Preparing Spells with a Keen Mind? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Krux Sep 10, 2014 12:18:34	Would a wizard with the Keen Mind feat need to have their spell book present to prepare spells if they had studied it in the last month? For that matter what about rituals?
#2 onceMoreIntoBreech Sep 10, 2014 12:33:25	As a player of a wizard with Keen Mind, I want to say yes. As a DM, that seems overpowered and I'm inclined not to allow it. I don't think there is an official answer though. Awesome loophole! I'm totally trying it next time I play my wizard.
#3 Saelorn Sep 10, 2014 12:40:15	It's an entire feat. It's suppose to be huge. I'd allow it for preparing spells, but not for rituals.
#4 mellored Sep 10, 2014 12:42:53	I would not allow preparing extra spells... But i would allow it for not need to carry around your spell book. Hardly overpowered to free up a few lbs of gear, or give you a buff the 1/campaign when you would lose all your equipment.
(Reply to #4) Krux	mellored wrote:
#6 mellored Sep 10, 2014 13:27:55	Krux wrote:
#7 FaerieGodfather Sep 10, 2014 16:55:32	Reminds me of a Wizard ACF in Dragon Magazine, Eidetic Wizard-- traded Scribe Scroll and Familiar for the ability to prepare all of their spells from memory. As a DM, I think I would allow a Wizard with the Keen Mind feat to do the same thing. Feats are huge, and as long as the Wizard has to follow the normal rules for learning spells, eidetic preparation really isn't,.
#8 2Chlorobutanal Sep 10, 2014 21:14:02	The Keen Mind feat says that you can recall anything you have seen or heard in the last month. I don't have my PHB with me, but I don't believe the feat qualifies this as "exactly," "in complete detail," or some other language suggesting or stating that you have an eidetic, or photographic, memory. Beyond that, if the feat were intended to allow someone to remember entire passages of text or formulas in their entirely, i feel like the feat would have said "you can recall (exactly) anything you have read in the last month." I see the "seen" versus "read" distinction as important for not allowing a wizard to memorize his or her spellbook, and would not let a wizard with the Keen Mind feat normally prepare spells without a spellbok.
#9 Psikerlord Sep 11, 2014 1:05:13	I love it! An actual cool use for Keen Mind. Yep, Id allow it to substitute for your spellbook. It's a roleplaying thing really, but if you get kidnapped etc, at least you can swap your spells out. Nice one!
#10 Yunru Sep 11, 2014 3:34:40	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #10) 2Chlorobutanal	So you know that you can accurately see a spellbook. If questioned about it, you can accurately remember the spells in the book, maybe the page numbers of spells, and some of the symbols or shorthand used. However, accurate does not necessarily mean photographic or exact enough to re-create any entire book- let alone a spellbook which seems to be more exacting that a typical book. You cite one definition of accurately in one source. Other definitions include "consistently," "carefully," and "meticulously," not "exactly." Depending on the definition used, this could be you have a photographic recollection of sights and sounds or you have a very good one that enables you to remember details but not necessarily the exact sequence and form of those details. "Exact accuracy" is a type of accuracy, but not the only type of accuracy. Results in science disciplines are often accurate without being exact, as long as they are within a margin of accuracy. For example: You saw a man in a blue shirt leaving the scene of a crime. In court, the prosecutor asks you "You saw a man leaving the scene in a blue shirt, is that accurate?" and you say "Yes." Note that you didn't mention exactly what kind of man or blue shirt, just that what the prosecutor said is consistent with your memory, and not false. This is a bit moot, though, because reading is not the same as seeing, despite what you may want to believe. Seeing encompasses noticing something visually, while reading includes visually noticing something, noticing that it bears written language, and understanding the ideas transcribed onto that thing using a language. For example: "No officer, I saw the sign, but I didn't read it."
#12 Yunru Sep 11, 2014 6:14:12	No I wouldn't. Because if you've read something, you've also seen it. And yes, I only quoted one description because I quoted the one that was most relevent. To use your example, the following is a logical impossibility: "No officer, I read the sign but I didn't see it." Well... Unless it's in brail or something, but in general DnD is a dick to the disabled.
(Reply to #12) 2Chlorobutanal	Yunru wrote:
#14 Yunru Sep 11, 2014 6:31:59	Yes but the only prerequisite for reading is to be able to see it, and to be able to understand it. You remember what you saw when you read it, so you can see it. You can understand it (in the case of your spellbook because you wrote the thing), therefore you can read it from what you remember. My point is, if you can accurate recall a situation, then it's the same as if you were in that situation. Any writting that may or may not be there can be read just as easily from memory as it can the first time around. And with your questioning example: You saw the man had a blue shirt. The judge asked about a blue shirt. Therefore you can accurately say he had a blue shirt because that's exactly what he had. If, however, the judge asked "Was it a white man with a beard, a scar over his eye and a blue shirt?" and you only saw the back of him, you couldn't (truthfully) say that (to your knowledge) that was accurate.
(Reply to #14) 2Chlorobutanal	Yunru wrote:
#16 Yunru Sep 11, 2014 6:33:47	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #13) Krux	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #16) 2Chlorobutanal	Yunru wrote:
