Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Molot 03-22-05, 03:38 AM	In the Player's Handbook, in the description about obtaining new spells by sorcerer, there is These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192), or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided that it is of the right spell level. The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however. (It is small quote, posted only to show what am I talking about, and I belive that 1)The same is in SRD 2)Most people here have this book already. I'll delete it if I'm wrong.) So, if he will obtain a scroll with "cure wounds", he can learn it, isn't he? Of course, some would say that it is not a sorcerer/wizard spell. But that's no problem since he need only to find one of: 1) Cleric with one arcane level and "Alternative Source Spell" feat 2) Rainbow Servant 3) Wizard or sorcerer with "Arcane Disciple" feat 4) Sorcerer who did it already ;) All of them can write arcane scrolls with spells from cleric's list. Rainbow Servant and "Arcane Disciple" can even have a wizard spellbook with them. Is there any hole in my thinking?
green_yawgmoth 03-22-05, 04:04 AM	No, you don't get to learn Heal because you find a scroll of it. It's pretty much facilitating the use of non-core books with sorcerer/wizard spells. Unless you can convince your DM that getting a mystic theurge to do up a scroll of miracle would be a-otay. Just don't be surprised if you get murdered on these boards for convincing your DM to let you have this. ;) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Molot 03-22-05, 04:30 AM	No, you don't get to learn Heal because you find a scroll of it. a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells Pleas compare this two... If PH says I can, why shouldn't I can?... As I wroted - obtaining a spellbook with "cleric" spells, but wroted and used by a wizard and as arcane spells, isn't much harder than obtaining any other unusual spellbook. Unless you can convince your DM that getting a mystic theurge to do up a scroll of miracle would be a-otay.Mystic Theurge can't write arcane scrolls with cleric spells. I've listed who can. And it can be other party member, actually (One level + one feat isn't so big price, actually, if a cleric can avoid being the only healer in the party. Just don't be surprised if you get murdered on these boards for convincing your DM to let you have this. ;)Actually, I was thinking about "What does books allows me to do". It looks like it is possible just by the printed rules. And about murder - it looks like you would kill all the "character optimization" forum, and possibly much more ;) So plz calm...
SamiPeikko 03-22-05, 05:11 AM	Please look at the spell description. If in the "Level" row there reads Sor/Wiz, then it is Sor/Wiz spell. Just like making Divine scroll of some Arcane spell by Cleric with right Domain does not make it Cleric spell, (other clerics without the right Domain are still unable to use the scroll), making scroll Arcane does _not_ change the spell into Sor/Wiz- spell. The rule allows Sorcerers for example to benefit from Wizards spell researcs, not to learn spells from other classes.
Nom 03-22-05, 06:34 AM	Is there any hole in my thinking?Yes. Read the text again: "detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book)". It defines what sort of spells it is talking about: sorcerer/wizard spells that are listed in a different place than the list of "commonly available" spells in the PH. It still has to be a sor/wiz spell and it's still (only) available at the listed sor/wiz level, but it can come from a source other than the PH default list (assuming the DM provides such a source). The rule is there to allow a sorcerer to obtain unsual spells in a manner comparable to a wizard, not to allow them to ignore the sor/wiz designation.
D-Dus 03-22-05, 07:31 AM	Also: the first line in the PHB under 'Spells' says: A sorcerer casts Arcane spells". Therefore he can't learn to cast Divine spells.....
Vatras 03-22-05, 08:15 AM	It does not matter, what funny combination of classes is scribing a scroll of Heal. It reamins a divine spell and such cannot be picked by any sorcerer. I am curious however where you get the funny idea, that someone can turn a spell from one realm into the other, just because he happens to be able to use both? A cure spell cast by a Mystic Theurge is still a divine spell and his fireballs are arcane.
Nephlite 03-22-05, 08:29 AM	In the Player's Handbook, in the description about obtaining new spells by sorcerer, there is (It is small quote, posted only to show what am I talking about, and I belive that 1)The same is in SRD 2)Most people here have this book already. I'll delete it if I'm wrong.) So, if he will obtain a scroll with "cure wounds", he can learn it, isn't he? Of course, some would say that it is not a sorcerer/wizard spell. But that's no problem since he need only to find one of: 1) Cleric with one arcane level and "Alternative Source Spell" feat 2) Rainbow Servant 3) Wizard or sorcerer with "Arcane Disciple" feat 4) Sorcerer who did it already ;) All of them can write arcane scrolls with spells from cleric's list. Rainbow Servant and "Arcane Disciple" can even have a wizard spellbook with them. Is there any hole in my thinking? Only if it is a arcane spell. Bardic spells are arcane so you can cast Bard spells possibly.(it is iffy but it is a unusual arcane spell not found on Wizard/sorc list)
Molot 03-22-05, 09:43 AM	SamiPeikko - I have to agree with you, when looking on the matter this way. This is what I missed. Thanx. (But I'm not happy with this :P) Nom - SamiPeikko said the same just one post earlier ;) D-Dus - But in my first post I wrote how to obtain arcane scroll of cure light wounds. It doesn't change anything, but the "Arcane" limit is not the problem at all. Vatras - No, you are wrong. It remains Cleric spell, but Rainbow servant casts and write it as ARCANE spell. Sorcerer or Wizard with Arcane Disciple too. Read the description of obtaining domain spells by arcane spellcasters. Complete Divine for example. Btw - as I've said, it doesn't have NOTHING to do with Mystic Theurge (as he has two separated spell lists). It is about characters who can have both cleric's and sorcerer's spells on ONE spell list. Pleas read before comenting, thanks. Nephlite - If the "arcane" would be only problem... pleas read my first post - you can obtain any cleric spell wroted as arcane.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-22-05, 09:56 AM	Molot: You are deliberately ignoring the fact that the spells must specifically be Sorcerer/Wizard spells. Not just Arcane, but specifically marked as "Level: Sor/Wiz X". So, no, none of the situations you've outlined work, because they don't change the designation of the spell. Ditto with learning spells from bards. Yes, Cure Serious Wounds, for example, is an Arcane spell when cast by a bard, but it's still just "Level: Brd 3, Clr 3, Drd 4, Pal 4, Rgr 4, Healing 3", and thus not a "sorcerer/wizard" spell. Thus no sorcerous healing.
PhaedrusXY 03-22-05, 09:58 AM	Yes Molot, you are technically right, but it is totally up to DM whim as to which spells you can learn, if they aren't explicitly on the Sorc/Wiz spell list. I let sorcerers pick spells from any spell list in the game when I DM, but I realize I am in the vast minority. I think the sorcerer is a weak class anyway, and this helps bring it "up to par" with the wizard, cleric, and druid.
malykoth 03-22-05, 10:13 AM	There are a few rare combinations that might allow an arcane spell caster to learn a divine spell as an arcane spell (such as with the Arcane Disciple feat). In such a case, I'd say only other characters who have taken the same path (feat, prestige class, etc.) can cast the new "acane" version of the divine spell in question. In other words, you need to be in on the secret to gain the benefit. Otherwise, arcane versions of nearly every divine spell would have long since been disseminated to the arcane community.
green_yawgmoth 03-22-05, 10:38 AM	Pleas compare this two... If PH says I can, why shouldn't I can?... But it doesn't. It says "...one not on the sor/wiz list in this book." As in, sor/wiz spells in other books. It still has to be a sorcerer spell, but it can be from other books if your DM allows you to. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Molot 03-22-05, 10:47 AM	You are deliberately ignoring the fact that the spells must specifically be Sorcerer/Wizard spells. Not just Arcane, but specifically marked as "Level: Sor/Wiz X".No I'm NOT. When SamiPeikko pointed that, I've said I have to agree with him. Just read my posts before commenting them, pleas... PhaedrusXY - I agree with your thoughts about Sorcerer's weaknesses. Too bad that taking the "other" spells isn't possible by the rules :/ There are a few rare combinations that might allow an arcane spell caster to learn a divine spell as an arcane spellThat's what I was talking about :] And while reading descriptions, it was obvious for me that Wizard without any "buffs" cannot write or cast unstandard spells. The sentence "they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study" make me think that sorcerer actually CAN. Note! The words about scrolls are ONLY an example... So technically nothing limits him ("or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study" are only rule-words here). And training is "easy" to obtain - it's storyline matter. A cleric / druid in the party is a good way to obtain training, isn't he?
malykoth 03-22-05, 10:54 AM	... So technically nothing limits him ("or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study" are only rule-words here). These words alone should make you think twice about your line of reasoning. Do you really want the sorcerer to have access to every spell in existence? I say it's a terrible idea, but if you really want to (and can convince/bluff/nag your DM to agree), then by all mean, munchkin away. That's the great thing about house rules...just don't expect the ruling to necessarily fly if you find a new DM or new group.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-22-05, 11:01 AM	No I'm NOT. When SamiPeikko pointed that, I've said I have to agree with him. Just read my posts before commenting them, pleas... //...// Note! The words about scrolls are ONLY an example... So technically nothing limits him ("or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study" are only rule-words here). And training is "easy" to obtain - it's storyline matter. A cleric / druid in the party is a good way to obtain training, isn't he? If you agree that the spells have to be Sorcerer/Wizard spells, why are you talking about clerics or druids teaching sorcerers spells they can't use?
Santrilla 03-22-05, 11:01 AM	While there are indeed examples of 'divine' spells being cast as arcane, they're still not sorcerer/wizard spells. Therefore, a sorcerer can't learn them.
calypso 03-22-05, 11:04 AM	A cleric / druid in the party is a good way to obtain training, isn't he? Seeing as clerics get their spells from their deity, and druids pull their spells out of their tree-hugging asses, no. How is a cleric going to explain how to cast CLW when they don't know? "It just sort of... comes to me. I can't explain it." There is no formula to divine spells, no rhyme or reason. That's like saying that a wizard should be able to "research" a new spell that cures 1d8+1 hp/level. "I simply observed what the cleric did, wrote it down, and presto! Cure Arcane Wounds." Calypso
Molot 03-22-05, 11:16 AM	Do you really want the sorcerer to have access to every spell in existence?It is not about do I want it, but about is it possible by the rules. if you really want to (and can convince/bluff/nag your DM to agree), then by all mean, munchkin awayRemember the wise words "It is fair to attack idea, but unfair to attack person here". I am theoretic. I more ofthen am a DM than a player. Most my questions are asked just to know, not to use them in a game. Sometimes even to prevent something in a game I'm DM'ing. Aslo, if the rules don't forbid something, I don't need to convince/bluff/nag anyone rules-respecting DM. If you agree that the spells have to be Sorcerer/Wizard spells, why are you talking about clerics or druids teaching sorcerers spells they can't use?I've agreed that if we will be treating example as the rule, then obtaining any spell will be impossible. But if we will be treating example only as an example, then nothing will stop sorcerer from doing this. This is what I think about it, sorry that didn't said it clear earlier. "...one not on the sor/wiz list in this book."Why actually do you read this that way? Maybe it should be readed as: "...one not on the sor/wiz list in this book." Any particular reason? I don't se any rule-related reason here. Calypso - But there already are sorcerers and wizard casting it. In good conditions (it's described in Complete Divine!) Wizard can write a divine spell to his spellbook just from the scroll. So having teacher should make it even easier.
Kyuketsukiouji 03-22-05, 11:35 AM	I've agreed that if we will be treating example as the rule, then obtaining any spell will be impossible. But if we will be treating example only as an example, then nothing will stop sorcerer from doing this. This is what I think about it, sorry that didn't said it clear earlier. Ah. But the problem is that a cleric spell is not "an unusual spell". It's a perfectly normal spell. So your sorcerer can't really try to convince anyone that the cleric teaching him "raise dead" for example, is teaching him anything "unusual". I might accept learning an arcane spell from an obscure prestige class as qualifying as an "unusual" spell, but not the bread-and-butter divine spells you see all the time.
malykoth 03-22-05, 11:42 AM	In good conditions (it's described in Complete Divine!) Wizard can write a divine spell to his spellbook just from the scroll. Would you kindly give us the reference to this rule? Page number? I'm not necessarily saying your incorrect, but I'd like to look at the passage myself. What does "good conditions" mean? :confused:
green_yawgmoth 03-22-05, 11:50 AM	Why actually do you read this that way? Maybe it should be readed as: "...one not on the sor/wiz list in this book." Any particular reason? I don't se any rule-related reason here.Well, besides the fact that Arcane and Divine spells are like AC and DC, do you really think that Skip would let the sorcerer have license to know ANY spell in existance? Don't you think that would be just a little bit broken? It's been said before: arcane casters can't learn divine spells without some kind of feat or PrC or something, but if you can bull**** your DM into letting you, go for it. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
malykoth 03-22-05, 11:58 AM	And be thankful I'm not using your terrible grammar against you. Now, now...let's remember that english may not be everyone's first language...while I think munchkinism/infernal-rules-lawyering may be worthy of a slight dose of "good-natured" derision, grammer and spelling should get a slight break. Yes, it would be great if every post was clear, grammatical and easy to understand, but I fear it ain't gonna happen, eh? ;) Just MHO! :)
calypso 03-22-05, 12:03 PM	Now, now...let's remember that english may not be everyone's first language...while I think munchkinism/infernal-rules-lawyering may be worthy of a slight dose of "good-natured" derision, grammer and spelling should get a slight break. Yes, it would be great if every post was clear, grammatical and easy to understand, but I fear it ain't gonna happen, eh? ;) Just MHO! :) I think he was making the point that Molot is trying to bend a slight ambiguity in wording to his advantage, while we overlook Molot's blatant grammar and spelling mistakes. The problem is that people have turned D&D into a game of word-play, as opposed to just going with the intent. Calypso
malykoth 03-22-05, 12:07 PM	I think he was making the point that Molot is trying to bend a slight ambiguity in wording to his advantage, while we overlook Molot's blatant grammar and spelling mistakes. The problem is that people have turned D&D into a game of word-play, as opposed to just going with the intent. Calypso Here, here! Exactly my opinion! :D
Kyuketsukiouji 03-22-05, 12:32 PM	To be fair, there are times when figuring out the designer's intent is a feat of gordian proportions. But, in my mind, this is not such a case.
Molot 03-22-05, 12:54 PM	Ok, maybe I can't speak english well. I never said I can. But what connection is between my poor english and this thread's subject?! It looks like someone have no arguments and want to hide it behind pointless argue. do you really think that Skip would let the sorcerer have license to know ANY spell in existance?By the wroted rules, yes. But I've never said that it is how it should to be. And I've never said it was autor's intention. It is just teoretical thinking. If you would try to think logical, you would know that what people mean is not always what they write. But the book authors should make they thoughts clear - they are paid for this... And you are forgettin gone thing - if someone knows there is a bug, he should post it as errata request. But it is great idea to disscuss it first - to avoid requests made only due to missread.
Molot 03-22-05, 01:06 PM	And be thankful I'm not using your terrible grammar against you.I will not. I will not be thankfull, first because my grammar isn't a matter of this disscusion, second because you actually ARE doing it right now... Jeśli ktoś chce dłużej o tym dyskutować, uprzejmie proszę o używanie mojego języka - zobaczymy jak wtedy wam pójdzie. Dodatkowo, sugeruję przejście z tą off-topicową dyskusją na jabbera. Mój adres jest w podpisie i często jestem dostępny.
