with Callie the Conjurer to discuss trading spells. He pulls out a spellbook that has only 2 first level spells in it. Callie shakes his head, "That's all you know?" Arbuse explains, "No, this is merely the spellbook I wanted to discuss trades with. I know many other spells, and didn't forget them by merely picking up this book instead of the big one." In a parallel universe, he instead answers, "No, I know others, but recently my spellbook was destroyed. I've had to start fresh. I know quite a few others, but these are the only ones in my spellbook at this time." OK, first of all, I've quoted directly from the game mechanics, show me a quote from the PHB, CAr, or any other book that supports your "consistent" (yet contradictory) view. The mechanism that you provided was "period." If you provided a different mechanism, please refer me to it. I missed it. As to my consistent approach: please see the sections on PHB 178-9 under the header Spells Gained at a New Level. This specifically says the two free level up spells are due to the research performed by the wizard. In other words, wizards do research, and thereby gain new spells. See PHB p. 58 regarding the relationship between non-adventuring activities and the leveling process. My statement about the spellcraft check is not that the check is actually made. Rather, that it represents a check that is made (and succeeded at). The spellcraft check isn't important to what I was saying, and you're welcome to discard it. Secondly, a wizard is allowed to scribe two spells into his/her spellbook at each new level. Is the scribing a different class feature? Ok, yes, and therefore the actual scribing costs the wizard (seems ridiculous as someone already mentioned that this would make the wizard the only class to actually lose gold should he/she choose to level in a PrC, but let's say it's the case). I'm pretty sure that I have said nothing explict about the scribing cost. I will acknowledge that I have considered introducing the scribing cost into this conversation; I think I've resisted the tempation to date because I don't think it is germaine to the issue at hand. I'm not making a statement that wizards have to pay for the scribing for their level up spells, nor for arcane PrCs; the level up spells are part of the same bucket. But the scribing feature does not say he/she learns a new spell. The learning is implied in the ability to scribe the spells. Since this implied learning is not specifically listed under the scribing class feature, it must be part of the spells/level feature of the class. If you are going to state that if something is not A, it must be B, then you must establish that the only possibilities are A or B. If you want to do that, then restate the above in that light, I'll address it. The wizard levels, gaining the knowledge/understanding of two new spells, showing the experience gained from adventuring and researching. He/she then sits down and records these newly understood spells. Two different features- the new spells are learned as part of the spellcasting progression, and are recorded as part of the scribing into a spellbook. This is, somewhat oddly, consistent with the leveling rules as written, but inconsistent with the specific rule about the two new spells. By RAW, the two new spells are the result of research. By RAW, the studies during downtime between adventures consolidates what you learned during those adventurers. These two points are in contradiction with respect to what is the causal element. In spirit, this is the difference between practice and theory, and both contribute to the overall development of the character. You can argue it, you can disagree, you can enforce it however you wish should I play at a table where you're judging and my character levels, but this is how I have understood the rules since 3.0 first came out, and, as I stated earlier, since there's been no errata or need for official ruling on the subject I don't see this as being a problem, except here where people want to debate the obvious or try to screw with a class they don't play or dislike. If this is such a pointless discussion, why are you involved in it? You dismiss my motivation as a desire to debate the obvious or screw with a class I don't play or dislike. I've passed on the observation previously that people see the worst in the motivations of others, and their own motivations in the best light. It bears restating. Personally, I like the distinction between the pure wizard who gains the hard earned benefit of his research and the guy who has used his wizard levels as a springboard to a new direction and with new skills. There is a reason why you see very few pure wizard classes. When the spells learned are given to all, the only benefit to the base class is familiar progression and the bonus feats at L10 and L15. Personally, I prefer a campaign in which wizards don't have a bulging spellbook. I think that this gives a better game experience. Both of those are personal preferences that I play out in my home campaign. I am not seeking to enforce my personal preference on this into a campaign culture that views it differently. I submit that both of these preferences are about preserving a richness in the arcane classes through diversity and a richness in the relative utility of the various classes in the party. If you view it as screwing with or disliking a class, I can't help you with that. Three of my four LG PCs have wizard levels. One of them will be taking an arcane PrC, one will not, and one I'm uncertain. In addition to advocating the distinction provided in the last paragraph, my motivation is in seeking to preserve a rules-clean spellbook for the three of them; in order to do that, I'd prefer to have a clearer rule. The only statement I have made about enforcing this is that I don't think it's possible for the campaign to reverse the current culture. I'm of the opinion that the campaign has made a de facto ruling on it based upon how the campaign is structured, and that ruling takes the position that PrCs gain new spells. I would like to see that de facto ruling made clear. It is effectively a core rules issue, so the mechanism is to get it into the FAQ. The way to do that is to get people to realize that what they have assumed to be obvious, isn't. David
RenewedFaith 07-30-07, 04:18 PM	A Vignette in A Private Room at the Wizards Guild: Arbuse the Abjurer sits down to talk with Callie the Conjurer to discuss trading spells. He pulls out a spellbook that has only 2 first level spells in it. Callie shakes his head, "That's all you know?" Arbuse explains, "No, this is merely the spellbook I wanted to discuss trades with. I know many other spells, and didn't forget them by merely picking up this book instead of the big one." In a parallel universe, he instead answers, "No, I know others, but recently my spellbook was destroyed. I've had to start fresh. I know quite a few others, but these are the only ones in my spellbook at this time." In each of these cases, there is an original spellbook, whether tucked away somewhere or lost, that is a record of the spells the wizard knows. Mechanically a wizard's spellbook is the record of spells known; whether or not the PC has lost the spellbook the player still has recorded the spells that were contained within. The first time the wizard learns the spell, and then records it, he/she is assumed to know the spell. The recording is proof of the learning. Yes, for RP purposes the wizard who loses his/her spellbook can prepare the spell from someone else's spellbook because it's in their memory, but we're talking about game mechanics here. And the only way to prove the spell is in the wizard's memory is to have the original record, or spellbook. I've quoted the rules, it's stated pretty clearly. If you are going to state that if something is not A, it must be B, then you must establish that the only possibilities are A or B. If you want to do that, then restate the above in that light, I'll address it. I am stating that the only possibilities are A or B, unless you're suggesting there's some invisible mechanic between Spells and Spellbooks in the PHB which we can call A.2? If this is such a pointless discussion, why are you involved in it? You dismiss my motivation as a desire to debate the obvious or screw with a class I don't play or dislike. I've passed on the observation previously that people see the worst in the motivations of others, and their own motivations in the best light. It bears restating. I was participating to offer my opinion, as well as provide solid evidence, in the way of quotes directly from the relevant portions of the PHB, to support this opinion. You answered my posts in a way that seemed, to me, confused and random (seeing as you offered a differing opinion and then came up with examples that instead supported my conclusion), which led me to believe you were simply looking to make life difficult. I apolgize for making that assumption. Unfortunately, these days it's the most likely of assumptions on any of the LG boards/groups.