#19 mellored Sep 11, 2014 6:36:52	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #17) 2Chlorobutanal	Krux wrote:
#21 Yunru Sep 11, 2014 6:41:31	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #21) 2Chlorobutanal	Yunru wrote:
#23 Yunru Sep 11, 2014 6:42:46	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #23) 2Chlorobutanal	Yunru wrote:
#25 Yunru Sep 11, 2014 6:50:13	He was viewing them from a helicopter in the sky for twenty minutes and then produced an accurate sketch. Are you really trying to suggest that someone similar could mentally reproduce a book they wrote? As to your "additionally": No, but it also doesn't claim to give the character the same lack of talents as you or I.
(Reply to #25) 2Chlorobutanal	Yunru wrote:
#27 Yunru Sep 11, 2014 7:01:05	Exact sketches don't exist. By the very definition a sketch cannot be exact. No, but just because it says you accurately remember everything you've seen and heard you accurate remember everything you've seen and heard including things you've read. The feat Resilient is called Resilient not "increase a stat by 1 and gain proficiency in it", names are irrelevent fluff.
(Reply to #20) Krux	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#29 FluffyBunbunKittens Sep 11, 2014 7:58:47	Psikerlord wrote:
(Reply to #28) 2Chlorobutanal	Krux wrote:
#31 FaerieGodfather Sep 13, 2014 5:54:06	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #31) 2Chlorobutanal	That's an assumption. The rules say that you must study your spellbook (at the same time) to prepare spells. Nothing in the Keen Mind feat says anything remotely to the effect of "you do not need your spellbook to prepare spells." Using your spellbook is a prerequisite rule for preparing spells for a Wizard, Nothing in Keen Mind obviates that.
#33 Yunru Sep 13, 2014 6:22:34	Nothing says you have to study your physical spellbook. Well it might, but rationally which is "spellbook" more likely to refer to: the bindings, paper and ink or, the information contained within? I also don't see how it could remotely be considered broken. Especially since you only need to study your spellbook to change your prepared spells. If you've a set of spells prepared that you're happy with, you literally never need your spellbook (on you).
#34 2Chlorobutanal Sep 13, 2014 6:30:54	It has less to do with "broken" and more to do with "extending unlisted benefits to a feat because it makes sense to me, and then telling people it's in the rules." However, the "spellbook" is a limitation on the Wizard class, and making it theft-proof and indestructible (because you don't need it with you) is a large change from the norm. If you never want to change to your prepared spells or cast free ritual spells, by all means- leave your spellbook at home. You're only doing a disservice to yourself (and your friends). A spellbook is a key part of being a Wizard, and a feat that, frankly, many gnome and human wizards are likely considering (because of its Int bonus) circumventing that feature is kind of silly- especially considering that the feat gives other benefits such as unfailing direction and time sense and accurate recall for "skill challenges," puzzles, or plot decisions.
#35 Yunru Sep 13, 2014 6:59:50	Actually you don't need it on you to cast rituals either.
#36 Lipfi Sep 13, 2014 7:48:54	Accurately doesn't mean with absolute accuracy. Degree of accuracy you are given by keen mind and degree of accuracy needed to read from memories is not exactly given and it's up to DM to decide.
#37 Kalani Sep 13, 2014 8:32:49	The Keen Mind feat appears to be a short-term version of Eidetic Memory, with the exception that it only applies to short-term memory for a period of 30 days. Now, I do not have Eidetic Memory, but I do have something very close to it. I can recall in clear detail visual images and scenes which I saw 10-15 years ago, right down to what the person was wearing, and whether they had any buttons missing from their shirt. The more obscure the details, the more likely I am to remember them, and in increasingly exact detail. The more generic, the less likely I am to remember it. This actually came up during an Intelligence test in 2007. I failed the visual memory portion of the test, scoring in the 23rd percentile on that particular area. The reason for this was due to the instructions given and the tester's expectations not matching.... They asked me to commit as many details of the picture to memory as possible, which I did. They then scored the person on their memory 1min, and 10mins later. The problem was - they only scored some of the details, and ignored others. The reason I scored in the 23rd percentile, was because my mind ignores gross details in favor of the obscure. I could accurately describe the scene - but not the people in the scene. I could not recall whether the person standing next to the clothing rack was the daughter or the mother. I could not recall whether the person standing next to the door against the left wall in the top left corner was male or female.......These were the details they scored the test on. What I did recall, and still recall to this day was the fact that there was 28 visible jackets in the clothing rack in alternating green and blue color; the center of the room was occupied by a 3-4ft high horizontal shelving unit, which was positioned slightly diagonally (bottom left to top right). This unit had three rows of 5 shelves, each of which contained 3 towels. The top and bottom rows were green towels, with the center row being orange. There was a painting of a boat near a lighthouse on the far wall, encased in an elaborate filigree-style bronze frame. On the right wall was a small oval face-mirror. I was only supposed to remember these details for 10min - but I still recall all those details