Bane 03-22-05, 01:34 PM	do you really think that Skip would let the sorcerer have license to know ANY spell in existance? I think we can all agree that there are occasions where what Skip says, and what Skip means, are very different things. Nothing against Skip, after all, he's only human, but lets not elevate him to the point where he's considered all-knowing and infallible.
Molot 03-22-05, 01:47 PM	I think we can all agree that there are occasions where what Skip says, and what Skip means, are very different things.Exactly my point of view ;) But remember - people KNOW only what was written... The rest is just guessing. And all holes should be corrected (errata?) imho. If they aren't, why don't exploit them :P? ALL "CHARACTER OPTIMIZATION" FORUM IS ABOUT EXPLOITING RULES...
green_yawgmoth 03-22-05, 01:52 PM	I think he was making the point that Molot is trying to bend a slight ambiguity in wording to his advantage, while we overlook Molot's blatant grammar and spelling mistakes. The problem is that people have turned D&D into a game of word-play, as opposed to just going with the intent. Calypso This was, in fact, my point. I know Skip isn't all-knowing, in fact I think he's a damned idiot. But he is the one who designed the sorcerer, so I think he'd be the one who would know the most about the intent behind his own words. If you're going to play the "I read it this way" game, then you had better make sure that the way you type is nigh perfect or else I'm going to call you on it. The way you type and the way you read use the same part of the brain, so if you can't type for crap, you probably can't read for crap either. Also: Falls du bist gehend nach Verwendung Fremdsprachen in ein Stelle zu nachweisen jene Sie sind nicht träge , mindestens ausführen es in ein Nähgarn wohin Sie Arena argumentierend Englischesprache Semantik. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Molot 03-22-05, 02:11 PM	The way you type and the way you read use the same part of the brain, so if you can't type for crap, you probably can't read for crap either.Aslo, the same part of brain work for mathematical, geographical, histroical and any other memory... So how a hell there are a people with talent in only one of them in your opinion?... Understanding and writing/saying are different skills. Aslo, you wasn't able to show where I made actual mistake in reading this text. So when you ran out of arguments, you started attacking personally me. That's the way I see your behaviour. And maybe now you will go back to the topic? If you don't have nothing more to say in this topic, pleas go away. If you have something to say to me, just use jabber (or PM but I don't know when I'll be able to read it).
IceFractal 03-22-05, 02:15 PM	Actually, the entire part about Sorcerers researching stuff really makes no sense. Based on simple logic, a Sorcerer can learn any spell that the DM considers balanced and appropriate to the Sorcerer. Whether they can learn spells that are usually divine just depends on whether the DM allows it. Personally, I allow most of the lower level ones, on the basis that every Cure spell the Sorcerer learns is one less offensive or utility spell they know. Higher level ones like Heal and Ressurection are a bit more dubious. If you think I'm wrong about Sorcerers learning stuff, read this: Fact: A Sorcerer doesn't need spellbooks, scrolls, or study with other spellcasters to know his spells. A Sorcerer that lived alone and never communicated with or even looked at other spellcasters could still know the normal amount of spells just fine. Fact: A Sorcerer isn't dependant on what spells are commonly used. A Sorcerer living in a kingdom where Charm Person had been banned and all references to it destroyed could still learn Charm Person. Incidentally, this is why Sorcerers are often considered dangerous. Fact: The set of spells in the PHB are not the fundamental "ur-spells", they are simply the set that most spellcasters (in the default campaign setting anyway) use. If, in your campaign world, fireball was unknown and iceball was used instead, then iceball would be easy to learn and fireball would require research (for a Wizard anyway). Every splatbook with new spells or campaign setting that replaces some of the standard spells supports this. Fact: All possible spells are out there is possibility space. If a spell is appropriate for 3rd level arcane, then in some possible universe 5th level wizards are casting it (this is all "in-game", of course, although if you follow the "many worlds" quantum mechanics interpretation you could say that in some universe any given spell is in the D&D 3.5e PHB ;) ). Therefore, since all spells are out there somewhere, and the Sorcerer doesn't need any contact with a spell to know it, the Sorcerer can select any spell as a known spell. This includes spells from other books, spells from the internet, or even spells you make up. However, the spell has to be approved by the DM, obviously.
Ander Spectacular 03-22-05, 02:18 PM	Molot, you are correct. A Sorceror can, by the RAW, be allowed to learn spells not on the sor/wiz spell list at the DMs discretion. The SRD makes no mention of this book or any other nonsense, it simply says: These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. I would imagine the intent here was to provide rp instances where a sorceror is specifically able to learn spells that are not standard to wiz/sorc. Is this unbalancing? No. Is this unfair? No. Is there really any problem with it at all? No. Do most DMs allow this? None that I have played with, and it has been asked. In a campaign with limited divine magic(for example), a DM might allow a sorceror to learn a cure spell or 2 to help the party. Once again, though, it is not a powerful ability. Am i worried about sorceror's throwing around Cure Light Wounds or Raise Dead? Why would I be, a Favored Soul casts the same way. It is sub-optimal for a sorceror to cast most cleric spells simply in that most cleric spells are tailored to clerics, not sorcerors or wizards. Once again, you are correct Molot, it can be done. -AS-
Odin_666 03-22-05, 02:36 PM	why does everybody believe that cure light wounds is only a divine spell? A bard can cast it and therefore exist also an arcane version. should the wizards/sorcerers be able to learn this spell, only because there exist an arcane version? I don't think so, cause if this would be allowed, every wiz/sor would know these spells and then they could simply put it on the wiz/sor spell list... Also: Falls du bist gehend nach Verwendung Fremdsprachen in ein Stelle zu nachweisen jene Sie sind nicht träge , mindestens ausführen es in ein Nähgarn wohin Sie Arena argumentierend Englischesprache Semantik. Was soll das denn sein? Die Wörter sind ja deutsch, aber der Sinn bleibt mir verborgen...
Molot 03-22-05, 02:54 PM	why does everybody believe that cure light wounds is only a divine spell? A bard can cast it and therefore exist also an arcane version. should the wizards/sorcerers be able to learn this spell, only because there exist an arcane version? I don't think so, cause if this would be allowed, every wiz/sor would know these spells and then they could simply put it on the wiz/sor spell list...Right - cure spells of lower level can be arcane ;) A "joke" I've seen is only about sorcerer... I don't think wizards should be able to learn spells like that ;) - they already have no limits in spells known number...
Nom 03-22-05, 11:03 PM	Regardless of what your opinion is on the sorcerer issue, remember that spell level is not a function of the spell description, but of the list the spell appears on. For example, scrying is "Brd 3, Clr 5, Drd 4, Sor/Wiz 4". A multiclass Brd/Clr casts scrying as a 3rd level spell if he is casting it as a bard spell, but as a 5th level spell if he is casting it as a cleric spell. Which ultimately does answer the sorcerer question. If it doesn't have a Sor/Wiz entry, a sorcerer can't cast it as a sorcerer spell, and thus can't (meaningfully) learn it. However, a 7th level sorcerer could cast scrying from a scroll scribed by a 7th level bard. Although the sorcerer is not of sufficient level to cast scrying from his own list, he meets all the scroll use requirements: correct type (arcane), spell on class list, sufficient ability score, and sufficient caster level, and can thus cast from the scroll (at spell level 3). Likewise, a wizard could learn the scrying spell from the scroll (at least by my reading of the rules), and copy it to his spellbook. However, the spell is a level 4 spell for a wizard (or sorcerer), and thus would be learned as a level 4 spell. That a bard is more proficient with the spell and can cast it at level 3 is irrelevant. Similarly, a sorcerer could gain access to the scrying spell from the scroll, but would learn it as a level 4 sor/wiz spell. Thus, while a sorcerer could theoretically access a spell from just about anywhere, if it has no sor/wiz level then he has just learned an uncastable spell, which is probably not a good use of his extremely limited slots.
Molot 03-23-05, 01:32 AM	I think you read the rules "backward"... It is said that he can use only spells that are on his spell list - ok, the trick with bard's scroll might work, but it isn't obvious. The thing you are ignoring is the rule that he SRD makes no mention of this book or any other nonsense, it simply says: These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.So, if he was able to learn it, he is able to cast it - there is aslo sentence "he can cast any spell he knows without preparing (...)" - so he can cast it, no matter how he learned it.
Kayista 03-23-05, 01:54 AM	Hmm.. Gotta give the point to Molot for that last one, although then again that's only because Nom was wrong, too. By the Rules as written, the sorceror can LEARN any spell the DM allows him to. If the DM says the Sorc can learn MASS HEAL as a first level spell, then the sorc has MASS HEAL as a first level spell. Otherwise, the Sorc learns what the player can convince the DM he/she learns.
Soel Griffin 03-23-05, 04:26 AM	What most people do not realize, is that spells are written so that they may easily be converted from arcane to divine and vice-versa. They always have been! It would not be unreasonable in any way for a Sorcerer to be allowed to cast spells from other class' list with DM's approval. Molot, don't let the wounded cynic bother you.
Jake Tewdric 03-23-05, 05:54 AM	Why actually do you read this that way? Maybe it should be readed as: "...one not on the sor/wiz list in this book." Any particular reason? I don't se any rule-related reason here. If it was supposed to be read in this way, why would the designers have bothered to define the sor/wiz list as the sor/wiz list? If the sorc can learn spells that are not on that list, then it would merely be a wizard list, because the sorc list would effectivley be the entire set of all spells on any list, not limited to the list that they actually are.
Nom 03-23-05, 07:03 AM	I think you read the rules "backward"... It is said that he can use only spells that are on his spell list - ok, the trick with bard's scroll might work, but it isn't obvious. he SRD makes no mention of this book or any other nonsense, it simply says: These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.Error #1: Assuming the SRD is definitive. The SRD is not the definitive rules source; it is a condensed version of most of the rules, and it is provided to allow 3rd party publishers to quote / use those rules to develop compatible products. The PH is still the definitive source. Error #2: Ignoring the example.For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spell book detailing an unusual wizard/sorcerer spell (one not on the wizard/sorcerer list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level ... (emphasis mine)The example is quite clear that the "unusual spell" being discussed is a wizard/sorcerer spell not in the PH. Error #3: Ignoring spell level.... provided that it is of the right spell level.If it doesn't have a sor/wiz level listed on the chart, then it doesn't have a sor/wiz level. The answer to the question "What level can a sorcerer learn / cast this spell at?" is "not applicable"; you can't learn or cast the spell as one of your sorcerer spells known (barring special feats). The thing you are ignoring is the rule that So, if he was able to learn it, he is able to cast it - there is aslo sentence "he can cast any spell he knows without preparing (...)" - so he can cast it, no matter how he learned it.Actually, what I was doing is pointing out the impossibility of a sorcerer learning a spell with level "not applicable". Even if he was allowed to learn it (ie ignoring PH pg 54), you've still got the twin problems that he doesn't have a "spells known" slot to put it in (since it has no sor/wiz level) and he has no mechanism to cast it (since it has no sor/wiz level). As to the quote, let's look later on pg 54: "he can cast any spell he knows at any time ..." (as already stated) "... assuming he has not used up his spells per day for that spell level." Note that none of the above stops the DM from assigning a sor/wiz level to any spell in any rulebook (or even not in any rulebook), which immediately makes the spell valid for sorcerers (and wizards) to learn - assuming that they can get access to it. However, until the spell has a sor/wiz entry, it is uncastable (even from spell completion and spell trigger items) by a sorcerer or wizard, and likewise unlearnable. The rules on unusual spells on PH pg 54 in no way abrogate this.
The Livewire 03-23-05, 07:10 AM	OK, reading this thread, it does look like it can be interpreded two different ways depending on syntax. That's fine by me. We don't normally have clerics in the games I run, my players don't like them. So if I had a sorcerer player ask if he could research the bard CW series, I don't see it being broken. If we already had a cleric in the party, I'd likely think differently.
Molot 03-23-05, 07:15 AM	By the Rules as written, the sorceror can LEARN any spell the DM allows him to.To be true - DMG says that anyone can do anythign if DM allows him to. But only in the sorc's description is the rule that allows him to "go outside" his standard list - so it shouldn't be treated as an "DM approval only" - unless you treat all rules this way. If it was supposed to be read in this way, why would the designers have bothered to define the sor/wiz list as the sor/wiz list?We don't have to read this at all as it is ONLY an example. The situation as it is written now: Sorc can learn and use any spell. For the spells from his own spell list he can do it automaticaly, and for the other he have to find a scroll / teacher / etc. Aslo, he can only use wands (and similar items) with spells from his class list only. So there is difference between spells from hiss spell list and from "third sources". What most people do not realize, is that spells are written so that they may easily be converted from arcane to divine and vice-versa. They always have been!.What they realy don't understand is that one can simply take Favoured Soul, buy him a Fireball or other powerfull combat spell throught Additional Spell feat (there is NO spell list limit!), and this way have better HD, better saves, the same spells/day and spells/known, most of healing spells and (with Fireball) great combat power. And don't forget about weapon-related feats and armour. Worth much more than one or two feats spent on the combat spells, isn't it? So with all this, jetting Sorcerer to get some healing spells is rather act of mercy than overpowering. It would not be unreasonable in any way for a Sorcerer to be allowed to cast spells from other class' list with DM's approval. And I still don't think that it has to be special DM approval on this ;) with the rules as they are. Molot, don't let the wounded cynic bother you.Thanx :D
Molot 03-23-05, 07:25 AM	Error #1: Assuming the SRD is definitive. The SRD is not the definitive rules source; it is a condensed version of most of the rules, and it is provided to allow 3rd party publishers to quote / use those rules to develop compatible products. The PH is still the definitive source.But in this point the rule is worded the same way, letter by letter. Error #2: Ignoring the example.Example is only example. It shows how the rule can be used, but don't says it can't be used different way. There was example of ogre half red dragon. So only ogres can be half red? I don't think so. Error #3: Ignoring spell level.If it doesn't have a sor/wiz level listed on the chart, then it doesn't have a sor/wiz level. The answer to the question "What level can a sorcerer learn / cast this spell at?" is "not applicable"; you can't learn or cast the spell as one of your sorcerer spells known (barring special feats).So why there is the sentenc ethat he CAN learn spells that are not on his spell list?... It wouldn't make any sence when interpretating it as you do now. [QUOTE=Nom]As to the quote, let's look later on pg 54: "he can cast any spell he knows at any time ..." (as already stated) "... assuming he has not used up his spells per day for that spell level."QUOTE]Ok, so what's with that?.. Where (in the wroted rules!) is the rule "by level we mean combination of class name and actual level" or sth like that? I didn't saw it anywere.
Will Brandiman 03-23-05, 07:45 AM	So why there is the sentenc ethat he CAN learn spells that are not on his spell list?... It wouldn't make any sence when interpretating it as you do now. Err, there isn't such a sentence. It says: "For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided that it is of the right spell level." If you can show me anywhere in the Core rules that says that a Sor can learn spells that are not Sor/Wiz then I will believe you. Unfortunately, as the core rules don't in fact say this, I'm afraid I have to disbelieve you.