Howie23 07-30-07, 06:17 PM	In each of these cases, there is an original spellbook, whether tucked away somewhere or lost, that is a record of the spells the wizard knows. Spellbook 1 contains spells A, B, and C. It is then lost, and he thereafter starts a new book (spellbook 2) with C, and thereafter adds D, and E. He knows spells A, B, C, D, and E. Neither spellbook is a complete reference to the spells he knows. There is no one-to-one relationship. Mechanically a wizard's spellbook is the record of spells known; whether or not the PC has lost the spellbook the player still has recorded the spells that were contained within. The first time the wizard learns the spell, and then records it, he/she is assumed to know the spell. The recording is proof of the learning. Yes, for RP purposes the wizard who loses his/her spellbook can prepare the spell from someone else's spellbook because it's in their memory, but we're talking about game mechanics here. And the only way to prove the spell is in the wizard's memory is to have the original record, or spellbook. I've quoted the rules, it's stated pretty clearly. It appears we disagree as to what the rules say. I've provided counter examples to your position. Either we don't agree on the terms, or we disagree on the rules. I'm not sure there is point in continuing this line. I am stating that the only possibilities are A or B, unless you're suggesting there's some invisible mechanic between Spells and Spellbooks in the PHB which we can call A.2? This is now moot based upon the my next comment. I was participating to offer my opinion, as well as provide solid evidence, in the way of quotes directly from the relevant portions of the PHB, to support this opinion. You answered my posts in a way that seemed, to me, confused and random (seeing as you offered a differing opinion and then came up with examples that instead supported my conclusion), If this is your perspective about what has happened, I don't know how to speak in a way that we can communicate effectively on this topic. I'm dropping this line of conversation. which led me to believe you were simply looking to make life difficult. I apolgize for making that assumption. Unfortunately, these days it's the most likely of assumptions on any of the LG boards/groups. Thanks for the apology. David
Zanzibax 07-30-07, 07:58 PM	Just to be sure here... You are suggesting that under the core rules, a wizard researches a new cantrip. All other wizards immediately get that spell in their spellbook? :) That said, my point was that the 2 new spells can be of any level he can cast. Please substitute 1st level spell (requiring an intelligence of 11) for cantrip in my post. I will again state that this is clearly not the intent of that terminology: the wizards with 10 or lower intelligence that are leveling in a prestige class (most of which require ability to cast arcane spells). David Ask the circle...or do some research in LG for additional cantrips as a wizard. The point is, he cannot choose any 0-level spells. He knows them all. I believe it is more clearly the intent that as wizard taking a level in a PRC that also provides levels spellcasting entails gaining spells, if applicable (i.e. your intelligence has not been lowered below that point when leveling.)
Timlagor 07-30-07, 09:03 PM	I'm pretty sure that in LG you only start with the PHB cantrips. Even if you don't there are cantrips that are Ajar and can be learned with access.
solbergb 07-30-07, 09:45 PM	Yeah - my arcane archer just got access to Launch Item and I had to scribe it into my spellbook just like any other spell. I didn't get it for free just because I shot a wizard that had that cantrip in his spellbook.
Zanzibax 07-31-07, 09:33 AM	I'm pretty sure that in LG you only start with teh PHB cantrips. Even if you don't there are cantrips that are Ajar and can be learned with access. The potential remains that gaining spells as a wizard with levels as a wizard is inapplicable. Thus the wording of the prestige classes that grant spellcasting levels to wizards is appropriate. Denying those additional spells known to wizards on the basis of grammatical structure remains wrong.
Timlagor 07-31-07, 09:48 AM	I fail to see what that has to do with what I typed.
Zanzibax 07-31-07, 10:03 AM	I fail to see what that has to do with what I typed. I related it BACK to the point under discussion. The topic of the thread.
Howie23 08-01-07, 10:55 PM	I asked Customer Support this. Here's the discussion thread: I asked Cust Service, and w/o quoting the exchange, I also got a reply that wizards get the two spells. Encouraging others to ask the question so as to help get it into the FAQ. David
bitznarf 08-02-07, 12:44 AM	I asked Cust Service, and w/o quoting the exchange, I also got a reply that wizards get the two spells. Encouraging others to ask the question so as to help get it into the FAQ. David Before this thread I never even realized that it was even remotely possible that PrCs didn't give the 2 free spells. It almost feels like saying a full BaB PrC doesn't advance your BaB.