This might be wading into the weeds of semantics but here's the situation.
Are spells gained via a subclass (going forward) considered to be part of the classes actual spell list? The only class that seems to expressly say this is the Warlock (I presume because they're not "freebies" they have automatic access to). Yes, they are described as class-spells but for abilities that refer directly to "from the spell list", are they eligible?
Case in point:
Spell-Storing Item
At 11th level, you learn how to store a spell in an object. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one simple or martial weapon or one item that you can use as a spellcasting focus, and you store a spell in it, choosing a 1st- or 2nd-level spell from the artificer spelllist that requires 1 action to cast (you needn’t have it prepared).
Pernickety, I know, but can subclass spells also be stored? I don't see why not but I'm struggling to find specific wording in the rules that say, "they're on the list now". Is "counts as class spells" good enough?
Yes. At least they are meant to and most I've looked at outright state so.
Artificer
Artillerist Spells
3rd-level Artillerist feature
You always have certain spells prepared after you reach particular levels in this class, as shown in the Artillerist Spells table. These spells count as artificer spells for you, but they don’t count against the number of artificer spells you prepare.
It's somewhat hidden in each individual subclass but it's there.
Cleric
Domain Spells
Each domain has a list of spells — its domain spells — that you gain at the cleric levels noted in the domain description. Once you gain a domain spell, you always have it prepared, and it doesn’t count against the number of spells you can prepare each day.
If you have a domain spell that doesn’t appear on the cleric spell list, the spell is nonetheless a cleric spell for you.
Ranger
Fey Wanderer Magic
3rd-level Fey Wanderer feature
You learn an additional spell when you reach certain levels in this class, as shown in the Fey Wanderer Spells table. Each spell counts as a ranger spell for you, but it doesn’t count against the number of ranger spells you know.
CBA to look for more but the trend is quite clear.
Appreciate the response. But I kinda already got that.
I guess what my question can be distilled down to is this: Does a subclass spell counting as a class spell = it is now on the classes spell list. I've yet to see where it outright states that.
Perhaps there's a rule/errata/clarification/coke-fueled-Jeremy-Crawford-tweet out there that I've yet to see but it has me wondering...
It rather looks like the answer would be "yes" but I would say "no". In the absence of a specific ruling I have found that is is wisest if you start out with the harsh answer. If you start out with the harsh way, you can always re-think and your players are happy. If you start out the other way, you risk annoying someone.
You obviously already suspect this, but I will stress that Jeremy Crawford tweets are not worth the paper they are not printed on. He's not very consistent and may be talking about special cases or just how he does things at his table even though he knows he's wrong.
Appreciate the response. But I kinda already got that.
I guess what my question can be distilled down to is this: Does a subclass spell counting as a class spell = it is now on the classes spell list. I've yet to see where it outright states that.
As Thezzarus already pointed out in the very first reply to this thread: "These spells count as artificer spells for you".
Appreciate the response. But I kinda already got that.
I guess what my question can be distilled down to is this: Does a subclass spell counting as a class spell = it is now on the classes spell list. I've yet to see where it outright states that.
Perhaps there's a rule/errata/clarification/coke-fueled-Jeremy-Crawford-tweet out there that I've yet to see but it has me wondering...
Thanks again.
It is very clear. If a spell shows up in an "expanded spell list" for a subclass, that spell is then considered a "class spell" for that subclass.
Now, to make sure one thing is very clear. Some classes automatically add all the spells listed in an expanded subclass to the list of spells available to choose from each day. An example of that is a Paladin.
Other classes, like the Warlock, only get an expanded list to choose from when they go up a level. They are still constrained by the amount of spells they can "know". My 5th level Hexblade may choose Blink as one of the 6 spells he knows. He does not automatically know all 6 spells from first 3 rows of the expanded spell list.
You keep insisting on specific rulings and that has made me curious. Has your DM been not letting you do something you want to do and you want ammo to argue with? It is unlikely that any DM worth their salt would accept a Crawford ruling, and some won't even accept stuff from the Sage Advice Compendium. Why would they listen to Random Strangers On The Internet?
Appreciate the response. But I kinda already got that.
I guess what my question can be distilled down to is this: Does a subclass spell counting as a class spell = it is now on the classes spell list. I've yet to see where it outright states that.
Perhaps there's a rule/errata/clarification/coke-fueled-Jeremy-Crawford-tweet out there that I've yet to see but it has me wondering...
Thanks again.
It is very clear. If a spell shows up in an "expanded spell list" for a subclass, that spell is then considered a "class spell" for that subclass.
Now, to make sure one thing is very clear. Some classes automatically add all the spells listed in an expanded subclass to the list of spells available to choose from each day. An example of that is a Paladin.
Other classes, like the Warlock, only get an expanded list to choose from when they go up a level. They are still constrained by the amount of spells they can "know". My 5th level Hexblade may choose Blink as one of the 6 spells he knows. He does not automatically know all 6 spells from first 3 rows of the expanded spell list.