Nom 03-23-05, 08:33 AM	Semantics Will, but the sentence specifically allows you to learn spells that are not on the normal sorcerer/wizard list, but they have to be sorcerer/wizard spells (ie have a sor/wiz level in the spell description). The distinction is not sor/wiz spells and not sor/wiz spells, but sor/wiz spells from the PH list and sor/wiz spells not from the PH list. Obviously, there are no spells in the PH fitting the latter description. :) I figure that's what you meant, but there's enough clumsy semantics in this discussion already. :) But in this point the rule is worded the same way, letter by letter.Actually, it's not. The PH says "common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192)"; the SRD omits the page reference. With the page reference, it is obvious that the distinction is being made between spells on the PH sor/wiz list and spells not on that list. The example elaborates, and is quite careful to describe a "sorcerer/wizard spell", not just a "spell". The rule exists to ensure that sorcerers have access to non-standard sorcerer/wizard spells (cf pg 179 and DMG chapter 2), not to allow them to ignore the "sor/wiz" designation. We see further evidence of this on pg 180, "new divine spells". A new divine spell does not automatically propagate to all eligible divine casters, rather the spell must be made available and discovered before being used. In the same way that new cleric spells do not automatically become part of the cleric list, new sor/wiz spells do not automatically become part of the sor/wiz list, and thus are unavailable to a sorcerer (and, incidentally, to wizards as one of their two free spells on level up) until discovered. Where (in the wroted rules!) is the rule "by level we mean combination of class name and actual level" or sth like that? I didn't saw it anywere.At this point I'm assuming you're arguing for the fun of it. PH pg 174, "Level".
Will Brandiman 03-23-05, 09:02 AM	Semantics Will, but the sentence specifically allows you to learn spells that are not on the normal sorcerer/wizard list, but they have to be sorcerer/wizard spells (ie have a sor/wiz level in the spell description). The distinction is not sor/wiz spells and not sor/wiz spells, but sor/wiz spells from the PH list and sor/wiz spells not from the PH list. Actually, that was the exact point I was making. A Sor can learn any spell that has "Sor/Wiz x" in the Spell Level entry. If it doesn't then he can't learn it without some feat or special ability that specifically grants him the ability to do so.
Odin_666 03-23-05, 09:46 AM	and in the DMG on page 35 you can read, what the authors of the game think about sorcerers casting healing spells: Wizards and sorcerers should not cast healing spells... (and by the way, does anybody believe there exist (or should exist) a spell that sorcerers can cast but wizards cannot? by roleplaying reasons, I would find this very strange... )
Santrilla 03-23-05, 09:52 AM	(and by the way, does anybody believe there exist (or should exist) a spell that sorcerers can cast but wizards cannot? by roleplaying reasons, I would find this very strange... ) Not to my knowledge, but there are certainly some spells that wizards can cast but sorcerers cannot. That DOES make roleplay sense because there would presumably be some aspects of magic you could only know from studying rather than just doing, in the same way that a mechanical physicist would know how to do certain things that a plain ol' mechanic couldn't. I suppose it's feasible that there would be some spells that can only be cast by sorcerers, but roleplaying them would rely on where you think sorcerers get their magical powers. If you go with the dragon's blood theory, maybe there are some spells that have the part-dragon blood as a material component of sorts? I dunno.
Molot 03-23-05, 02:32 PM	After my last post in this thread: Will Brandiman - You are showing EXAMPLE, not the RULE. Don't you see difference?... Too bad :( About "f you can show me anywhere in the Core rules that says that a Sor can learn spells that are not Sor/Wiz", here it is: "or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study." All spells with Sor description are usual for him, so here unusual = other spells here. Nom - "(..)but they have to be sorcerer/wizard spells(...)" Look above. "With the page reference, it is obvious that the distinction is being made between spells on the PH sor/wiz list and spells not on that list." - "obvious" is a word ofthen used by a people that cannot prove they point of view. Show me sth like this wroted in a book, and I'll belive you. For me page reference - ok, is there. But healing spells are not on this list too, so meets this description too. Why the rule exist is the totally different thing. The matter is WHAT does it means, no why or sth. Aslo, the author is the only person who can expect that I'll belive in sentences like that without a prove. PH pg 174, "Level" - ok, if this rule is stronger than class rules, then Rainbow Servant's 10'th level ability is useless, as he still will not be able to cast cleric spells (neither Wizard, Sorcerer nor Rainbow aren't in the "spell level" fields of this spells). And if this rule is weaker than class rules, then Sor "they can be unusuall spells that are not on his list" allows us to ignore that (PH pg 174, "Level") rule. Anything more? Odin_666 - It is only a sugestion, isn't it? Besides, all epic casters can use heal seed if only they have knowledge(nature) or knowledge(religion) 24 ranks. And here it doesn't matter if the caster is arcane or divine. So, if such great exception already was made (without any discussion), why shouldn't I belive there are other?... Santrilla - Innate talent can show in many forms, while math is math, spellbook is spellbook... So it does make great roleplaying reason for these classes to be different. PS: There was a little discussion in my local (unoficial) RPG club. All who seen that rule agreed, that: 1) He can get any spell (different opinions about is it good or bad) 2) Rules should be written the way that disallows interpretations 3) D&D have more holes than any cheese I don't expect answer to that ;) just the third opinion is worth to post it here ;)
calypso 03-23-05, 02:37 PM	I love arguments wherein the person ignores all presented evidence and continue saying the same thing over and over again. Let it go Molot. RAW, sorcerers can't learn cleric spells unless they're also sorcerer/wizard spells. A DM can rule otherwise, but that doesn't make it official. Calypso
solbergb 03-23-05, 02:52 PM	After my last post in this thread: PS: There was a little discussion in my local (unoficial) RPG club. All who seen that rule agreed, that: 2) Rules should be written the way that disallows interpretations 3) D&D have more holes than any cheese I find this the most interesting part of the discussion. Rules can NOT be written in such a way that disallows different interpretations. They are instead written assuming a modicum of common sense and a DM to be the final word when multiple 'reasonable' interpretations are possible. As gaming rules go, the 3.x rules set is remarkably specific and clear, requiring less interpretation than most other games I've played for the last 25 years. However that very detail can lead to contradictions and the haste of publishing can leave stuff unwritten that remains in the head of the developer. Which is why we have Eratta precedence rules, Eratta, FAQ and forums. To help the DM make up his own mind. In this case, I think the intent of the authors is pretty darn clear, that the sorcerers work off the sor/wiz list, barring a feat that explicitly says otherwise. The only feat I can think of in the dozen or so builder books I own is Arcane Disciple, which casts off of Wisdom, normally a dump stat for arcane casters. So it requires both a feat and attribute investment, plus you only get the spell options from one domain of a specific deity, and if you choose a precious "spell known" to get that spell you can use it only once per day per spell level slot it will fit in. From those severe restrictions, the less precisley worded "extra spell" can be interpreted to mean "extra spell known from the sor/wiz list" since it is unrestricted in how often it can be used, uses Cha as the casting attribute and in all other ways behaves just like a spell known you get via leveling up as a sorcerer...ie bound by the PHB rules, including the one that says if it isn't from the PHB spell list, the DM needs to give explicit permission. I find it a bit intellectually dishonest to assume the broadest possible interpretation when there is indirect evidence to the contrary regarding the intent of the authors. Now sometimes the authors disagree (read the FAQ entries written by Skip Williams on object hardness and acid/sonic damage, then read those changed by Andy Collins on the same topic...Andy didn't properly clean up the text and now the FAQ is contradictory on that subject). In that scenario you have to make up your own mind. But I don't think the sor/wiz spell list is one of those grey areas.
DarkJediReborn 03-23-05, 02:53 PM	In Complete Arcane, there is the feat Extra Spell which allows the user to learn an additional spell that, as the rules in the book stand, does not have to be on the Sor/Wiz list. In fact, taking a quote directly from page 80, "For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research." Since wizards cannot research cure spells as far as the DMG says, then they could use Extra Spell to learn said spells.
Molot 03-23-05, 02:58 PM	Calypso - wich of ARGUMENTS I've ignored? And if I can show why these arguments are wrong, why shouldn't I? The basic rule of discussions since 3000bc is that arguments are only what matters. All philosophy and science was built on this, so pleas follow. I hope you can do it. The fact is that none of you was able to post argumant that cannot be beaten easy. If any of you would, I would agreed. You said "He can't. Let it go." I say "He can. Accept this." Will you? If no, then don't say me what to do, just prove me that I'm wrong. Now I think I proved that I'm right. And the "He can't" team are the ones who ignores my arguments and saying the same over and over again. Just look on your last post... Nothing more to say... And my 8 (or more) last posts are point-by-point answers to other's arguments. So look on youself before you'll blame other.
calypso 03-23-05, 03:05 PM	From the 3.5 SRD: "A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." A sorcerer casts arcane spells. Yes, primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Meaning, he can learn spells not on the sorcerer/wizard list. "These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study." So, we have the fact that sorcerers cast arcane spells, that can be either from the sorcerer/wizard spel list, or possibly from other sources. There is no ambiguity regarding whether they can cast divine spells. It's quite clear. "A sorcerer casts arcane spells." What room for argument is there? Calypso
Molot 03-23-05, 03:10 PM	solbergb - It would be asy to word this one the better way, isn't it. - You propably overlooked the post in wich I've said that one of the reasons of creating this topic was that I wanted to be sure how is it now, before (possibly) posting errata-request. - As I've said, intent is something we can think about, but we know only what was wroted. Pleas (all you ;) ) don't re-post arguments I've already answered until you have something new about them, ok? DarkJediReborn As you've said, there are many, many ways to overcome the limits of spell list. And I still don't see any rule that forbids interpretating sorcerer's description as one of them...
Molot 03-23-05, 03:15 PM	There is no ambiguity regarding whether they can cast divine spells. It's quite clear. "A sorcerer casts arcane spells." What room for argument is there? PLEASE, PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING! IN MY FIRST POST I'VE LISTED THE WAYS TO OBTAIN A CLERIC SPELL WRITEN TO A SPELLBOOK OR SCROLL AS AN ARCANE All cleric spells casted by a Rainbow Servant are arcane. So, you have agreed that the "arcane" would be the only limit. But if Rainbow Servant teach you, it is no limit any longer cause he knows cleric spells as an arcane spells. Now - any more arguments?
calypso 03-23-05, 03:21 PM	PLEAS, PLEAS READ BEFORE POSTING! IN MY FIRST POST I'VE LISTED THE WAYS TO OBTAIN A CLERIC SPELL WRITEN TO A SPELLBOOK OR SCROLL AS AN ARCANE All cleric spells casted by a Rainbow Servant are arcane. So, you have agreed that the "arcane" would be the only limit. But if Rainbow Servant teach you, it is no limit any longer cause he knows cleric spells as an arcane spells. Now - any more arguments? First of all, I think you should know that I hate your attitude. It's condescending, DESPITE your obvious and glaring flaws. Second, NO. They are still divine spells. You can make builds that allow sorcerers to cast some divine spells, but they are still divine. Meaning, as I posted above, normally a sorcerer CANNOT LEARN THEM. I can see an argument for why sorcerers should be able to learn spells from the bard list (including their cure spells), but that's it. Calypso
Nephlite 03-23-05, 03:38 PM	From the 3.5 SRD: "A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." A sorcerer casts arcane spells. Yes, primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Meaning, he can learn spells not on the sorcerer/wizard list. "These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study." So, we have the fact that sorcerers cast arcane spells, that can be either from the sorcerer/wizard spel list, or possibly from other sources. There is no ambiguity regarding whether they can cast divine spells. It's quite clear. "A sorcerer casts arcane spells." What room for argument is there? Calypso Bard spells are Arcane. Bards spells are not usually found on Sorceror/Wizard spellist. Does this mean that Sorcerors can learn Bards spells. That is the argument room.
Molot 03-23-05, 03:40 PM	I don't expect you to like me. And when you are ignoring the first post in a thread while posting in this thread, what you are expecting?... Now, maybe we all calm down and return to the real matter of discussion, ok? Second, NO. They are still divine spells. What about: Unless the prestige class specifies otherwise, such spells are considered arcane spells when cast by arcane spellcasters. You can learn to cast the spells associated with that domain as arcane spells So at least two ways to find a teacher who knows Cure Wounds or Raise Death as an arcane spell. Added: Nephlite, we was writing simulatenously. Thanx, I forgot that one.
calypso 03-23-05, 03:41 PM	I can see an argument for why sorcerers should be able to learn spells from the bard list (including their cure spells), but that's it. Bard spells are Arcane. Bards spells are not usually found on Sorceror/Wizard spellist. Does this mean that Sorcerors can learn Bards spells. That is the argument room. As I said, I can see an argument for that, yes. Calypso
calypso 03-23-05, 03:44 PM	I don't expect you to like me. And when you are ignoring the first post in a thread while posting in this thread, what you are expecting?... Now, maybe we all calm down and return to the real matter of discussion, ok? So at least two ways to find a teacher who knows Cure Wounds as an arcane spell. I'm afraid I'm at the disadvantage of not having Complete Divine, so I have no clue what the context of these quotes is. But, as you said, learning to do so requires a Feat. I see no reason why one person with that feat could not teach someone else with that Feat some divine spell. But if it requires a feat for one person to learn, it requires a feat for everyone. Calypso
The Simbul 03-23-05, 03:45 PM	God forbid that Dungeons and Dragons doesnt have disclaimer stating that you must possess a modicom of common sense before attempting to use the product. One would assume that is the case. Anyone who places the "raw interpretation of the rules" above common sense has no business touching a DM Guide, and the authors of WoTC should not have to waste their time and the space in limited-page sourcebooks placing overcompensating and redundant semantic barriers for any player who might seek to performs wording-gymnatics around supposed "holes" in the text to gain an unintended advantage. a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing anunusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided that it is of the right spell level.A core-rules sorcerer cannot learn or cast a spell that doesnt have the Sor/Wiz or Sor abbreviations in its spell header, nor can a Sorcerer research, invent, and learn a new spell without that spell belonging to the Sor or Sor/Wiz spell list. Molot, you are correct. A Sorceror can, by the RAW, be allowed to learn spells not on the sor/wiz spell list at the DMs discretion. The SRD makes no mention of this book or any other nonsense, it simply says: These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. I would imagine the intent here was to provide rp instances where a sorceror is specifically able to learn spells that are not standard to wiz/sorc.Umm the reason the SRD doesnt make any mention of a "book or any other nonsense" is because a person using the SRD ISNT USING A BOOK! The SRD is a watered down version of the Player Handbook, and doesnt include references to actual books, pages within the book, nor does it include any gaming suggestions or example adjudications of the rules because such things are copyrightable and thus are not Open Gaming Content. That is tatamount to saying that by the "Raw Interpretation of the Rules" a Red Wizard doesnt exist since Red Wizards arent found in the SRD.