clearly to this day. I also remember associated memories, such as the conversation we had discussing the results of this particular test; the tester's haircut; the fact he was wearing a blue and white plaid shirt and blue slacks; details about the testing room itself right down to the scratch that was in the center of the mahogony wooden table, etc. With that being said, other details my mind compresses and truncates.... For example: Instead of recalling the entire paragraph pertaining to a particular feat in 3.5 - my mind would instead compress the information to the following: Feat that does X: Book, page number (sometimes); mental photograph of page layout (position on page/artwork, etc). see also X, Y, Z..... Specific example 3.5 Feat that allows you to take an opportunity attack if an enemy hits you Name: Karmic Strike Book: CWar (acronym: Complete Warrior) Requirements: Combat Expertise (-X to hit, +X to AC; max +/-5; phb; feat tree) Additional: -4 penalty to hit on your turn, to make attacks of opportunity when hit. See Also: Elusive Target (Tactical Feat; Defensive counterpart - CWar), Double Hit (Two OAs with TWF - MHB); Combo My mind creates what I call mental hyperlinks between various memories (as you can see above, which is how my mind organizes the Karmic Strike feat), while also removing information other people consider important - such as names, or websites that I read information on..... All my mind cares about (and records) are the relevant details, and truncates the rest..... This also applies to temporal placement at times (which is annoying). I will recall exact sentences that people spoke, and the immediate response to each, even 10 years later - but recalling them in the exact order that events occured, especially events that happened days apart, not so much - resulting in me having to put it together like a jigsaw, following each hyperlinked memory until I find a memory that gives a temporal frame of reference. If the 5E Keen mind feat works anything like my memory, the wizard should be able to recall the gist of what was written (but not necessarily in order), and should be able to recall obscure (and irrelevant) details about their spellbook, such as whether the spell in question was on a dogeared or ripped page, or if there was a stain in the top corner of the page. They would also have hyperlinked memories in respect to the pages location in the book, and whether another spell is X pages earlier or later in the book. They might not recall every word on the book verbatim.... Then again, if the "Keen Mind" feat works like short-term Eidetic Memory, they would recall that as well.
(Reply to #35) 2Chlorobutanal	Yunru wrote:
#39 Yunru Sep 13, 2014 18:44:44	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #39) 2Chlorobutanal	No, that sentence would read "The ritual must be in your spellbook." The rule actually reads "You must have," which means it must be temporally possessed by you. As for the memory thing: That's interesting, because I do Maths. And every exam, every piece of work I do, I do from memory. I haven't studied, I haven't revised, I've listened to it explained once and been able to permanently know and apply it.
#41 Yunru Sep 13, 2014 19:08:21	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #41) 2Chlorobutanal	In your second case, "have" is a completely different part of speech than #1 and #3- that one's right out. In examples #1 and #3, context is very important. You can't carry a car or a bank. If I told you, "This is going to get expensive, you need to have 20 dollars in your wallet." and you answer "Of course, it's at home on my dresser," would I be satisfied with your answer? "Must have" does not mean "the following must be true," it means "must possess." "Have" + another verb, such as "have placed" is a different grammatical construction all together- the present perfect tense.
#43 Yunru Sep 13, 2014 19:14:06	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#44 FallingIcicle Sep 13, 2014 19:42:13	A few things. First, there are people in real life who can remember exactly, word for word, in perfect detail, everything they read. So why is it so much to ask to let a hero in a fantasy game do that? D&D characters don't just do what people can do in real life - they go far beyond it. Why shouldn't they be able to do what those real life people can do in this case? Second, feats are supposed to have a very big impact on what your character can do. They are character-defining abilities. The keen mind feat seems to me to be a bit underwhelming compared to other feats in that regard. I think that letting wizards use it to prepare their spells without their spellbook makes the feat a bit more valuable, and that's a good thing! Third, this isn't even a very big deal, so I have no idea why some people are so vehemently against it. It only matters in rare circumstances (i.e. the party has been captured and all of their possessions taken away). The character still needs to read the spellbook once per month, so it's not like they can totally do without it. I'm really not seeing the problem here. A feat is a very high price to pay for such an occasionally useful benefit.
(Reply to #44) 2Chlorobutanal	FallingIcicle wrote:
#46 Thank_Dog Sep 14, 2014 22:47:16	Both Keen Mind and Linguist need a boost. I'd be inclined to say yes to allowing a wizard with this feat not to require a spellbook. All other rules would still be the same, such as scribing costs and preperation. The act of scribing is what would cement it in your mind and preparation limits are, to me, almost like how scrolls work as in you've half cast the spell already and only need the last bits of it to fully cast it so you have limits as to how energy you can hold and how much energy you can release.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Krux

Sep 10, 2014 12:18:34

Would a wizard with the Keen Mind feat need to have their spell book present to prepare spells if they had studied it in the last month?

For that matter what about rituals?

onceMoreIntoBreech

Sep 10, 2014 12:33:25

As a player of a wizard with Keen Mind, I want to say yes.

As a DM, that seems overpowered and I'm inclined not to allow it.

I don't think there is an official answer though. Awesome loophole! I'm totally trying it next time I play my wizard.

Saelorn

Sep 10, 2014 12:40:15

It's an entire feat. It's suppose to be huge.

I'd allow it for preparing spells, but not for rituals.

mellored

Sep 10, 2014 12:42:53

I would not allow preparing extra spells...

But i would allow it for not need to carry around your spell book.

Hardly overpowered to free up a few lbs of gear, or give you a buff the 1/campaign when you would lose all your equipment.

(Reply to #4)

Krux

mellored wrote:

mellored

Sep 10, 2014 13:27:55

Krux wrote:

FaerieGodfather

Sep 10, 2014 16:55:32

Reminds me of a Wizard ACF in Dragon Magazine, Eidetic Wizard-- traded Scribe Scroll and Familiar for the ability to prepare all of their spells from memory.

As a DM, I think I would allow a Wizard with the Keen Mind feat to do the same thing. Feats are huge, and as long as the Wizard has to follow the normal rules for learning spells, eidetic preparation really isn't,.

2Chlorobutanal

Sep 10, 2014 21:14:02

The Keen Mind feat says that you can recall anything you have seen or heard in the last month. I don't have my PHB with me, but I don't believe the feat qualifies this as "exactly," "in complete detail," or some other language suggesting or stating that you have an eidetic, or photographic, memory. Beyond that, if the feat were intended to allow someone to remember entire passages of text or formulas in their entirely, i feel like the feat would have said "you can recall (exactly) anything you have read in the last month."

I see the "seen" versus "read" distinction as important for not allowing a wizard to memorize his or her spellbook, and would not let a wizard with the Keen Mind feat normally prepare spells without a spellbok.

Psikerlord

Sep 11, 2014 1:05:13

I love it! An actual cool use for Keen Mind. Yep, Id allow it to substitute for your spellbook. It's a roleplaying thing really, but if you get kidnapped etc, at least you can swap your spells out. Nice one!