But that's just it, it's not very clear. Additional subclass spells are never described as an "expanded spell list" (except for the Warlock). It's almost like they're a separate entity that "count" as "class spells". Yes, I know, pedantic. But this is the sh*t that keeps me up at night...
"a separate entity that "count" as "class spells" is PRECISELY what an expanded spell list is. It does not matter if that class is a Paladin, Cleric, or Warlock. I have described the particular mechanical difference between how a Warlock chooses spells from list and how a Paladin does, but they both choose spells from a list defined as an Expanded Spell List.
Oh I think I see the difference. Yes, it does seem very nitpicky, but technically only the warlock subclasses say that the extra spells are added to the list. For things like cleric domain spells, it only says that the new spells are cleric spells for you. So you can cast them as if they were cleric spells, but it doesn't technically move them onto the cleric list, right? Yeah I don't think that's a distinction most DM's or players care to make and I don't think it was intended, either? But I do see what you mean.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You keep insisting on specific rulings and that has made me curious. Has your DM been not letting you do something you want to do and you want ammo to argue with? It is unlikely that any DM worth their salt would accept a Crawford ruling, and some won't even accept stuff from the Sage Advice Compendium. Why would they listen to Random Strangers On The Internet?
Oh, not at all. My DM's very accommodating. It's more a foible of mine. He and I, in particular at our table, do like to keep track of where we've deviated from the rules as established. I also just like to know where these things stand so I don't feel as if I'm taking the piss. Very much my own peccadillo.
And yes, very much on the same page with regards to Crawford. Consistent the guy ain't.
Oh I think I see the difference. Yes, it does seem very nitpicky, but technically only the warlock subclasses say that the extra spells are added to the list. For things like cleric domain spells, it only says that the new spells are cleric spells for you. So you can cast them as if they were cleric spells, but it doesn't technically move them onto the cleric list, right? Yeah I don't think that's a distinction most DM's or players care to make and I don't think it was intended, either? But I do see what you mean.
Precisely, yes! But as I stated, this is just me over-thinking things. Judging from the responses, I feel that it's reasonable to presume that the accepted intention is, they form part of the list even if it isn't expressly said. Which, in truth, is what I was actually looking for.
I have considered "counts as [class] spell" to mean counts as on [class] spell list, for these rare instances. I don't think there is any ruling on it official or otherwise.
Oh I think I see the difference. Yes, it does seem very nitpicky, but technically only the warlock subclasses say that the extra spells are added to the list. For things like cleric domain spells, it only says that the new spells are cleric spells for you. So you can cast them as if they were cleric spells, but it doesn't technically move them onto the cleric list, right? Yeah I don't think that's a distinction most DM's or players care to make and I don't think it was intended, either? But I do see what you mean.
Precisely, yes! But as I stated, this is just me over-thinking things. Judging from the responses, I feel that it's reasonable to presume that the accepted intention is, they form part of the list even if it isn't expressly said. Which, in truth, is what I was actually looking for.
But that's just it, it's not very clear. Additional subclass spells are never described as an "expanded spell list" (except for the Warlock). It's almost like they're a separate entity that "count" as "class spells". Yes, I know, pedantic. But this is the sh*t that keeps me up at night...
It's way beyond pedantic and well into "things break down" territory.
The "from the artificer spell list" language in your Spell-Storing Item feature is the exact same "from the artificer spell list" wording in the Artificer Spellcasting feature. So if you argue that the "These spells count as artificer spells for you" language from the subclass doesn't put it on the spell list to allow you to use it for the Spell-Storing feature then you are also arguing that the subclass spells can't be prepared by your Artificer either (which is somewhat problematic since they are always prepared).
I'd say that the RAW and RAI is clear even if the language leaves a bit to desire. Not the first time that the natural language used has tripped someone up.
The Bard trait, Magical Secrets, always says "... and these spells count as Bard Spells for you." So, the spells a bard gains through their subclass are Bard spells, but only for that one player. If there is another NPC or even a PC Bard, they can't use that spell unless they grabbed it on their Magical Secrets. But, also remember any NPC can be built any way the DM wants, so this rule doesn't strictly apply to NPCs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This might be wading into the weeds of semantics but here's the situation.
Are spells gained via a subclass (going forward) considered to be part of the classes actual spell list? The only class that seems to expressly say this is the Warlock (I presume because they're not "freebies" they have automatic access to). Yes, they are described as class-spells but for abilities that refer directly to "from the spell list", are they eligible?
Case in point:
Spell-Storing Item
At 11th level, you learn how to store a spell in an object. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one simple or martial weapon or one item that you can use as a spellcasting focus, and you store a spell in it, choosing a 1st- or 2nd-level spell from the artificer spell list that requires 1 action to cast (you needn’t have it prepared).
Pernickety, I know, but can subclass spells also be stored? I don't see why not but I'm struggling to find specific wording in the rules that say, "they're on the list now". Is "counts as class spells" good enough?