calypso 03-23-05, 03:46 PM	That is tatamount to saying that by the "Raw Interpretation of the Rules" a Red Wizard doesnt exist since Red Wizards arent found in the SRD. There is no Red Wizard. Calypso
Molot 03-23-05, 03:52 PM	calypso, both quotes are exact. You may belive me here - many, many people here can check it, so... (I understand that you may not see any other reasons to belive me ;) ) I see no reason why one person with that feat could not teach someone else with that Feat some divine spell. But if it requires a feat for one person to learn, it requires a feat for everyone.Ekhm... Just a moment earlier you've said that the only reason the sor cannot learn them is that they aren't arcane. But they are. At least may be. You hardly can disagree with that :) About the part "it requires a feat for everyone" - does warrior need to spend a feat to be profienced with a sword? Sorcerer (usually) do need. So imho you are wrong in this point. The Simbul - all single argument from your last post was already answered. I belive you are able to read throught the thread and find the answers on your own. I will not waste a space for reposting my answers. Once again, please avoid posting arguments that was already answered unless you have something NEW to add.
calypso 03-23-05, 03:56 PM	does warrior need to spend a feat to be profienced with a sword? All warriors (ahem, fighters), are proficient with longsword. They don't need to take a feat to use a longsword. All sorcerers can learn arcane spells. They don't need a feat to learn arcane spells. A fighter needs a feat to use a spiked chain (properly). That fighter cannot teach another fighter to use a spiked chain without the second fighter also taking the feat. A sorcerer that can cast divine spells as arcane spells needs a feat to do so. That sorcerer cannot teach another sorcerer to cast divine spells as arcane spells without the second sorcerer also taking the feat. Calypso
green_yawgmoth 03-23-05, 03:57 PM	There is no Red Wizard. Calypso There is no spoon. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Molot 03-23-05, 04:06 PM	Calypso - If the teaching like that is or isn'y possible, it is a matter of interpretation. I don't say that your way oh thinking is not logical, but... But just show me the rule that forbids it... From your earlier post: A sorcerer casts arcane spells. Yes, primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Meaning, he can learn spells not on the sorcerer/wizard list. We agreed on that point So, we have the fact that sorcerers cast arcane spells, that can be either from the sorcerer/wizard spel list, or possibly from other sources.That one too :D There is no ambiguity regarding whether they can cast divine spells. It's quite clear. "A sorcerer casts arcane spells."First, the rules from Complete Divine says that all spells he know he is casting as arcane, even if those spells was on cleric/druid/domain list earlier. And you didn't found any rule that he can learn only arcane, did you? Besides, just as I wroted, with proper teacher he can obtain an arcane training about that spells, so even if that rule would exist, this is no problem anymore. IMHO a rule "or they may be unusual spells..." works somehow like a warriors weapon profiency ;) And... Yes, it wasn't the best example... Using your own words: What room for argument is there?
calypso 03-23-05, 04:09 PM	Calypso - If the teaching like that is or isn'y possible, it is a matter of interpretation. I don't say that your way oh thinking is not logical, but... But just show me the rule that forbids it... From your earlier post: We agreed on that point That one too :D First, the rules from Complete Divine says that all spells he know he is casting as arcane, even if those spells was on cleric/druid/domain list earlier. And you didn't found any rule that he can learn only arcane, did you? Besides, just as I wroted, with proper teacher he can obtain an arcane training about that spells, so even if that rule would exist, this is no problem anymore. IMHO a rule "or they may be unusual spells..." works somehow like a warriors weapon profiency ;) And... Yes, it wasn't the best example... Using your own words: What room for argument is there? My brain hurts to much to parse what you're saying, so I'm going to go do something else for a while. In the meantime, consult my previous example. You can't teach people abilities that they aren't qualified for. As a rogue, I can't teach a wizard to backstab. Much like a sorcerer that can cast divine spells can't teach another sorcerer to do so. Calypso
Molot 03-23-05, 04:20 PM	Calypso - One more time - no sorcerer can cast divine spells. I've never said any one can. I've only said that: a) Sorcerer can learn spells from sources other than his spell list b) In proper case, any cleric spell can be casted, used and so on as an arcane c) There is no rule that prevents learning spells "converted to" arcane by a raw sorcerer. d) There is no rule that prevents learning divine spells by a sorcerer e) If a sorcerer know spell, he is casting it as an arcane unless noted othervise. In sorc description there is no such notice f) If you will find a way to make e) not work, remember b) (I know, it sounds funny... But I'm trying to be exact)
calypso 03-23-05, 04:24 PM	Calypso - One more time - no sorcerer can cast divine spells. I've never said any one can. I've only said that: a) Sorcerer can learn spells from sources other than his spell list b) In proper case, any cleric spell can be casted, used and so on as an arcane c) There is no rule that prevents learning spells "converted to" arcane by a raw sorcerer. d) There is no rule that prevents learning divine spells by a sorcerer e) If a sorcerer know spell, he is casting it as an arcane unless noted othervise. In sorc description there is no such notice f) If you will find a way to make e) not work, remember b) (I know, it sounds funny... But I'm trying to be exact) g) There is no rule that says humans can't turn inside out and do the limbo. Therefore they can. No, I'm sorry, but D&D works by defining what CAN be done, not everything that cannot. Calypso
Nuntius128 03-23-05, 04:33 PM	This may have been covered, I didn't read the whole thread, but I don't see a problem with the Sorceror learning the spells. Casting, no they can't, as they would have to be on the Sorceror/Wizard's spell list. But, it'd waste a "spells known" slot, I'd rule. Which would be completely silly, as Clerics don't need to 'learn' spells. But I'd let someone, if they really wanted to.
Molot 03-23-05, 04:40 PM	Nuntius128 - first, you forget about few things: 1) These spells does exist in arcane version (Complete Divine) 2) There already are many ways that allows knowing and casting spells that are not on character's spell list. And there is no rule that forbids treat sorcerer's description as one of them. 3) If you NEVER can cast a spell that is not on your spell list, then Arcane Disciple feat and some other feats and class abilities are useless. This WAS answered already. Just read the earlier answer to get full text. Then, if you have something new about this matter, write it here :D
The Simbul 03-23-05, 04:50 PM	a) Sorcerer can learn spells from sources other than his spell listNo he cant. If a Sorcerer can learn or cast a spell, then the spell is from his class spell list. If any sorcerer researches or invents a new Sorcerer spell, then it is added to the Sorcerer class spell list. If a feat or prestige class grants them access to certain spells, then those spells are considered part of their class list only for that character. Any other sorcerer who does not possess the named feat or levels in that prestige class doesnt consider those spells to be on their class spell list. No core rules Sorcerer can learn a spell that isnt on the Sor/Wiz spell list, and any new spells the sorcerer invents are added to the Sorcerer spell list. b) In proper case, any cleric spell can be casted, used and so on as an arcaneOnly if the given cleric spell has an arcane version, or the specific character has a feat, ability, or spell that allows them to duplicate or cast the given spell as an arcane spell. In either scenario that is the exception not the rule, Sorcerers cast spells from the Sor/Wiz spell list c) There is no rule that prevents learning spells "converted to" arcane by a raw sorcerer.Except a "raw sorcerer" or any other spellcaster cannot convert an existing to their spell list. If a Cleric spell is meant to exist on the Sor/Wiz class spell list, then it would have been placed on that class spell list. For whatever reason it wasnt, which in turn means that it isnt supposed to belong to the Sor/Wiz spell list. d) There is no rule that prevents learning divine spells by a sorcererExcept for the fact that Sorcerers cast arcane spells from their class spell list. Unless a rule specifically states that a Sorcerer somehow CAN learn spells from another classes spell list, then they CAN'T.
Ander Spectacular 03-23-05, 05:06 PM	Calypso, if you can see the argument for sorcerors learning Bard spells, then you concede the point. The point is that sorceror's can cast arcane spells from other class lists given the appropriate means to learn them. Being that bards can cast up to 6th level spells that appear on the cleric list, it is not unreasonable that those spells or spells similar to that can be learned by sorceror's and cast as arcane spells. -AS-
Molot 03-23-05, 05:06 PM	No he cant. If a Sorcerer can learn or cast a spell, then the spell is from his class spell list.Looks like you forgot the rule about obtaining new spells by a sorcerer: "These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, OR they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study." So the rules says he can learn form his spell list OR form outside source if he is studying that source. Why does you ignoring this? If you don't want to see / use it, your choice, but it don't mean that this rule don't exist. (this was answered earlier, many times actually) If a feat or prestige class grants them access to certain spells, then those spells are considered part of their class list only for that character.Ok, so if that particular sorcerer was studying (the second way he can obtain a new spell), then this spell is added to his own spell list. Looks good and clear for me. No core rules Sorcerer can learn a spell that isnt on the Sor/Wiz spell listOnce again "or[b] they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study." This rule [b]DOES exist, closing eyes won't help you. Unless a rule specifically states that a Sorcerer somehow CAN learn spells from another classes spell list, then they CAN'T.Should I paste the rule once again?... It clearly says that he can add spell from any other source if he is studying. All that was answered earlier. I've said it already, and I will be saying it as long as needed: Please read before posting. Please avoid posting arguments that was answered already until you have something new about them.
Molot 03-23-05, 05:10 PM	Calypso, if you can see the argument for sorcerors learning Bard spells, then you concede the point. The point is that sorceror's can cast arcane spells from other class lists given the appropriate means to learn them. Being that bards can cast up to 6th level spells that appear on the cleric list, it is not unreasonable that those spells or spells similar to that can be learned by sorceror's and cast as arcane spells. -AS- Nice to know that some people think at least a bit similar way as I ;) (I don't consider you are "on my side" or anything... just what I wroted. Anything more is over-interpretation. Just to be sure that you will not suffer from my bad opinion here ;) )
calypso 03-23-05, 05:38 PM	Calypso, if you can see the argument for sorcerors learning Bard spells, then you concede the point. The point is that sorceror's can cast arcane spells from other class lists given the appropriate means to learn them. Being that bards can cast up to 6th level spells that appear on the cleric list, it is not unreasonable that those spells or spells similar to that can be learned by sorceror's and cast as arcane spells. -AS- a) I can see the argument. I didn't say I agree with it. Me, the DM, would say no. b) Bards cast arcane spells. Spells on a bard's spell list are arcane. That is the reason I can see why sorcerer's might be able to learn them. Just because Bards have some of the same spells as clerics does not mean that I think sorcerers should be able to learn any cleric spell. c) Sorcerers have some of the same spells as clerics. That does not mean that they can learn any cleric spell. Calypso
Will Brandiman 03-23-05, 05:57 PM	Molot - Just out of interest, if you believe that Sorcerors can learn any spell, why do you think this ISN'T mentioned in the rules? It seems to be a fairly significant power boost for the class and a MAJOR deviation from the other character classes. You'd think it would be plastered all over the class description wouldn't you? Can't see it myself. Could you point it out for me please? As for the spell lists, why do you think that they bothered listing Sor spells when in fact there is no Sor spell list? Surely if what you say is true there would be no need? You can try to twist the words in the books and ignore the very clear examples given but, at the end of the day, if you want to play that way then I hope you enjoy your trip to Oz. Say hi to the Wizard for me.
Nephlite 03-23-05, 06:08 PM	As for the spell lists, why do you think that they bothered listing Sor spells when in fact there is no Sor spell list? Surely if what you say is true there would be no need? You can try to twist the words in the books and ignore the very clear examples given but, at the end of the day, if you want to play that way then I hope you enjoy your trip to Oz. Say hi to the Wizard for me. They bothered to list Sorrc spells for simplocity. It is easier to copy(for your character) if you narrow down non researching ones. I believe Sorcs research for the other ones not on spell list.
Will Brandiman 03-23-05, 06:13 PM	They bothered to list Sorrc spells for simplocity. It is easier to copy(for your character) if you narrow down non researching ones. I believe Sorcs research for the other ones not on spell list. Believing something doesn't make it true.
solbergb 03-23-05, 06:19 PM	solbergb - It would be asy to word this one the better way, isn't it. - You propably overlooked the post in wich I've said that one of the reasons of creating this topic was that I wanted to be sure how is it now, before (possibly) posting errata-request. - As I've said, intent is something we can think about, but we know only what was wroted. Pleas (all you ;) ) don't re-post arguments I've already answered until you have something new about them, ok? I find it ironic that somebody complaining about ambiguous language is very free with his spelling. It isn't easy to word a dozen rulebooks in such a way that an enterprising rules lawyer can't twist it to mean the opposite of what is intended. It is in fact harder to do so when you attempt to be specific in your rules, and then publish suppliments that introduce many new rules options. It is very difficult when in the base rules you are trying to leave an "out" for future feats/spells/effects to work differently than those already written. So you write that the sorcerer might be able to research a new spell, or learn a spell from some other source than the Wiz/Sor list in the PHB page XXX so that you can introduce new wiz/sor spells in a suppliment. Never dreaming that somebody would take this as a license to stray off the spell lists. Likewise Extra Spell assumed you'd "get" that you got to choose a new spell off an appropriate spell list, perhaps from a source your DM had restricted for roleplay reasons. Such as a Red Wizard of Thay spell you ran into battling them that you are attempting to duplicate with your own researches. Or an expansion where the DM wants to keep the spell rare and limited in his campaign, so you have to spend a feat or do spell research (ingame time and money) to get it. I would assume a warmage can invent a new kind of blasting spell, but if he was to try to research a non-evocation utility or transport spell he'd be nixed by his DM as "not possible with any amount of research." It's the same reason they keep saying "free actions normally don't provoke AOO's but we reserve the right to invent free actions that do". The rules are written with some slack in case some new effect needs to behave differently than prior effects, or to fit the needs of a given campaign without massive rewrites. The thing is the premise of your basic argument appears to be "If it CAN be interpreted in such a way, all DM's MUST accept it, and WOTC should be held accountable for any rule that has any ambiguity and immediately fix everything with eratta." When in reality, that's a pointless exercise for WOTC, and in reality no DM can really be browbeaten into accepting a rule he doesn't like. Not even in structured environments like Living campaigns...even there any rule that is at all ambiguous is settled by the table Judge, not by players and not by the campaign managers unless the latter want to invent a campaign-wide "house rule". If you want to say "Don't mock our campaign for interpreting the rules this way." then sure, I can agree with that. But the idea that any other campaign is going to be "forced" to accept this interpretation is silly. If you sit at my table, you play by my rules (and incidently, at my table you can trust that there is no favoritism...all players and all NPC's experience the same game "physics"). Likewise if I sit at your table, I'd respect your right to interpret, throw out or houserule whatever, as long as you were consistent.
Shini Neko Ni 03-23-05, 06:36 PM	Well I am not going to state my opinion on this however I would like to point something out Useing books like CA and CD in a arguement on a Core Class is not the most vaild way to go about it. They are a Supplement that may or may not be used by the DM, To really be able to prove your point you would be better off useing information from the Core books. This also goes for useing Prestige Classes, a DM might not even alow one in a game he might just want to run the base classes. Regardless why is this really a issue in the first place Its one of those things a DM may or may not allow it dosen't matter if he rules don't say or say he can get spells from the Cleric List, It matters what the DM says. Because in the end thats all nice and good that you Might be able use them however If your DM says no well then the answer is no.
Nom 03-23-05, 06:48 PM	A core-rules sorcerer cannot learn or cast a spell that doesnt have the Sor/Wiz or Sor abbreviations in its spell header, nor can a Sorcerer research, invent, and learn a new spell without that spell belonging to the Sor or Sor/Wiz spell list.The first is true. The second is not. When the PH talks about the Sor/Wiz list, it is referring to the list published in the back of the PH. There are sor/wiz spells that are not on that list. Likewise, there are (for example) cleric spells that are not on the cleric list, as can be seen from PH pg 180. It is possible for a character from any class to acquire new spells that exist on that character's personal list only, and not the standard PH list. I am not aware of anywhere that the PH states this in so many words, but a reading of the sorcerer spells rules, which makes a clear distinction between "spells on the sorcerer/wizard list (in this book)" and "sorcerer/wizard spells not on the sorcerer wizard list (in this book)", and the rules for new divine spells on PH pg 180 makes this distinction clear. It follows from this that: (1) Spells from supplements are not automatically included on the "common knowledge" lists. Of course, the DM is free to declare that a particular spell or set of spells are "common knowledge". (2) The discussion of wizards in the 'extra spell' feat is designed to allow a player to spend a feat to access a spell of the correct type that would otherwise be inaccessible. "Your wizard can learn that spell if you spend a feat to get it". However, the fact remains that a spell cannot meaningfully appear on a character's personal class list (which is superset of the standard lists, less any prohibited spells) unless it has a level designation for that class (or domain). Any spell that does not have such a designation is neither learnable or castable by members of that class. Any ability that allows a character to access spells without an appropriate level designation will (must) include a mechanism for obtaining an appropriate designation.
matmos 03-23-05, 07:36 PM	Molot, you brought up a potential exploit of sorcerer description as written that you wanted to discuss because this is the place to do that sort of thing after all and you might not have thought of all the angles. Lots of people seem to be intent on shutting you up by discussing your motives or your grammar or implying that you're crazy or that you have no common sense rather than directly addressing the logical puzzle you've proposed. I follow your reasoning and think your arguments are fairly clear and disciplined. The Sorcerer description does seem to allow her to learn arcane spells not contained within the Sorc/Wiz spell list in the PHB. Since a Mass Heal spell, converted to an arcane scroll using some intermediary, fits the description "not in the wiz/sorc list in the phb" and is arcane, the description does not explicitly ban it. What's more, since the authors saw fit to add in this extra verbage to the sorcerer description, I think a case can be made that this sort of unusual ability is actually intended. Some have argued that this clause was added to give explicit permission to access wiz/sorc spells from other books. Why would that need clarifying? The spells are already listed as sorcerer's spells in those books. We don't need additional explicit permission to use them. But I'm still not quite sure I agree 100% with you for a reason Nom brought up that I don't think you addressed sufficiently. Let's say your 5th level sorcerer meets a cleric with the appropriate feat who scribes an arcane version of Cure Serious Wounds. What slot level slot would this occupy for known and castable for your sorcerer? If you study and create a special version of the spell based on the scroll, the DM has to intervene to to assign the new spell a level for your class and there's no problem. But you seem to be saying that DM intervention is not needed... so are you saying that the 3rd level cleric spell would occupy a 3rd level sorcerer's slot? The clause allowing that spells from other sources be used doesn't seem to address this spell level translation issue. And if the rules don't address it, the DM has to. As I said, Nom brought this up but I wanted you to address it more directly before I could decide if I agree with you or not.
Nom 03-23-05, 08:49 PM	Some have argued that this clause was added to give explicit permission to access wiz/sorc spells from other books. Why would that need clarifying? The spells are already listed as sorcerer's spells in those books. We don't need additional explicit permission to use them.An interesting point. Except that the example of applying the rule explicitly refers to a sorcerer/wizard spell that is not on the PH list. So it seems that the designers do assume that additional mechanisms are needed to access spells in (for example) other books. Converse argument: if they meant to allow sorcerers to access non-sor/wiz spells, why not provide an example of that and rules for assigning a spell level, rather than continually contrast "spells on the list in this book"? Summary: Sor/Wiz spell on sorcerer/wizard list in PH -> automatically available. Sor/Wiz spell not on PH list -> not automatically available; needs "unusual" access. Of course, the DM can rule that certain spells are on or off the default list.
matmos 03-23-05, 10:44 PM	Before this post, I always considered this to be the sorcerer's answer to the wizards ability to research new spells. Here's the quote from the arcane section of SRD: Here's the section for wizards: Independent Research A wizard also can research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. Here's the section for sorcerers: "...These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study." The wording is different but the result is the same. I just figured they didn't want wizards to have the ability to research completely new spells without giving the same ability to sorcerers. Note that any ruling you make regarding sorcerer's ability to get spells from other spell lists can also be applied to wizards using the 'duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one' clause. But it seems like you'll need DM approval for either case though, since the rules don't cover new spell creation or even 'spell level translation' in any kind of detail.
Molot 03-24-05, 01:54 PM	matmos: Lots of people seem to be intent on shutting you up by discussing your motives or your grammar or implying that you're crazy or that you have no common sense rather than directly addressing the logical puzzle you've proposed.That's true, sad that so few people really understand it. About my grammar: I'm not an english native speaker, nor I write books in english. I'm learning this language, so mistakes are hard to avoid. If I would ever write any ruleset, I would consult this with someone who can speak eanglish well, and possibly post it on some/this forum to let other point the mistakes. But it is not needed in normal, free discussion. About that I'm crazy: Yes, I'm crazy in many ways. But WTF does it have to this disscusion? Nothing, completly nothing. What slot level slot would this occupy for known and castable for your sorcerer? The next line of a spell description gives the spell’s level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell’s relative power. This number is preceded by an abbreviation for the class whose members can cast the spellSo only the number is actual level. Afther this, there is a name of class for wich it is on his spell list. So Cure Serious Wounds is a 3'rd level spell form the cleric's and heal spell lists. As I've said earlier, if you would look on the "preceded by an abbreviation for the class whose members can cast the spell" - Where it is wroted that other CAN'T? Nowhere, that's true. Nom: Once again, you are refering to the example, not to the rules. So, before you will do it again, think about this: There is an example of an human half black dragon fighter in the MM. So does it means that only human fighters can be half black? Or maybe that humans half black can be only fighters? IMHO if the example says that something is possible, it DON't says that other usage is impossible. Shini Neko Ni: Ok, with the arguments I've said to the Matmos about the spell level, there is no need to use the CA and CD references anymore to prove my point of view. Happy now? ;) Will Brandiman: I belive it may be some kind of bug or sth like that. But it is there. I will not be guessing why the things are what they are. I'm only posting what there is and how can be used. Besides, Nephlite answered you already. You wanted speculations, you've got them... Nephlite: Your answer to Will Brandiman looks good ;) But I don't want to guess is it true. I belive that only original author can give sure answer to any questions about "why does it is that way"... solbergb: First sentence of your post shows that you don't want to discuss the topic. So don't expect me to read or answer this post. If you ever will want to talk about Sorcerer, I'll be glad. Now it looks like my grammar is the most important thing for you here. But I don't think it is the proper forum to discuss linguistical issues.
Molot 03-24-05, 03:12 PM	Something that should be pointed: Looking on the spells' descriptions, no particular spell is arcane or divine by itself. There is no such field in description or anything. We all forgot about this earlier. So the spell become arcane or divine just at the moment it appears at spells known list of arcane or divine caster. Or (different interpretation with exactly the same result) when it is casted. The "Sorcerer cast arcane spells" cannot be used as a limit - if it would, then no spell can be casted by a sorcerer at all, cause no of them have "arcane" description. So, if it isn't a limit, then only possible interpretation is "any spell casted by a sorcerer becomes an arcane spell".
Draco Obscura 03-24-05, 03:37 PM	A very good point. A spell is arcane or divine by merit of the way in which is cast, eg., whether by a wiz/sor, or by a cleric/druid. How else would so many spells show up on both types of lists?
Odin_666 03-24-05, 05:11 PM	no one cares if a spell is arcane or divine, the only thing that counts is if the spell is on the sor/wiz list or not :rolleyes:
Nom 03-24-05, 05:19 PM	Nom: Once again, you are refering to the example, not to the rules.I know, I'm sorry. I'm labouring under the assumption that the example is there to elaborate on how to apply the rule. I'm sure it never occurred to the designers to say that "This rule might be ambigous, so let's explain it with an example". Your analogy is broken. Consider "human half black dragon fighter". Human is an instance of race. black dragon is an instance of dragon. Fighter is an instance of class. I can substitute any one of those variables for another instance of the same category and the rules work identically. Now consider "sor/wiz spell not on PH sor/wiz list". The correlations here are quite different. Sure, everything belongs to the category of "spells", but there's nothing to suggest that "sor/wiz spell not on PH sor/wiz list" is substitutable for "non-sor/wiz spell on PH non-sor/wiz list". Most notable is the fact that extra (and non-existant) rules are needed to add a sor/wiz level to the other spell. Your argument is analous to claiming that PH pg 180 allows a cleric with the Healing and Good domains to learn wall of fire from a scroll scribed by a cleric with the Fire domain. Obviously, that is not what the rules are saying. Looking on the spells' descriptions, no particular spell is arcane or divine by itself. There is no such field in description or anything. We all forgot about this earlier. So the spell become arcane or divine just at the moment it appears at spells known list of arcane or divine caster. Or (different interpretation with exactly the same result) when it is casted.Actually, this is a fairly important point in what I've been saying. The issue isn't that a spell needs to be divine or arcane, but that it needs to have a sor/wiz (or just sorcerer) level assigned. Just as divine/arcane is not an inherent property of the spell, nor is level. The relevant question is "what level is this spell when cast by a sor/wiz?" And for the spells you are discussing, the answer is "not applicable (unless the DM allows the spell to be researched)". Outside the spell research rules, the spell is not learnable / castable by a sor/wiz. The rule is there to support unusual spells and spell research, not to nullify the concept of lists or sor/wiz spells. If you wish to house-rule otherwise in your game, no-one is stopping you.
mrpopstar 03-25-05, 04:11 AM	As for my unsolicited opinion, I find absolutely nothing ambiguous about this passage from the PHB:These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192), or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided that it is of the right spell level. The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however.I think that it was CALYPSO who so eloquently pointed out that Dungeons and Dragons has been reduced to wordplay. In effect it has, but the wordplay has become quite integral to player's understanding of the rules. If we step back from this debate for a moment and consider the fact that each and every term used in the core rulebooks was carefully considered, weighed, balanced and entered with extreme care, caution, intention and reasoning, I think that it will become quite apparant to all involved(most importantly to the protagonist of this thread) that if the passage was meant to be written/understood with emphasis on "(one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book)" as opposed to "(one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book)", then "in this book" would have been omitted from the text. I can assure this. Easy solution: write custserv.
Bluntaxe 03-25-05, 09:21 AM	I recall this exact same question being asked at Gen Con when 3.0 came out. One of the designers aswered it as, 'Yes, they could learn the spell if they could find an arcane scroll to learn it from.' (or something to that affect). This was later clarified or corrected (It was so long ago I don't recall when/where) for some such reason or another, that it was up the DM if they wanted to allow it, however it couldn't be done normally. This isn't really a 'for sure' answer - just wanted to point out that it has been questioned before. It wasn't a question of word-play - it was a question of intent as we were learning the new rules. Obviously it hasn't been clarified enough in the change from 3.0 to 3.5.
mrpopstar 03-25-05, 01:20 PM	BLUNTAXE: I just can't comprehend the designers having any intent on allowing Sorceror's access to spells like Cure Wounds, which could easily be accessed by an arcane scroll designed for a Bard. It's crazy talk! D&D blasphemy! :mad: Of course I don't mean to kill the messenger my friend. I just wish I was standing there with you when said designer gave such an answer. There surely would have been a few choice words for me to share. :D
JohnSnow 03-25-05, 02:57 PM	Of course, the easy solution is to abolish the arcane/divine distinction and just have "spellcasters." But I guess that wouldn't be "D&D-ish" enough for people. Arcane/Divine Magic: A sacred cow that desperately needs to be made into so much hamburger... And that would do away with the "how do we make the healer character attractive to play" problem that has resulted in the über-Cleric & his sidekick, the über-Druid.
Molot 03-25-05, 02:57 PM	I recall this exact same question being asked at Gen Con when 3.0 came out. One of the designers aswered it as, 'Yes, they could learn the spell if they could find an arcane scroll to learn it from.' (or something to that affect).It means that this designer's opinion then and my way of reading the rules when I've started this thread was exactly the same :D (look on the first post - just listed the ways to obtain arcane scroll of any spell) This was later clarified or corrected (It was so long ago I don't recall when/where) for some such reason or another, that it was up the DM if they wanted to allow it, however it couldn't be done normally.If it was corrected / clarified in 3.0 times, then why the wording is exactly the same in 3.0 and 3.5?... It would be nice if the clarification would be included in the core book, isn't it? If there actually was an official correction, then why they didn't applied it when re-writing rules (3.0 --> 3.5)? It looks strange for me. This isn't really a 'for sure' answer - just wanted to point out that it has been questioned before. It wasn't a question of word-play - it was a question of intent as we were learning the new rules. Obviously it hasn't been clarified enough in the change from 3.0 to 3.5.I'm happy that I'm not alone in asking this question... Nom - I agree that example shows how rule can be used. But I don't think the example is the only way to use any rule. If it would be "negative example" ("For example, he can not learn ... becaouse ...") then ok, you would be right. But in the Sorcerer's description there is only a "positive example" - it says what is possible, but nothing about what is impossible. About my example of using examples ;) It is not perfect. I don't think any example can be. Another reason to be "gentle" when applying them as a rules. Odin & Nom About "sorcerer level assigned" - I've answered it about 2 posts before. Propably you just didn't saw it. So please go back, read it, and then write what do you think about it, ok? mrpopstar We both (or all?) would be glad if we would be allowed to talk with the designers then, wouldn't we? About "intent" - it is something I don't know or care here, in rule discussion. But maybe you all slould know that I've started DM'ing about 2 years ago, playing much earlier... And the "sorcerer joke" come to my mind just about... well... weak ago? Just check when this thread was created ;) Aslo, one of my players said this to me yesterday: I hate D&D. It is a system for overpowering characters. Only 3 guys was mastering it the way I like: Here was names of 2 guys I don't remember - Molot, and youJust a sign about my way of DMing - my player's don't think I'm allowing too much overpowered combinations (unless the "overpowered" result is useless in battle but fun ;) ). PS: Regis, please forgive me poor translation of your words... I did my best.
matmos 03-25-05, 04:33 PM	Hmmm. I've been siding with Nom, taking the stance that a spell has no inherent level except with respect to the class listed in the spell description. It seemed clear that if a spell said Clr 3, it was a 3rd level spell for a cleric only, but not for any other class. Thus the sorcerer wouldn't know which slot it would occupy. If that's true, though, how would a Ring of Spell Storing work? The ring is neither a cleric, nor a bard, nor a wizard. Yet it stores a given level of spells. This leads me to the conclusion that a spell does have a universal "level" associated with it, once cast or scribed by a given character class. When a bard casts Cure Serious wounds, it's a 4rth level spell not just for him, but for the Ring of Spell storing. And presumably, for any other method of measuring spell level, including memorization by a sorcerer. So to recap: Sorcerers cast arcane spells. Sorcerers can cast spells not on the sorc/wiz list in PHB with study. An arcane version of Cure Serious Wounds is arcane, is not on the sorc/wiz list in PHB, and has an objectively measurable level that can be used to determine what spell slot the sorcerer needs to use. I think I'm with Molot now as far as literal translation goes. Congrats, I think you've officially found a hole that needs to be addressed. But I'm still against it as far as game designer intent. I still feel they just wanted the sorcerer to be able to research new spells like wizards can. Permission to use spells "not on the sorc/wiz list" is not exactly the same as explicit permission to use ANY spell on ANY other list. One other problem is with the phrase "gained some understanding of with study." It is a deliberately vague process as written. Sorcerers normally gain knowledge of spells out of the blue sky as they progress in levels. Saying that they automatically "gain some understanding" of the spell in question by reading a scroll is false. The DM determines when and how much study is required before they've "gained some understanding" since there are no explicit game rules for this process of learning as far as sorcerers are concerned.
Molot 03-25-05, 05:03 PM	I think I'm with Molot now as far as literal translation goes. Congrats, I think you've officially found a hole that needs to be addressed. But I'm still against it as far as game designer intent. I still feel they just wanted the sorcerer to be able to research new spells like wizards can.So we now fully agree on both parts ;) I'm glad. And big thanx for reading my arguments :D It is a deliberately vague process as written. Sorcerers normally gain knowledge of spells out of the blue sky as they progress in levels. Saying that they automatically "gain some understanding" of the spell in question by reading a scroll is false. The DM determines when and how much study is required before they've "gained some understanding" since there are no explicit game rules for this process of learning as far as sorcerers are concerned.That's the only possible problem. But I think that if, for example, a 5'th level sorcerer has 8 ranks in heal and knowledge(religion), and was learning from a Priest since childhood, then almost anyone should agree that he was studying, isn't it true? Besides, an example says that learning from a scroll is a way to meet the "study" requirement. But it is only an example... As I was always saying, if the example says something is possible, then it is possible. But there is no example in SRD, so... So this is the only problem ;) Added: LOL, I was never thinking that this discussion will be 100+ posts long ;)
Tony Vargas 03-25-05, 05:24 PM	Originally Posted by Player's Handbook These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192), or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided that it is of the right spell level. The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however. All this exerpt is discribing is the ability of the Sorcerer to learn a sorc/wiz spell from a non-core source (for instance, one introduced after the start of the campaign) or a unique sorc/wiz spell developed by another sorcerer or wizard. That's it.
matmos 03-25-05, 05:42 PM	Before someone else points it out, I wrote that Cure Serious wounds was a 4rth level Bard spell. It's actually 3rd level Bard. I should've used Druid for the example, but it doesn't change the argument. Molot: remember, just because it is POSSIBLE to learn the these unusual spells through study according to the rules does not mean you are always successful. Any more than a Wizard can declare that he has successfully researched a wizard version of the spell of Mass Heal after reading an arcane version of the spell. The DM will always have to make a ruling on the difficulty and chance of success depending on which spell you're trying to learn since there are no written guidelines. If he feels that healing spells are so strange that a sorcerer could study the scroll till doomsday and not comprehend it, that's the way it is and he hasn't violated core raw in any way. This process of aquiring new spells is completely in his hands. Your literal interpretation, while correct, doesn't force his hand in any way, since the rules as written REQUIRES a house ruling on a per case basis. I guess no errata is required after all.
Nom 03-25-05, 05:49 PM	Hmmm. I've been siding with Nom, taking the stance that a spell has no inherent level except with respect to the class listed in the spell description. It seemed clear that if a spell said Clr 3, it was a 3rd level spell for a cleric only, but not for any other class. Thus the sorcerer wouldn't know which slot it would occupy. If that's true, though, how would a Ring of Spell Storing work? The ring is neither a cleric, nor a bard, nor a wizard. Yet it stores a given level of spells.That's easy. The level of the spell is based on who casts it. Remember that spells must be cast into the ring by someone for it to work. That caster will have the spell at a particular level on their spell list. That level is the level of the stored spell. This is identical to what happens when a magic item is crafted. A bardic scroll of legend lore is a 4th level scroll (minimum CL 10). A sor/wiz scroll of legend lore is a 6th level scroll (minimum CL 11). Assuming sufficient CL, either class can cast from the other's scroll, but the spell level is as originally scribed.
Titan W 03-25-05, 05:54 PM	No, you don't get to learn Heal because you find a scroll of it. It's pretty much facilitating the use of non-core books with sorcerer/wizard spells. Unless you can convince your DM that getting a mystic theurge to do up a scroll of miracle would be a-otay. Just don't be surprised if you get murdered on these boards for convincing your DM to let you have this. ;) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif Not as bad as getting your DM to allow 2nd edition Psionics an a 3.5 game... and let you play a dragon all in the same day... But I would say that like htose who have posted before... DM ruling.. that simple..
Molot 03-25-05, 06:04 PM	Tony Vargas I've already wroted that this sentence can be aslo readed as: "For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level". Aslo, just try to look on the sentence as a whole. The "Cure Serious Wounds" is not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in the book. That is true for sure. So it is just as wroted in the example, isn't it? And if it meets the example, then can be learned. Matmos In the example, it says that if he have the scroll or spellbook, he can simply select to get this spell as spell known. No roll is listed. No chance of failure is listed. So any roll can be added by DM just as it can be added to anything. But it is not needed by the rules (interpreted with use of example). The house-ruling is needed only if we ignore the example... But example is there just to avoid unneded house-ruling ;) Titan W It looks like: a)You didn't read most of the thread (quoting a post from a very beggining?) b)You don't undersatnd nature of discussion (does anyone said that he want this in a play?)
matmos 03-25-05, 06:06 PM	NOM, this is a moot point since we've already come to the conclusion that DM intervention is required for the learning process in ALL cases of unusual spell learning to determine difficulty, required study method, and chance of success. This leaves the sorcerer in the same position he was in before this issue came up. He could always research new spells (whether they duplicate spells on other lists or not) subject to DM adjudication. But you're right. The spell, once cast or scribed by a given caster, has an objectively measurable level associated with it. So how do you escape the conclusion that the sorcerer can use this objectively measurable level for determining spell slot position once you've allowed he is not explicitly banned from knowing spells from other lists?
matmos 03-25-05, 06:17 PM	Molot: Just caught your last post. Not sure what example your looking at. I only have the SRD at my disposal at the moment and it doesn't say that about scrolls and spellbooks being an automatic greenlight for unusual spells that I can find. If it's written in the PHB that way, then I'd say I'm back to agreeing that errata needs posting.
mrpopstar 03-25-05, 06:22 PM	MOLOT: You are incorrigible. Seemingly you already know the answer to your own musings so why not just house-rule, munchkin and cheat away in peace instead of setting yourself up for opposition here? And as for this:We both (or all?) would be glad if we would be allowed to talk with the designers then, wouldn't we?You most certainly can speak with the designers(at least their henchman spokes-people). I've corresponded with them on a handful of occasions. Send your theories here: custserv@wizards.com Then you could forward their response to mrpopstar@yahoo.com so that I might satisfy my sadistic curiousity on how they respond to you. MATMOS: Pull yourself together man! The madness has spread!!
matmos 03-25-05, 06:32 PM	MPOPSTAR: Take it easy! If a player tries to force this issue in your game, maybe you should get mad. But this is a discussion forum. He's not trying to cheat. He's just brought up a potential rule exploit to discuss. Once you find an exploit, you figure out if it constitutes a violation of game designer's intent. Then you tell them to fix it. No need to get excited
mrpopstar 03-25-05, 06:36 PM	MOLOT(and MATMOS I fear): You are so stuck on this and you're missing an integral part of this excerpt!"For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level".You need to read this as:"For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level".Do you see!? SORCEROR/WIZARD SPELL! That descriptor MUST be in the spell's description in order for a Sorceror to learn it. PERIOD.
mrpopstar 03-25-05, 06:41 PM	MATMOS: I'm not excited, I'm epically frustrated! We're not discussing anything. There's no real discrepancy or exploit. There's no ambiguity in the excerpt. It's right in front of us for all to see. Refer to my last post. I'm not all that worked up really. Hehe. I just like bold, italics and exclamation points!
matmos 03-25-05, 07:06 PM	MRPOPSTAR: Thanks for posting the example. I wasn't ignoring anything. Like I said, I didn't have access to the PHB at the moment. After reading the PHB version, I have to disagree with Molot's assessment and maintain my stance. According to the example, the only time that reading an unusual spell from a scroll or spellbook can be considered an automatic success according to raw is if the unusual spell in question is a wizard/sorcerer spell. The process for learning an unusual spell from another class list is not covered in the example, and so would require DM intervention regarding the difficulty, chances of success and studying requirements. So no need to force the DM to house rule on non sorc/wiz spells (since he is REQUIRED to by the raw), so no errata required.
mrpopstar 03-25-05, 07:09 PM	MATMOS: I never lost faith in you my friend! ;)
matmos 03-25-05, 07:21 PM	MRPOPSTAR: ..epically frustrated...sure! You know you love this nonsense just as much as we do. The discussion boards are for sharing and debating obscure role playing crap that's only interesting to us nerds. As such, this issue qualifies. It's always about nothing! This is DnD for chrissakes!! We are considered king dorks by the rest of the world just for playing, let alone getting worked up in these discussion threads.
mrpopstar 03-25-05, 07:29 PM	MATMOS: Speak for yourself man. :cool:
matmos 03-25-05, 07:34 PM	Oh-oh. Am I the only nerd here? Crap.
mrpopstar 03-25-05, 07:40 PM	MATMOS: I think we have successfully hi-jacked this thread, to do with it what we please while we lurk alone...together. WOOHOO! :D I think I should walk away now. *LOL*
Draco Obscura 03-25-05, 07:43 PM	::: Proudly a Nerd-God among his fellows, such as matmos :::
mrpopstar 03-25-05, 07:46 PM	DRACO OBSCURA: If I pray to you guys(secretly of course, so as not to negatively effect my social standing) will you grant me spells and such so that I might smite nay-do-gooders and other people I find less than par to your ideals? Please? :)
Draco Obscura 03-25-05, 07:51 PM	It's okay with me, but wouldn't you rather ascend to our level then be left among the lesser beings like jocks?
mrpopstar 03-25-05, 07:55 PM	DRACO OBSCURA: No. I'd much prefer to relish in the earthly pleasures(like cheerleaders and such) that I and my jock friends currently enjoy while subtly serving you and being able to show-off with the nifty divine effects you will bestow upon me to display your awesome might to others. Waddaya say? :)
Draco Obscura 03-25-05, 08:00 PM	Sounds all right to me, but you do know we have Japanese schoolgirls up here right? And thats just the start.
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 03:33 AM	DRACO OBSCURA: Ooh, +5 come-back with the Japanese Schoolgirl feat. Nice. :D
Count Arioch the 28th 03-26-05, 03:50 AM	You should have done what I did, and invest in the "cynical old crusty guy" feat. It makes you immune to all japanese schoolgirls.
Draco Obscura 03-26-05, 04:20 AM	Oh come on. No one is immune to the Japanese schoolgirl with Nymph ancestry. No one. And like I said, that's just the start.
Count Arioch the 28th 03-26-05, 04:29 AM	I spit on your japanese schoolgirl with nymph ancestry. All attractive women want is to manipulate you with their feminine wiles. Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise.
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 04:30 AM	COUNT ARIOCH THE 28TH: I must have missed the supplemental handbook that included that! Was that Complete Bitter or Complete Past-Prime? :confused: DRACO OBSCURA: So true! Even the dudes from "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" love Japanese schoolgirls!
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 04:32 AM	COUNT ARIOCH THE 28TH:I spit on your japanese schoolgirl with nymph ancestry.HAHA! *LOL*
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 04:33 AM	This poor guy's thread.
scout989 03-26-05, 05:10 AM	Molot I have absolutely no idea what you wrote to yawgmoth, but I hope it was horrible. Attacking someone's grasp of language rather than (or in addition to) their argument is debasing and beneath anyone with whom I would care to associate. Edit: just started reading this post, this is a reference to post #28
Molot 03-26-05, 05:16 AM	I wasn't here for a few hours, and the disscusion become totally off-toipc. When out of argument, just spam the thread, that's your way to do the things, guys? You are so stuck on this and you're missing an integral part of this excerpt! (...) You need to read this as: (..) No, I don't. I need to read it as it is printed, so without any [ b ] tags. If you think the [ b ] should be there, then post the rule that says that. IMHO it's impossible cause there is no such rule. I'll post second part of this answer as fast as possible.
matmos 03-26-05, 06:57 AM	Come on Molot, you can't have it both ways. Either the example is just an example, so it cannot be considered a generalized method of learning unusual spells NOT on the sorc/wiz list (thus the DM is required to make a study method requirement for non-sorc/wiz spells), or it is a definitive example, in which case you are restricted to all aspects of the example (thus the DM is required to make a ruling on non-sorc spells). If you want other people to accept that the "sorc/wiz" part is "just an example", not to be generalized to all unusual spells, but that the sure-fire-learning-from-a-scroll-or-spellbook-method is NOT "just an example" but is a definitive learning method that can be generalized for the purposes of learning ALL unusual spells, well, you're not going to have much luck. At this point, you're switching to and from opposed viewpoints within a single sentence to make it fit your purposes. The example is, or is not, just an example. Pick one stance and your argument falls. Don't pick one and you can keep your argument, but it's not an honest argument any longer. Now... what's all this about Japanese Schoogirls with nymph ancestry?? Is this supposed to be standard issue for nerds? I'm feeling gypped.
Molot 03-26-05, 10:46 AM	Come on Molot, you can't have it both ways.I never wanted to have it both ways. As I have wroted before, I agree that if we will ignore example, then what is "study" and how it works is totally "DM decides" work. If you missed that - sorry, but it's not my fault, if you want to blame anyone, you should blame spamers. Either the example is just an example, so it cannot be considered a generalized method of learning unusual spells NOT on the sorc/wiz list (thus the DM is required to make a study method requirement for non-sorc/wiz spells)Just as I've said about 3 posts earlier... So what the * you want from me?! or it is a definitive example, in which case you are restricted to all aspects of the example (thus the DM is required to make a ruling on non-sorc spells).Here you are not right. Example says: "For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level". So, if we will use rules of logic (the rules used in law, phylosophy, physics, math and all other science, and propably many more...), it just says that the spell must not be on (sor/wiz spell list in this book). So, any spell that is not in this book meets this requirement, and any spell that is not on the sor/wiz spell list meets it too. Many of you want the example to be: "one on the sorcerer/wizard spell list not in this book" If it would, I would agree that cleric spells aren't "ruled" by this example. But now it is "one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book" Hope you see the diference now. If you want other people to accept that the "sorc/wiz" part is "just an example"No, I don't want to. I've said that: 1) many of you read this wrong (look above) 2) if you don't want to read it as it is printed, then still it don't says that anything is impossible as it is only example. Aslo, I'm not trying to force nobody to accept example. Just think that people who tried to call example to prove their point of view should accept it anyway. At this point, you're switching to and from opposed viewpoints within a single sentence to make it fit your purposes.Either you missed some of my posts or didn't understand some of it. I think I've clarified it above. Pick one stance and your argument falls.FALSE. If we say: 1) Example don't mean anything: there is a problem, just as I wroted before. 2) Example shows the way rule should be used: If you read the example following rules of logic, without any over-interpretations (just as I wroted few times, last above in this post), then all spells can be learned this way without any rolls. Now... what's all this about Japanese Schoogirls with nymph ancestry??SPAM!
Odin_666 03-26-05, 10:55 AM	@molot why can't you quote the whole sentence, do you fear that your theorie crumbles do dust?
Molot 03-26-05, 11:05 AM	whole sentence from example? I've quoted it in the first post, it was quoted many, many times during the thread... If anyone is interested in the matter, for sure knows it good enought, so I'm just quoting the part in wich people make mistake. whole sentence from other's post? It is just above, anyone can scroll and look at it, so I just have to show what am I answering to. If scrolling the thread is too difficult for anybody, then I'm so sorry :weep:
Molot 03-26-05, 11:29 AM	If you mean this part: scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spellthen there may be something... But what is "unusual sorcerer/wizard spell"? Simpliest interpretation is that it is any spell that is not on the sor/wiz list (as printed in the second part of this sentance), but can be casted / writed to a scroll or used in other way by a sorcerer or wizard. At least one, cause if it would be easily known to all of them, it would not be "unusual" anymore. So, if Sorcerer with Arcane Disciple casts or writes a "Cure Serious Wounds", this is the sor spell, but is not on the sor/wiz spell list - just as wroted in the example.
Will Brandiman 03-26-05, 12:22 PM	Molot: You still haven't come back with any sort of convincing argument to answer probably the simplest of points opposing your position. This being: If the sorceror can cast spells that are not on the Sor/Wiz spell list, WHY DOESN'T IT SAY SO IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SORCEROR? Your answer IIRC was "Oh, it was probably just an omission by the authors". Well sorry but that just isn't any sort of answer. Why do the game designers go to all the effort of deciding which spells fall into the Sor/Wiz spell list when in fact there is no such thing as a Sor spell list? Why do the rules specifically point out that dragons cast spells as Sorcerors but can also choose spells from the cleric list? They make no such mention for Sorcerors. For that matter, why do the description of sorceror AND the section on magical items not make mention of the fact that they can use ALL spell trigger and spell completion items (the logical extension of your argument)?
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 12:46 PM	MOLOT: DUDE! For the record, you are the one who started with the bold tags in the example. Secondly, the excerpt that you keep posting is sealing your fate my friend. Read it again...very...slowly...For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new levelThis is the catchphrase:detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spellLook closely!sorcerer/wizard spellCatch my drift? The spell "not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book" absolutely must be a sorcerer/wizard spell, as instructed by the preceding text to those parenthases. It is very, very, very explicit as to what sort of spells sorcerer's can cast outside of the spell list in the book: SORCERER/WIZARD SPELLS. I am inclined to believe this may be a simple misinterpretation on your part if English was not your first language(again, not an attack). With posts like this:If scrolling the thread is too difficult for anybody, then I'm so sorry. :weep:I can't help but think you're being rather antagonistic. Are you asking us for our input or are you telling us how horribly wrong we've all been playig our games and that we're ignorant and blind for not maximizing our sorcerous builds via manipulating the loop-holes in the rules? Again, no attack.. just asking. :) MATMOS:Now... what's all this about Japanese Schoogirls with nymph ancestry?? Is this supposed to be standard issue for nerds? I'm feeling gypped.You ARE being gypped! I saw them! I saw them! DRACO OBSCURA is a tyrant god amongst the exhalted Nerd Pantheon! He's keeping all the Japanese Schoolgirls to himself(and thusly he's my patron)!
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 12:53 PM	MOLOT:But what is "unusual sorcerer/wizard spell"?Simple. An "unusual sorcerer/wizard spell" is a sorcerer/wizard spell found in another, more unusual(than the Player's Handbook 3.5) gaming source. This would include all manner of third party gaming instalments, splatbooks, 'Complete' books, 'Quintessential' books, etc.
Ander Spectacular 03-26-05, 01:06 PM	Okay, everyone is focused on the example provided in the spells section without recognizing the lines before it. Here are a few quotes: A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. This is the first line in both the SRD and PHB. Note the word primarily. Here is an excerpt from the wizard spells section: A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. No primarily. The use of this word in and of itself infers that there are other types of spells which the sorceror can gain access to through various means. The actual main quote that is continuously referred to states: These new spells can be common spells from the sorceror/wizard spell list (page 192) or they can be unusual spells that a sorceror has gained some understanding of by study. For example, a sorceror with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorceror/wizard spell(one not on the sorceror/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided that it is of the right spell level. An example does not illustrate all possibilities, just one of them. It is not even important to say which types(arcane/divine) of spells are allowable, the PHB and SRD both say that a sorceror can learn other unusual spells. Neither the PHB or SRD say that sorcerors can only learn spells from the sorceror/wizard spell list, while they do say that expressly for wizards. This is not a language issue, it is an issue of reading the entire description for the sorceror's spells in the spell section. Besides, would having access to non-sorceror/wizard spells be a real problem? Would this cause any sort of issue for roleplaying? I can't see a reason for all of the hostility towards this considering that it is written in multiple sources in the same way. -AS-
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 01:11 PM	MOLOT:but can be casted / writed to a scroll or used in other way by a sorcererA sorcerer can only cast spells written on scrolls if the scrolls are of the correct class and the sorcerer has the requisite ability score. Sorcerer's ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT cast divine spells or spells not found on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Dungeon Master's Guide 3.5(pg. 238):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... The user must have the spell on his or her class list... The user must have the requisite ability score...
Ander Spectacular 03-26-05, 01:15 PM	If the sorceror knows the spell he can cast it and activate spell trigger items. Divine spells are not in question here, as sorceror's only can cast arcane spells regardless. Some spells, though, appear in both divine and arcane versions, and a sorceror who is exposed to an arcane spell that he can study can learn that spell as a spell known. -AS-
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 01:22 PM	ANDER SPECTACULAR: You are also missing the fine print. Look at it again:These new spells can be common spells from the sorceror/wizard spell list (page 192) or they can be unusual spells that a sorceror has gained some understanding of by study. For example, a sorceror with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorceror/wizard spell(one not on the sorceror/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided that it is of the right spell level.The unusual spell must be a sorcerer/wizard spell. It must contain that descriptor, otherwise it is unavailable to the sorcerer class. As for this:A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list.Are there any spells that you could find in any of WOTC supplement material to support the idea that sorcerer's could cast a spell that does not contain the 'sorcerer/wizard spell' descriptor? Surely WOTC, in an effort to differentiate the classes of Sorcerer and Wizard would have made an example of such an ability for the Sorcerer within their rule-system. I believe that statement was written in reference of Sorcerer's primarily drawing spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list in the Player's Handbook.
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 01:25 PM	ANDER SPECTACULAR:Divine spells are not in question hereDivine spells most certainly are. Read back towards the middle of the thread. MOLOT feels that a sorcerer, through applied study and training, could learn to cast spells like his fellow Cleric based on the way the rules are currently written in the aformentioned excerpt we are beating to death. That is what this debate is about. MOLOT insists that the rules, as written, allow a Sorcerer to learn Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Wizard, Bard, even Paladin spells, given enough study. Thusly he feels they should be revised and added to the errata. Are you in agreement?
Molot 03-26-05, 01:28 PM	Molot: You still haven't come back with any sort of convincing argument to answer probably the simplest of points opposing your position. This being: If the sorceror can cast spells that are not on the Sor/Wiz spell list, WHY DOESN'T IT SAY SO IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SORCEROR?You still ignoring important part of my posts! I've answered this already. Short: 1) I don't want to guess why things are made the way they are made. It's a question to author, not to me. 2) I didn't ever said that author want to give this acces. I've only said that he did - those are two different things. Hope you can understand this. As I've said - I don't want to discuss what somebody else wanted. We are not sitting in their brains or anything. I'm only talking about the rules, if you want to talk about "means" or anything, find youself someone else to discuss... mrpopstar Your explanation means: "sorcerer's spell = spell on sorcerer's spell list" But if this would be the way, then the second part would make no sence (since it explicity allows the spells to be not on the sor/wiz list) If it would means: "sorcerer's spell = spell casted / writed / teached by a sorcerer" then all sentences would make sence perfectly, and it would allows sorcerer to learn almost any spell without any rolls (just by obtaining a proper scroll) If there are two interpreataions, first that makes rules don't have sence, and the second that doesn't make any problems, then wich one is true? Answer is clear, isn't it?
Ander Spectacular 03-26-05, 01:38 PM	That is not fine print, it is an example, not a rule. The description on the first line in the spells section uses the qualifier primarily, this same qualifier is not used in the wizard spell description. Thus, there is a difference in which spells can be learned. A sorceror who cast Cure Light Wounds is not casting a divine spell, he is casting an arcane version of Cure Light Wounds, just like a bard does. Spells are not arcane or divine by nature, only by who casts them. By your reasoning, a cleric with access to the War domain could not cast Power Word Kill because that is listed as an arcane spell as well. Start from the top of the spells section and read it all, not just the single example provided. A sorceror who casts a spell, any spell, is casting an arcane spell. There are many arcane spells that also appear as divine spells, and vice versa. Also, for arguments sake, please address all issues posted instead of forcing this to be a one quote argument. The only thing that has been offered as a counter has been one line from an example in the text. There have been no rules, and no addressing of the actual quote that Molot brought into question. The only response has been: Well this example says this. Well the description of the sorceror's spellcasting does not say that they can only cast spells from the sorceror/wizard list. The text says they can learn other spells, and it says it quite clearly. I am not an advocate for sorceror's learning other spells, simply because there is little point in most campaigns for a sorceror to learn an arcane version of a cleric spell or a bard spell, but as written the text says they can. -AS-
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 01:39 PM	MOLOT:since it explicity allows the spells to be not on the sor/wiz list...IN THIS BOOK! You can't neglect the rest of the sentence. You can't pick and choose which part of the statement suits your needs. The excerpt allows the sorcerer access to sorcerer/wizard spells not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in that particular rules volume. That's it. Your point is null. It's dead. Period. No more. It does mean this:"sorcerer's spell = spell casted / writed / teached by a sorcerer" then all sentences would make sence perfectly, and it would allows sorcerer to learn almost any spell without any rolls (just by obtaining a proper scroll)Just in a more concise and to the point manner(Save the "teached by a sorcerer" since that is by no means required). In reference to this:If there are two interpreataions, first that makes rules don't have sence, and the second that doesn't make any problems, then wich one is true?There are not two interpretations. Only one that is wonderfully made apparent by the precise terms used in the explanation of the rules.Answer is clear, isn't it?Clearer than you know my friend. Crystal clear.
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 01:53 PM	ANDER SPECTACULAR:By your reasoning, a cleric with access to the War domain could not cast Power Word Kill because that is listed as an arcane spell as well.Not at all. By my reasoning, a Cleric with access to the War domain can cast Power Word Kill because the rules explicitly say so. :) As for this:Start from the top of the spells section and read it all, not just the single example provided.I have. Three times actually since this thread started. As for this:A sorceror who casts a spell, any spell, is casting an arcane spell. There are many arcane spells that also appear as divine spells, and vice versa.I got that. As for this:Also, for arguments sake, please address all issues posted instead of forcing this to be a one quote argument. The only thing that has been offered as a counter has been one line from an example in the text. There have been no rules, and no addressing of the actual quote that Molot brought into question. The only response has been: Well this example says this.For arguments sake, please refer to my direct quote from the Dungeon Master's Guide 3.5 that is a direct counter to MOLOT's ascertion that Sorcerer's have access to Divine spells via studying scrolls. Also, for arguments sake, please scroll back and re-read so that you might realize that it is MOLOT who keeps posting this "one quote" as his rebuttle to each counter we can muster. No one(Well, at least me.. hehe) is arguing this point:Well the description of the sorceror's spellcasting does not say that they can only cast spells from the sorceror/wizard list. The text says they can learn other spells, and it says it quite clearly.Sorcerer's can cast any spell they so desire, as long as the spell has 'sorcerer/wizard spell' in it's descriptor(which is what the description of the sorcerer's(and all other spellcasters) spellcasting says).
Will Brandiman 03-26-05, 01:57 PM	You still ignoring important part of my posts! I've answered this already. Short: 1) I don't want to guess why things are made the way they are made. It's a question to author, not to me. 2) I didn't ever said that author want to give this acces. I've only said that he did - those are two different things. Hope you can understand this. As I've said - I don't want to discuss what somebody else wanted. We are not sitting in their brains or anything. I'm only talking about the rules, if you want to talk about "means" or anything, find youself someone else to discuss... No, I'm not ignoring anything here. Although I note that you have conveniently ignored the issues of draconic spells and spell-completion/spell trigger items. There is nothing in the rules that says a Sorceror can learn spells that are not on the Sor/Wiz list, only that they can learn Sor/Wiz spells other than those on the Sor/Wiz list in the PH. That is the meaning of the words in the example quoted. If the designers meant to include other spells then they would use the wording that they used for dragons: Spells: A dragon knows and casts arcane spells as a sorcerer of the level indicated in its variety description, gaining bonus spells for a high Charisma score. Some dragons can also cast spells from the cleric list or cleric domain lists as arcane spells. Note use of the word 'also', meaning 'in addition to'. In this case, in addition to the casting of 'arcane spells as a sorceror'. This is core. This is crystal clear. Sorcerors cannot cast spells from the cleric list or cleric domain lists (other than through PrC's and feats etc). If they could then there would not be any 'addition' for the spellcasting ability of dragons.
matmos 03-26-05, 01:58 PM	Hmm. Molot, I think I finally understand your point of view now. I don't accept your interpretation but I no longer feel you are being inconsistent. There are two portions of this description under discussion: the rule section and the example section. In the rule section, two vague phrases are introduced that ordinarily would require DM intervention: "unusual spells" and "gained some understanding of by study". Now, you can interpret the example to be there just to give the flavor of this process (which leaves you still requiring DM intervention except in the case of an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell-- but only the DM can provide you with those), or you can say the example is meant to clear up the rule definitively. If you are to use it to rule definitively and clear up BOTH vague phrases, the following reasoning applies: So here's the example section: "For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual wizard/sorcerer spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level..." Note: The parenthetical phrase is modifying "unusual sorcerer/wizard spell". The simplest, most direct and literal meaning: 'that's what makes an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell unusual'. Other types of unusual spells are unusual for other reasons. And so we can't use the example to clear up both vague phrases in the rule definitively. Even an arcane version of Cure Critical Wounds is not an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell. It's an unusual spell, it's an arcane spell, but it's not a sorcerer/wizard spell, therefor it is not "an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell" and so the indicated guaranteed method for learning "an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell" doesn't apply to it. With this interpretation you CAN'T use the example to clear up the terms. You're just left with the specific situation: If you find a scroll or spellbook that contains a sorc/wiz spell not on sorc/wiz list in PHB, it is an unusual spell, and can be added to spells known without further DM intervention. Are there other types unusual spells? It's not addressed, so sure! Does this method of study apply to them? No, that would be an unjustified conclusion. But if you choose the interpretation that the parenthetical phrase is what makes ANY unusual spell unusual, not just what makes unusual sorcerer/wizard spells unusual, you CAN use the example to clear up both vague phrases. You are left with the set of equations: "unusual spell"="one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book" "gained some understanding of by study"="getting a scroll or spell book that contains the candidate spell in question" So the key question: How plausible is it that the paranthetical phrase is meant to demonstrate what makes ANY unusual spell unusual? The validity of your interpretation hinges on this and it seems pretty forced to me. If this is what they meant, they could have expressed it clearer by typing: "...detailing an unusual (i.e., not appearing on the sorcerer/wizard list in this book) sorcerer/wizard spell could select...". We would then have a clear definition for unusual. But in my opinion the glaring context clue is given by the fact that the rules section is deliberately vague and makes no attempt to define the vague phrases explicitly. There's no way they would use an ambiguous example to do this job. The example HAS to be there just to give a concrete example of how the process could go. Given this reasoning, along with the fact that your interpretation requires a HIGHLY selective reading of the EXAMPLE section(which isn't present in the SRD by the way) to read additional meaning into the explicit rules section, I don't see any reason for further clarification from the authors. Their intent is unambiguous as far as I'm concerned.
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 02:01 PM	WILL BRANDIMAN:If they could then there would not be any 'addition' for the spellcasting ability of dragons.Good point!
Ander Spectacular 03-26-05, 02:02 PM	"in this book" only appears at the tail end of the example, not in the description of the spellcasting ability of a sorceror. I have provided at least two references to lines within the spells section that are not examples(the sentence starts For Example), but are plain sentences detailing rules. The sentences are vague, and are so for a reason. In most cases there is no need for a sorceror to learn a non sorceror/wizard spell. But if there was such a case, it could be done. Also, why would everyone think that a 1 sentence example trumps the description of an ability? Read it all, read it carefully. It is written clearly, and as mrpopstar said, don't pick and choose which part of the statement suits your needs. Read it all. I have read this entire thread from the beginning. While people continuously put words in Molots mouth, no one has addressed the point with anything other than the single example which is in the PHB, but not in the SRD. The statement that sorcerors can learn spells from other sources is repeated in the spells section again in the sorceror/bard section. Further, here is indicates that a bard can also learn spells other than those on his class list, though this must be done with the DMs permission. I don't know if it can be expressed any more clearly. They can learn spells not on their class list at the DMs discretion. There are no vagaries here. -AS-
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 02:10 PM	MATMOS: And thus you are my god! ANDER SPECTACULAR:They can learn spells not on their class list at the DMs discretion.I'm not contesting that you have or have not read this entire thread(which I'm sure was laborious enough, thank you for taking the time to add yourself to the mix), but you must realize that others have stated this same thing(that it is up to the DM's discretion) and that simply wasn't enough for MOLOT. Who put words in his mouth?
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 02:19 PM	MOLOT: Player's Handbook 3.5(pg. 54):At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table 3-17: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows in not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table 3-17 are fixed.) These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192), or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.Is this excerpt the perpetrator of this argument?
Ander Spectacular 03-26-05, 02:29 PM	Lets try this instead since no one is really getting the point. PHB pg.179. (Sorcerors and Bards; Adding Spells to a Sorceror's or Bard's Repertoire) With the DMs permission, sorcerors and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of(see page 54). PHB pg. 54. (Spells) A sorceror casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to bards and wizards), which are drawn primarily from the sorceror/wizard spell list (page 192). PHB pg. 54. (Spells; second column) These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorceror/wizard spell list (page 192), or they can be unusual spells that a sorceror has gained some understanding of by study. PHB (same page, next line) For example, a sorceror with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorceror/wizard spell (one not on the sorceror/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided that it is of the right spell level. Now I am going to illustrate this so that we aren't just throwing the same quote back and forth at each other. Lets say we have a 6th level sorceror who so far has decided to focus on electricity spells. Upon moving to 7th level, he decides that he would really like to have Call Lightning as a spell. The DM explains that he would need to somehow learn to cast this, so as a quest he goes out and finds a Druid who teaches him how to cast Call Lightning. The sorceror then chooses Call Lightning as his spell and it is added to his spell list as an arcane spell. It does not become a sorceror/wizard spell, it is simply added to this sorcerors spell list as an arcane spell. Now i didn't bold any text, because its not bolded as written, so bolding things randomly changes the meaning because it is placing undue emphasis in places that we(as people reading the rule) can't be sure were intended. The illustration above is meant to explain how a sorceror learns to cast spells not from his spell list. As per the rules in the spells section, this is an acceptable way to learn a new spell. The RAW include means for sorcerors to learn other spells via the DM. Also, a sorceror who simply finds a scroll or spellbook with an arcane spell on/in it and devotes time to studying it can learn that as a spell known. This is not supposed to be a common occurrence, and from the reaction here, it wouldn't be common at all for this to happen. The rules do include this as an option, though, as is apparent by the 3 referenced pages above. The one counter to this is from an example text that in no way limits anything, it simply states that this is a method of learning new spells. Also, wouldn't an arcane version of commune be included as an "unusual sorceror/wizard spell (one not on the sorceror/wizard spell list in this book)"? The rules are intentionally inclusive, not exclusive in this situation, whereas with wizards there are no exceptions such as these found in their spellcasting ability anywhere. -AS-
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 02:34 PM	ANDER SPECTACULAR: Again. We've already stated that this is up to the DM's discretion as evidenced by page one of this debate. Why then is MOLOT still arguing the point if he didn't believe he could circumvent that?
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 02:39 PM	ANDER SPECTACULAR:Lets try this instead since no one is really getting the point.We've got the point. I've read all of your referenced pages. I understand. I just don't think anyone knows what they are debating any more. MOLOT starts with the idea that sorcerer's can cast any spell they want, we say yes, but with DM discretion, he says no, they can cast whatever they want as evidenced by this example, we say no, that example is saying this, he says no it means this, he insists on the example and feels there should be an errata, we say no, he says yes. This debate is truly about wether or not the rules should be officially re-worded. I don't think they should.
Ander Spectacular 03-26-05, 02:40 PM	Actually it sure reads like people are saying, "no you can't do that". It was mentioned briefly by a couple of people that the DM could allow it, but then others(yourself included) contended that it was not possible, period. I think Molot also wants to show that it would not be a house rules issue, that this is covered in the RAW and would not have to defend himself as some sort of house rule munchkin(which i don't think is the case). This text has been present since 3.0(when it was even cleared that this was permissible), but people never think about it. Thats my point in all this. Its up to the DM, but not in a house rules sense, but in a RAW sense. -AS-
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 02:56 PM	ANDER SPECTACULAR: Maybe I was unclear in stating that it couldn't be done(period) without the express permission of the DM. I was under the impression(since the battle raged on after the rational statements that the DM had final say were ignored) that it was being presented that the DM's permission could be circumvented by a loop-hole in the rules description. I just moved to show that no, the sorcerer can not learn spells he happens across unless they contain the 'sorcerer/wizard spell' descriptor. I was trying to be concise and not confuse the entire issue by adding "without the DM's express permission" each time I posted. It had already been said and didn't really need repeating. It was offered, wasn't accepted...so plan B.
Tsuul 03-26-05, 03:04 PM	Molot's strict interpretation of the text also limits sorcerers to freely learning(without DM permission) only those spells on page 192 and none on pages 192 and onward. Yay bad interpretations! In the english language, text within "()" is ment to clarify and extend another part of the text. They are not ment to define.
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 03:04 PM	ANDER SPECTACULAR:Its up to the DM, but not in a house rules sense, but in a RAW sense.I agree, though isn't this true always? :D
Ander Spectacular 03-26-05, 03:05 PM	Sure some people on page 1 said that, but there were a lot more (yourself included) who thought the answer was simply to call him a munchkin and tell him to get his DM to house rule it. So it looks now as if the point that has been hanging around and argued for 6 pages has been addressed. Sorceror's can cast spells from other classes spell lists, subject to DM approval. But, this is just like learning any other spell in the game, it is subject to DM approval. I have seen DMs ban Spikes(before it was even cast), so the DMs approval part is an inherent part of learning any new spell by any class. If the DM doesn't want clerics casting Cure Light Wounds, you won't get approval. Its good to see that we have come to some sort of consensus, though, because ultimately its not a big deal. -AS-
matmos 03-26-05, 03:06 PM	Ander: I also have been arguing that any unusual spell can be learned in this method, but it is NEVER automatic. The DM ALWAYS has to intercede. Molot points to the section of the example stating that you can have a scroll or spellbook...etc. to support the notion that: no, the DM doesn't need to intercede. He would have to intercede to STOP the sorcerer from learning a scribed arcane scroll of Cure Serious Wounds. This is the only meaningful point he has, since we always knew that the sorcerer could go on quests to learn weird spells subject to DM approval.
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 03:07 PM	TSUUL:Molot's strict interpretation of the text also limits sorcerers to freely learning(without DM permission) only those spells on page 192 and none on pages 192 and onward.*LOL* I was going to say this same thing earlier. :)
matmos 03-26-05, 03:10 PM	Maybe the following true story will be helpful… One evening I am sitting at my table eating dinner, when my dog, Cleo, trots over next to me, sits down, and stares fixedly at me. “I’m bored,” says Cleo. I put down my spoon. “Well, Cleo, you perceive I am eating. Please go entertain yourself, but don’t break any rules.” “OK,” says Cleo. “I feel like chewing on something but I don’t want to break any rules. What am I allowed to chew on?” “Well, I typed it all up in the CRD (Canine Reference Documents), but I’ll go over it again.” “I’ve scattered a number of store-bought standard doggie chew-toys about the house. You always have my EXPLICIT permission to chew on these whenever you want.” Cleo nods. “In addition, I will occasionally allow you a non-standard chew-toy to chew on when you do a good deed for me.” Cleo says “That’s a little vague… Could you give me an example?” “Certainly,” I say. “For instance, if you fetch me my slippers, you can chew on the pine cone in the living room desk drawer.” “AHHH,” Cleo says, in sudden comprehension. “I get you now.” Cleo then proceeds to run upstairs, rummage through my closet, return downstairs with my slippers in his mouth, and set them at my feet. “There ya go,” he says with satisfaction, then trots off into the living room. I pick up my spoon and return to my meal. Minutes later, my soup finished, I stand up and walk into the living room. I am shocked to discover Cleo, tail a-wagging, standing over an enormous pile of shredded cloth and stuffing, having completely destroyed my sofa. “Cleo!” I cry. “Bad dog! You have broken the rules as set out by the CRD!” Cleo’s tail stops wagging as he spits out a large chunk of stuffing. “Now hold on,” he objects. “You TOLD me I could do this!” “I did nothing of the kind!” I cry. “Did too! You said you’d allow me to chew on a non-standard chew toy if I did a good deed. I thought this very generous of you, since just about everything can be considered a non-standard chew toy. I would certainly call the sofa a non-standard chew toy. Nothing standard about it.” I scratch my head, nonplused. “I was confused about the good deed part, but your example cleared that up. Fetching your slippers constitutes a good deed.” “But I said you could have the pine cone if you fetched my slippers,” I say, exasperated. “Sure, a friendly suggestion. That’s one example a non-standard chew toy. But I chose a different one. The sofa. So are we OK with this now?” Cleo uses his most soothing and persuasive tones. “No we are definitely not OK,” I declare, now warming to the task of putting the canine sophist in his place. “You deliberately abused the language. I left the non-standard-chew-toy-as-a-reward clause deliberately vague so that you would always require clarification from me on a case-by-case basis. I gave the example to give you the general idea of how the process would go. If you sincerely thought the example was intended to convey generality, the honest and consistent approach would be to use the example to define ALL vague terms in the rule. The vague terms are “non-standard chew toy” and “good deed”. You should have arrived at the set of equations “non-standard chew toy”=”pine cone” and “good deed”=”fetch matmos his slippers”. Instead you arrived at “good deed”=”fetch matmos his slippers” and “non-standard chew toy”=”everything under the sun that is not a standard chew toy”. “Whatever man,” says Cleo, now affecting boredom. “My interpretation of the rules is perfectly valid from a linguistic standpoint. I didn’t do anything wrong.” “Hah!” I cry. “You deliberately ignored the common rules for divining written intent. And I won’t allow any dog of mine to get away with it!! You will be punished. No Vodka for a week!” “Crap,” says Cleo. Molot: stop chewing on the cushions.
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 03:13 PM	ANDER SPECTACULAR:Sure some people on page 1 said that, but there were a lot more (yourself included) who thought the answer was simply to call him a munchkin and tell him to get his DM to house rule it.I called him a "munchkin" because he wished to ignore DM intervention. As for me telling him to get his DM to house rule it, it is now you who is putting words in people's mouths because I never said that. As for this:Its good to see that we have come to some sort of consensus, though, because ultimately its not a big deal.Exactly. I already stated before, we're not even debating anything. The rules are not ambiguous. There is nothing to be interpreted from the class description. It's all right there in black and white. MATMOS:Molot points to the section of the example stating that you can have a scroll or spellbook...etc. to support the notion that: no, the DM doesn't need to intercede. He would have to intercede to STOP the sorcerer from learning a scribed arcane scroll of Cure Serious Wounds.I second that.
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 03:18 PM	MATMOS:Maybe the following true story will be helpful…HAHAHA! :rofl: That required an addition to my sig. :rofl:
Dunelord 03-26-05, 03:31 PM	The description of the healing subschool says that they are divine spells, which I would take as further proof that arcane casters aren't supposed to have cure spells. The fact that bards can I would say is a bit of a mistake, not that they have it but in having them be divine.
Ander Spectacular 03-26-05, 03:31 PM	mrpopstar: see post 108. Cheers. -AS-
mrpopstar 03-26-05, 03:47 PM	ANDER SPECTACULAR:You are incorrigible. Seemingly you already know the answer to your own musings so why not just house-rule, munchkin and cheat away in peace instead of setting yourself up for opposition here?Right. All of my other posts are evidence enough as to how I address things. You must have realized that this was a general statement pertaining to his attitude and unwillingness to hear what others had as far as input. If I meant that he needed his DM to make a house-rule in pertinence to the sorcerer casting spells I would have either quoted and directly answered or bolded and made a direct reference. Better yet, I would have simply said: "Sorcerer's can't cast spells outside of their list unless you have your DM make a house-rule." I am not a vague person. You have spent a lot of time dissecting this whole thing haven't you? Don't forget to mind the context my friend. Context; it's a killer. Cheers. :D
Nom 03-26-05, 06:16 PM	Maybe the following true story will be helpful…ROFL!!! :) A brilliant piece of analogy / satire. My congratulations.
ORC_Tuhteth 03-26-05, 09:28 PM	Okay. You've beaten the horse to death. Then you animated it and beat it to death again. Now its corpse can't be animated, and yet you still beat it. There's no need to beat a dead horse -- you already got the XP twice. :)