#10

Yunru

Sep 11, 2014 3:34:40

2Chlorobutanal wrote:

(Reply to #10)

2Chlorobutanal

So you know that you can accurately see a spellbook. If questioned about it, you can accurately remember the spells in the book, maybe the page numbers of spells, and some of the symbols or shorthand used. However, accurate does not necessarily mean photographic or exact enough to re-create any entire book- let alone a spellbook which seems to be more exacting that a typical book.

You cite one definition of accurately in one source. Other definitions include "consistently," "carefully," and "meticulously," not "exactly." Depending on the definition used, this could be you have a photographic recollection of sights and sounds or you have a very good one that enables you to remember details but not necessarily the exact sequence and form of those details.

"Exact accuracy" is a type of accuracy, but not the only type of accuracy. Results in science disciplines are often accurate without being exact, as long as they are within a margin of accuracy.

For example: You saw a man in a blue shirt leaving the scene of a crime. In court, the prosecutor asks you "You saw a man leaving the scene in a blue shirt, is that accurate?" and you say "Yes." Note that you didn't mention exactly what kind of man or blue shirt, just that what the prosecutor said is consistent with your memory, and not false.

This is a bit moot, though, because reading is not the same as seeing, despite what you may want to believe. Seeing encompasses noticing something visually, while reading includes visually noticing something, noticing that it bears written language, and understanding the ideas transcribed onto that thing using a language.

For example: "No officer, I saw the sign, but I didn't read it."

#12

Yunru

Sep 11, 2014 6:14:12

No I wouldn't. Because if you've read something, you've also seen it. And yes, I only quoted one description because I quoted the one that was most relevent.

To use your example, the following is a logical impossibility:

"No officer, I read the sign but I didn't see it."

Well... Unless it's in brail or something, but in general DnD is a dick to the disabled.

(Reply to #12)

2Chlorobutanal

Yunru wrote:

#14

Yunru

Sep 11, 2014 6:31:59

Yes but the only prerequisite for reading is to be able to see it, and to be able to understand it. You remember what you saw when you read it, so you can see it. You can understand it (in the case of your spellbook because you wrote the thing), therefore you can read it from what you remember.

My point is, if you can accurate recall a situation, then it's the same as if you were in that situation. Any writting that may or may not be there can be read just as easily from memory as it can the first time around.

And with your questioning example: You saw the man had a blue shirt. The judge asked about a blue shirt. Therefore you can accurately say he had a blue shirt because that's exactly what he had. If, however, the judge asked "Was it a white man with a beard, a scar over his eye and a blue shirt?" and you only saw the back of him, you couldn't (truthfully) say that (to your knowledge) that was accurate.

(Reply to #14)

2Chlorobutanal

Yunru wrote:

#16

Yunru

Sep 11, 2014 6:33:47

2Chlorobutanal wrote:

(Reply to #13)

Krux

2Chlorobutanal wrote:

(Reply to #16)

2Chlorobutanal

Yunru wrote:

#19

mellored

Sep 11, 2014 6:36:52

Yunru wrote:

(Reply to #17)

2Chlorobutanal

Krux wrote:

#21

Yunru

Sep 11, 2014 6:41:31

2Chlorobutanal wrote:

(Reply to #21)

2Chlorobutanal

Yunru wrote:

#23

Yunru

Sep 11, 2014 6:42:46

2Chlorobutanal wrote:

(Reply to #23)

2Chlorobutanal

Yunru wrote:

#25

Yunru

Sep 11, 2014 6:50:13

He was viewing them from a helicopter in the sky for twenty minutes and then produced an accurate sketch. Are you really trying to suggest that someone similar could mentally reproduce a book they wrote?

As to your "additionally": No, but it also doesn't claim to give the character the same lack of talents as you or I.

(Reply to #25)

2Chlorobutanal

Yunru wrote:

#27

Yunru

Sep 11, 2014 7:01:05

Exact sketches don't exist. By the very definition a sketch cannot be exact.
No, but just because it says you accurately remember everything you've seen and heard you accurate remember everything you've seen and heard including things you've read.
The feat Resilient is called Resilient not "increase a stat by 1 and gain proficiency in it", names are irrelevent fluff.

(Reply to #20)

Krux

2Chlorobutanal wrote:

#29

FluffyBunbunKittens

Sep 11, 2014 7:58:47

Psikerlord wrote:

(Reply to #28)

2Chlorobutanal

Krux wrote:

#31

FaerieGodfather

Sep 13, 2014 5:54:06

2Chlorobutanal wrote:

(Reply to #31)

2Chlorobutanal

That's an assumption. The rules say that you must study your spellbook (at the same time) to prepare spells. Nothing in the Keen Mind feat says anything remotely to the effect of "you do not need your spellbook to prepare spells." Using your spellbook is a prerequisite rule for preparing spells for a Wizard, Nothing in Keen Mind obviates that.

#33

Yunru

Sep 13, 2014 6:22:34

Nothing says you have to study your physical spellbook. Well it might, but rationally which is "spellbook" more likely to refer to: the bindings, paper and ink or, the information contained within?

I also don't see how it could remotely be considered broken. Especially since you only need to study your spellbook to change your prepared spells. If you've a set of spells prepared that you're happy with, you literally never need your spellbook (on you).

#34

2Chlorobutanal

Sep 13, 2014 6:30:54

It has less to do with "broken" and more to do with "extending unlisted benefits to a feat because it makes sense to me, and then telling people it's in the rules." However, the "spellbook" is a limitation on the Wizard class, and making it theft-proof and indestructible (because you don't need it with you) is a large change from the norm.

If you never want to change to your prepared spells or cast free ritual spells, by all means- leave your spellbook at home. You're only doing a disservice to yourself (and your friends).

A spellbook is a key part of being a Wizard, and a feat that, frankly, many gnome and human wizards are likely considering (because of its Int bonus) circumventing that feature is kind of silly- especially considering that the feat gives other benefits such as unfailing direction and time sense and accurate recall for "skill challenges," puzzles, or plot decisions.

#35

Yunru

Sep 13, 2014 6:59:50

Actually you don't need it on you to cast rituals either.

#36

Lipfi

Sep 13, 2014 7:48:54

Accurately doesn't mean with absolute accuracy. Degree of accuracy you are given by keen mind and degree of accuracy needed to read from memories is not exactly given and it's up to DM to decide.

#37

Kalani

Sep 13, 2014 8:32:49

The Keen Mind feat appears to be a short-term version of Eidetic Memory, with the exception that it only applies to short-term memory for a period of 30 days. Now, I do not have Eidetic Memory, but I do have something very close to it. I can recall in clear detail visual images and scenes which I saw 10-15 years ago, right down to what the person was wearing, and whether they had any buttons missing from their shirt.

The more obscure the details, the more likely I am to remember them, and in increasingly exact detail. The more generic, the less likely I am to remember it. This actually came up during an Intelligence test in 2007. I failed the visual memory portion of the test, scoring in the 23rd percentile on that particular area. The reason for this was due to the instructions given and the tester's expectations not matching....

They asked me to commit as many details of the picture to memory as possible, which I did. They then scored the person on their memory 1min, and 10mins later. The problem was - they only scored some of the details, and ignored others. The reason I scored in the 23rd percentile, was because my mind ignores gross details in favor of the obscure. I could accurately describe the scene - but not the people in the scene. I could not recall whether the person standing next to the clothing rack was the daughter or the mother. I could not recall whether the person standing next to the door against the left wall in the top left corner was male or female.......These were the details they scored the test on.

What I did recall, and still recall to this day was the fact that there was 28 visible jackets in the clothing rack in alternating green and blue color; the center of the room was occupied by a 3-4ft high horizontal shelving unit, which was positioned slightly diagonally (bottom left to top right). This unit had three rows of 5 shelves, each of which contained 3 towels. The top and bottom rows were green towels, with the center row being orange. There was a painting of a boat near a lighthouse on the far wall, encased in an elaborate filigree-style bronze frame. On the right wall was a small oval face-mirror.

I was only supposed to remember these details for 10min - but I still recall all those details clearly to this day. I also remember associated memories, such as the conversation we had discussing the results of this particular test; the tester's haircut; the fact he was wearing a blue and white plaid shirt and blue slacks; details about the testing room itself right down to the scratch that was in the center of the mahogony wooden table, etc.

With that being said, other details my mind compresses and truncates....

For example:

Instead of recalling the entire paragraph pertaining to a particular feat in 3.5 - my mind would instead compress the information to the following:

Feat that does X:

Book, page number (sometimes); mental photograph of page layout (position on page/artwork, etc). see also X, Y, Z.....

Specific example

3.5 Feat that allows you to take an opportunity attack if an enemy hits you

Name: Karmic Strike
Book: CWar (acronym: Complete Warrior)
Requirements: Combat Expertise (-X to hit, +X to AC; max +/-5; phb; feat tree)
Additional: -4 penalty to hit on your turn, to make attacks of opportunity when hit.
See Also: Elusive Target (Tactical Feat; Defensive counterpart - CWar), Double Hit (Two OAs with TWF - MHB); Combo

My mind creates what I call mental hyperlinks between various memories (as you can see above, which is how my mind organizes the Karmic Strike feat), while also removing information other people consider important - such as names, or websites that I read information on..... All my mind cares about (and records) are the relevant details, and truncates the rest..... This also applies to temporal placement at times (which is annoying). I will recall exact sentences that people spoke, and the immediate response to each, even 10 years later - but recalling them in the exact order that events occured, especially events that happened days apart, not so much - resulting in me having to put it together like a jigsaw, following each hyperlinked memory until I find a memory that gives a temporal frame of reference.

If the 5E Keen mind feat works anything like my memory, the wizard should be able to recall the gist of what was written (but not necessarily in order), and should be able to recall obscure (and irrelevant) details about their spellbook, such as whether the spell in question was on a dogeared or ripped page, or if there was a stain in the top corner of the page. They would also have hyperlinked memories in respect to the pages location in the book, and whether another spell is X pages earlier or later in the book.

They might not recall every word on the book verbatim.... Then again, if the "Keen Mind" feat works like short-term Eidetic Memory, they would recall that as well.

(Reply to #35)

2Chlorobutanal

Yunru wrote:

#39

Yunru

Sep 13, 2014 18:44:44

2Chlorobutanal wrote:

(Reply to #39)

2Chlorobutanal

No, that sentence would read "The ritual must be in your spellbook." The rule actually reads "You must have," which means it must be temporally possessed by you.

As for the memory thing: That's interesting, because I do Maths. And every exam, every piece of work I do, I do from memory. I haven't studied, I haven't revised, I've listened to it explained once and been able to permanently know and apply it.

#41

Yunru

Sep 13, 2014 19:08:21

2Chlorobutanal wrote:

(Reply to #41)

2Chlorobutanal

In your second case, "have" is a completely different part of speech than #1 and #3- that one's right out.

In examples #1 and #3, context is very important. You can't carry a car or a bank.

If I told you, "This is going to get expensive, you need to have 20 dollars in your wallet." and you answer "Of course, it's at home on my dresser," would I be satisfied with your answer?

"Must have" does not mean "the following must be true," it means "must possess."

"Have" + another verb, such as "have placed" is a different grammatical construction all together- the present perfect tense.

#43

Yunru

Sep 13, 2014 19:14:06

2Chlorobutanal wrote:

#44

FallingIcicle

Sep 13, 2014 19:42:13

A few things.

First, there are people in real life who can remember exactly, word for word, in perfect detail, everything they read. So why is it so much to ask to let a hero in a fantasy game do that? D&D characters don't just do what people can do in real life - they go far beyond it. Why shouldn't they be able to do what those real life people can do in this case?

Second, feats are supposed to have a very big impact on what your character can do. They are character-defining abilities. The keen mind feat seems to me to be a bit underwhelming compared to other feats in that regard. I think that letting wizards use it to prepare their spells without their spellbook makes the feat a bit more valuable, and that's a good thing!

Third, this isn't even a very big deal, so I have no idea why some people are so vehemently against it. It only matters in rare circumstances (i.e. the party has been captured and all of their possessions taken away). The character still needs to read the spellbook once per month, so it's not like they can totally do without it. I'm really not seeing the problem here. A feat is a very high price to pay for such an occasionally useful benefit.

(Reply to #44)

2Chlorobutanal

FallingIcicle wrote:

#46

Thank_Dog

Sep 14, 2014 22:47:16

Both Keen Mind and Linguist need a boost. I'd be inclined to say yes to allowing a wizard with this feat not to require a spellbook. All other rules would still be the same, such as scribing costs and preperation. The act of scribing is what would cement it in your mind and preparation limits are, to me, almost like how scrolls work as in you've half cast the spell already and only need the last bits of it to fully cast it so you have limits as to how energy you can hold and how much energy you can release.