Yes. At least they are meant to and most I've looked at outright state so.
Artificer
It's somewhat hidden in each individual subclass but it's there.
Cleric
Ranger
CBA to look for more but the trend is quite clear.
Warlocks even get them added to their list without learning them automatically, which is annoying.
Appreciate the response. But I kinda already got that.
I guess what my question can be distilled down to is this: Does a subclass spell counting as a class spell = it is now on the classes spell list. I've yet to see where it outright states that.
Perhaps there's a rule/errata/clarification/coke-fueled-Jeremy-Crawford-tweet out there that I've yet to see but it has me wondering...
Thanks again.
It rather looks like the answer would be "yes" but I would say "no". In the absence of a specific ruling I have found that is is wisest if you start out with the harsh answer. If you start out with the harsh way, you can always re-think and your players are happy. If you start out the other way, you risk annoying someone.
You obviously already suspect this, but I will stress that Jeremy Crawford tweets are not worth the paper they are not printed on. He's not very consistent and may be talking about special cases or just how he does things at his table even though he knows he's wrong.
<Insert clever signature here>
Yes. That is what it means, though it isn’t worded perfectly.
Subclass spells can be stored like in your example, and you can use scrolls with your subclass spells.
As Thezzarus already pointed out in the very first reply to this thread: "These spells count as artificer spells for you".
It is very clear. If a spell shows up in an "expanded spell list" for a subclass, that spell is then considered a "class spell" for that subclass.
Now, to make sure one thing is very clear. Some classes automatically add all the spells listed in an expanded subclass to the list of spells available to choose from each day. An example of that is a Paladin.
Other classes, like the Warlock, only get an expanded list to choose from when they go up a level. They are still constrained by the amount of spells they can "know". My 5th level Hexblade may choose Blink as one of the 6 spells he knows. He does not automatically know all 6 spells from first 3 rows of the expanded spell list.
You can with scrolls? That's a perfect example! Could you point me to a ruling that says that?
Greatly appreciated.
You keep insisting on specific rulings and that has made me curious. Has your DM been not letting you do something you want to do and you want ammo to argue with? It is unlikely that any DM worth their salt would accept a Crawford ruling, and some won't even accept stuff from the Sage Advice Compendium. Why would they listen to Random Strangers On The Internet?
<Insert clever signature here>
But that's just it, it's not very clear. Additional subclass spells are never described as an "expanded spell list" (except for the Warlock). It's almost like they're a separate entity that "count" as "class spells". Yes, I know, pedantic. But this is the sh*t that keeps me up at night...
"a separate entity that "count" as "class spells" is PRECISELY what an expanded spell list is. It does not matter if that class is a Paladin, Cleric, or Warlock. I have described the particular mechanical difference between how a Warlock chooses spells from list and how a Paladin does, but they both choose spells from a list defined as an Expanded Spell List.
Oh I think I see the difference. Yes, it does seem very nitpicky, but technically only the warlock subclasses say that the extra spells are added to the list. For things like cleric domain spells, it only says that the new spells are cleric spells for you. So you can cast them as if they were cleric spells, but it doesn't technically move them onto the cleric list, right? Yeah I don't think that's a distinction most DM's or players care to make and I don't think it was intended, either? But I do see what you mean.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Oh, not at all. My DM's very accommodating. It's more a foible of mine. He and I, in particular at our table, do like to keep track of where we've deviated from the rules as established. I also just like to know where these things stand so I don't feel as if I'm taking the piss. Very much my own peccadillo.
And yes, very much on the same page with regards to Crawford. Consistent the guy ain't.
Precisely, yes! But as I stated, this is just me over-thinking things. Judging from the responses, I feel that it's reasonable to presume that the accepted intention is, they form part of the list even if it isn't expressly said. Which, in truth, is what I was actually looking for.
I have considered "counts as [class] spell" to mean counts as on [class] spell list, for these rare instances. I don't think there is any ruling on it official or otherwise.
Sure is. The question has been answered.
Cheers!
It's way beyond pedantic and well into "things break down" territory.
The "from the artificer spell list" language in your Spell-Storing Item feature is the exact same "from the artificer spell list" wording in the Artificer Spellcasting feature.
So if you argue that the "These spells count as artificer spells for you" language from the subclass doesn't put it on the spell list to allow you to use it for the Spell-Storing feature then you are also arguing that the subclass spells can't be prepared by your Artificer either (which is somewhat problematic since they are always prepared).
I'd say that the RAW and RAI is clear even if the language leaves a bit to desire. Not the first time that the natural language used has tripped someone up.
The Bard trait, Magical Secrets, always says "... and these spells count as Bard Spells for you." So, the spells a bard gains through their subclass are Bard spells, but only for that one player. If there is another NPC or even a PC Bard, they can't use that spell unless they grabbed it on their Magical Secrets. But, also remember any NPC can be built any way the DM wants, so this rule doesn't strictly apply to NPCs.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt