That's clearly aimed at limiting its use to spells that are actually in your spellbook. "Wizard spell" = "learned as a wizard", not "happens to be on the wizard list too"
And that simply cannot be true because the wizard spellcasting feature uses that same wording in several places.
Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table.
Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
So if "wizard spell" = "learned as a wizard" then a wizard would only ever be allowed to learn spells that it had already learned (and thus forever be stuck with the six 1st level spells it starts with). And this clearly cannot be the rule. And thus "wizard spell" HAS to mean "a spell that is on the list called Wizard Spells"
As I said earlier, the issue stems from the designers not being careful enough when writing the rules. They should have used "your wizard spells" if they wanted to limit what spells the Empowered Evocation feature can be used on. And the same goes for the Wild Magic Surge feature, it should have said "your sorcerer spells" (the Clockwork Soul sorc has a feature that does so).
If one reads through the classes there are several that uses "your [class] spells", the rules for using a spellcasting focus for example uses it everywhere I've seen.
Referring to class spell as to mean "on class list" makes more sense than "learned as a class" as that definition makes no sense for things such as Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Boon of Spell Mastery etc...
The Spellcasting features on those subclasses don't assume "wizard spell" = "wizard spell list". They have to make it clear that's what the term means in that specific context first -- which wouldn't be necessary if that was the way the term was normally used
Spellcasting
When you reach 3rd level, you augment your martial prowess with the ability to cast spells. See Spells Rules for the general rules of spellcasting and the Spells Listing for the wizard spell list.
Cantrips
You learn two cantrips of your choice from the wizard spell list. You learn an additional wizard cantrip of your choice at 10th level.
Spell Slots
The Eldritch Knight Spellcasting table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.
Basically, when the rules mean "a spell from a specific list", they say so -- as Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster demonstrate
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So if "wizard spell" = "learned as a wizard" then a wizard would only ever be allowed to learn spells that it had already learned
You are skipping the part where the wizard's Spellcasting feature specifically defines what "wizard spell" means for that feature
Spellcasting
As a student of arcane magic, you have a spellbook containing spells that show the first glimmerings of your true power. See Spells Rules for the general rules of spellcasting and the Spells Listing for the wizard spell list.
Cantrips
At 1st level, you know three cantrips of your choice from the wizard spell list. You learn additional wizard cantrips of your choice at higher levels, as shown in the Cantrips Known column of the Wizard table.
If "wizard spell" just meant "on the wizard spell list", that would be unnecessary
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Referring to class spell as to mean "on class list" makes more sense than "learned as a class" as that definition makes no sense for things such as Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Boon of Spell Mastery etc...
The Spellcasting features on those subclasses don't assume "wizard spell" = "wizard spell list". They have to make it clear that's what the term means in that specific context first -- which wouldn't be necessary if that was the way the term was normally used
Spellcasting
When you reach 3rd level, you augment your martial prowess with the ability to cast spells. See Spells Rules for the general rules of spellcasting and the Spells Listing for the wizard spell list.
Cantrips
You learn two cantrips of your choice from the wizard spell list. You learn an additional wizard cantrip of your choice at 10th level.
Spell Slots
The Eldritch Knight Spellcasting table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.
Basically, when the rules mean "a spell from a specific list", they say so -- as Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster demonstrate
Exactly my point, when they say Wizard spell it refers to spells from "Wizard Spell List" Not "learned as Wizard" since Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight aren't Wizard.
If a feature was intended to work on a spell you know, it would say so. Instead Empowered Evocation simply say a wizard evocation spell.
If a class class spell was a spell learned as your class, Boon of Spell Mastery wouldn't need to specify a class spell you can cast.
Boon of Spell Mastery: Choose one 1st-level sorcerer, warlock, or wizard spell that you can cast. You can now cast that spell at its lowest level without expending a spell slot.
If you have spell slots, can you use them to cast the 1st-level spell you learn with the Magic Initiate feat?
Yes, but only if the class you pick for the feat is one of your classes. For example, if you pick sorcerer and you are a sorcerer, the Spellcasting feature for that class tells you that you can use your spell slots to cast the sorcerer spells you know, so you can use your spell slots to cast the 1st-level sorcerer spell you learn from Magic Initiate. Similarly, if you are a wizard and pick that class for the feat, you learn a 1st-level wizard spell, which you could add to your spellbook and subsequently prepare.
In short, you must follow your character’s normal spellcasting rules, which determine whether you can expend spell slots on the 1st-level spell you learn from Magic Initiate.
This right here tells us that spells aren't automatically spells of a class just because they show up on that list. Rather, they're only listed as spells of the class they're taken from.
Because nothing in the Magic Items rules tells us that spells from magic items count as class spells for us in general, the item would have to tell us it does for it to be counted as such. (The closest thing is that some tell us to use our spellcasting ability modifier.)
When it say "you can use your spell slots to cast the 1st-level sorcerer spell you learn from Magic Initiate." It is referring to "In addition, choose one 1st-level spell to learn from that same list" that the feat say. Meaning sorcerer spell = sorcerer spell list
And "if you are a wizard and pick that class for the feat, you learn a 1st-level wizard spell" also means a spell from the L1 Wizard spell list .
This right here tells us that spells aren't automatically spells of a class just because they show up on that list. Rather, they're only listed as spells of the class they're taken from.
This has the same issue as the SAC answer for wild magic surge and empowered evocation, it tells us what they intended but that doesn't mean that it matches what the rules actually say. Don't get me wrong I'd likely follow the SAC answer for this (others I do not), but I would have preferred it if they had come out with an errata instead of just claiming that the words they wrote aren't there.
I have similar issues with this part of the SAC answer:
Similarly, if you are a wizard and pick that class for the feat, you learn a 1st-level wizard spell, which you could add to your spellbook and subsequently prepare.
I see nothing in the rules for copying a spell that would allow a wizard to just add a spell that he knows to his book. He could of course go through the procedure of crafting a scroll (because he knows the spell) and then add the spell from that scroll but that is a lot more hoops than what the SAC implies is needed.
Again I could well see allowing the wizard to just add the spell to his book as the SAC says anyway.
This right here tells us that spells aren't automatically spells of a class just because they show up on that list. Rather, they're only listed as spells of the class they're taken from.
This has the same issue as the SAC answer for wild magic surge and empowered evocation, it tells us what they intended but that doesn't mean that it matches what the rules actually say. Don't get me wrong I'd likely follow the SAC answer for this (others I do not), but I would have preferred it if they had come out with an errata instead of just claiming that the words they wrote aren't there.
Thing is, the effect tells you exactly how it's handled. Because the wand doesn't tell you it's a wizard spell, it's not a wizard spell. The source of a spell tells you, consistently, what type of spell it is on other effects.
Similarly, if you are a wizard and pick that class for the feat, you learn a 1st-level wizard spell, which you could add to your spellbook and subsequently prepare.
I see nothing in the rules for copying a spell that would allow a wizard to just add a spell that he knows to his book.
From the "Your Spellbook" blurb:
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure [1 hour and 10 gp per spell level] to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook.
It's a bit iffy because the Magic Initiate spell isn't really prepared, but you can see why they said that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I have similar issues with this part of the SAC answer:
Similarly, if you are a wizard and pick that class for the feat, you learn a 1st-level wizard spell, which you could add to your spellbook and subsequently prepare.
I see nothing in the rules for copying a spell that would allow a wizard to just add a spell that he knows to his book. He could of course go through the procedure of crafting a scroll (because he knows the spell) and then add the spell from that scroll but that is a lot more hoops than what the SAC implies is needed.
Again I could well see allowing the wizard to just add the spell to his book as the SAC says anyway.
Whenever the term "learn a spell" is used, that spell becomes a "known spell" for that spellcaster. For some spellcasters, this means that the spell becomes permanently "fixed in their mind" and no additional preparation necessary for the spell to be available to be cast. For a Wizard, it's a bit different. Learned spells become known in the sense that they are stored in the spellbook in such a manner that the spellcaster knows exactly what it means. An additional preparatory step is required to select a portion of these stored spells to move those into being actively but temporarily "fixed in their mind" in order to make the spell available to be cast.
From the PHB Chapter 3: Classes --> Wizard --> Class Features --> Spellcasting --> Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher:
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the “Your Spellbook” sidebar).
Then, from the Your Spellbook sidebar:
The spells that you add to your spellbook as you gain levels reflect the arcane research you conduct on your own, as well as intellectual breakthroughs you have had about the nature of the multiverse. You might find other spells during your adventures.
When you find a scroll or spellbook or some other spell in written form, these are not automatically learned. The rest of the sidebar outlines the procedures that a Wizard must undertake to learn those spells (which adds them to their spellbook), which involves a time and monetary cost. But spells that are learned via an intellectual breakthrough, such as the ones learned upon level up, are not subject to the time and monetary cost.
While it would have been more clear if more words were used, the implication is that if a Feat or other Feature explicitly says that a Wizard learns a leveled spell or if that spell becomes known to a Wizard, then that is an intellectual breakthrough that automatically gets added to the spellbook without being subject to the time and monetary cost.
. . . spells aren't automatically spells of a class just because they show up on that list. Rather, they're only listed as spells of the class they're taken from.
Yes, this is pretty much my interpretation as well.
I think that the idea that "wizard evocation spell" is supposed to mean "evocation spell you learned as a wizard" is too narrow and restrictive and is debunked by game elements such as the Arcane Trickster. But, the idea that "wizard evocation spell" is supposed to mean "evocation spell on the wizard list" is too broad and doesn't align well with the rules for multi-classing and other game elements and SAC rulings.
The way that I'm seeing it is that there can be different "versions" of the same spell. Meaning, there are slightly different details about the precise procedure for interacting with the Weave which all result in and manifest as the same spell -- these different methodologies for interacting with the Weave are learned by the different classes. When you learn a spell, you learn one of these versions of it by pulling the information from one of the class lists essentially. Then, if you want to cast the spell that you've learned, you must cast that version of it. The terms Wizard spell and Sorcerer spell refer to those versions of the same spell. But, you don't have to necessarily be a Wizard to learn the Wizard spell -- it just means that you are learning the version of the spell which comes from the Wizard Spells list (which is what the Arcane Trickster does).
Because nothing in the Magic Items rules tells us that spells from magic items count as class spells for us in general, the item would have to tell us it does for it to be counted as such. (The closest thing is that some tell us to use our spellcasting ability modifier.)
. . . the effect tells you exactly how it's handled. Because the wand doesn't tell you it's a wizard spell, it's not a wizard spell. The source of a spell tells you, consistently, what type of spell it is on other effects.
So yeah, this is really the question at hand. You are looking at this as being fully restrictive by default. I was looking at this as being unrestrictive by default -- meaning, only the general rules and restrictions imposed by the PHB Chapter 10's rules for spellcasting apply by default. The various spellcasting methods then impose their own additional rules and restrictions -- the Wizard Spellcasting class Feature explicitly tells us that only spells from the Wizard Class list may be learned via that feature, for example. If it works this way then in cases where you can cast the spell directly without learning it, you should be able to cast any version of that spell unless that is explicitly restricted. There seem to be only one or two examples given so far where a spell is learned without specifying a list to learn it from, such as the Fey Touched Feat. Admittedly, my interpretation doesn't align well with the wording of this Feat. Sometimes when there is only one example that doesn't fit then maybe the authors just weren't careful about how they wrote it, but in this case that might not be a great explanation.
The Fey Touched Feat seems to indicate that there exists additional versions of the spell -- additional ways to interact with the Weave to manifest the spell -- which no class inherently knows about.
In that case, being fully restrictive by default can be a reasonable explanation for how these things work since now it might be possible that magic items such as the Wand of Magic Missiles simply use a version of the spell that is not available to any of the classes and is otherwise undefined. Meaning, that it's never a Wizard spell unless it says so.
I might be getting convinced that that is the better interpretation simply because there doesn't appear to be any text in the game which refutes this interpretation.
When you find a scroll or spellbook or some other spell in written form, these are not automatically learned. The rest of the sidebar outlines the procedures that a Wizard must undertake to learn those spells (which adds them to their spellbook), which involves a time and monetary cost. But spells that are learned via an intellectual breakthrough, such as the ones learned upon level up, are not subject to the time and monetary cost.
While it would have been more clear if more words were used, the implication is that if a Feat or other Feature explicitly says that a Wizard learns a leveled spell or if that spell becomes known to a Wizard, then that is an intellectual breakthrough that automatically gets added to the spellbook without being subject to the time and monetary cost.
No such implication is made in any of the text that you quoted. It didn't say that "intellectual breakthroughs" are free, and it definitely didn't say that learning a spell from any source is an "intellectual breakthrough." There's only one situation where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook without cost:
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
No such implication is made in any of the text that you quoted. It didn't say that "intellectual breakthroughs" are free, and it definitely didn't say that learning a spell from any source is an "intellectual breakthrough." There's only one situation where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook without cost:
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free.
Meh, I disagree with that. Like I said, it would have been more clear if more words were used, but the reason why the level up spells are free is precisely because they are intellectual breakthroughs. They "reflect the arcane research you conduct on your own, as well as intellectual breakthroughs you have had about the nature of the multiverse." This is just like how the time and material costs listed for copying a spell "represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it". The reason for the cost is because of the components and inks which are required to complete that process.
So, on the contrary, there are only very specifically defined situations where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook with cost: "When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher". Examples given in the text include "You could discover a spell recorded on a scroll in an evil wizard’s chest, for example, or in a dusty tome in an ancient library."
So now we have a 3rd situation. A spell learned from a Feat. This situation much more closely resembles learning a spell upon level up than a situation of finding a spell recorded on a scroll. The Feat specifically says that we learn the spell, not find the spell.
Even if we don't want to apply the rule for learning spells upon level up, all we have to do is see that this 3rd situation is NOT specifically listed as one of the situations which would require a cost, and so it does not have a cost.
No such implication is made in any of the text that you quoted. It didn't say that "intellectual breakthroughs" are free, and it definitely didn't say that learning a spell from any source is an "intellectual breakthrough." There's only one situation where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook without cost:
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free.
Meh, I disagree with that. Like I said, it would have been more clear if more words were used, but the reason why the level up spells are free is precisely because they are intellectual breakthroughs.
No, the reason the level up spells are free is because the rules say that they're free. They're also arcane research and intellectual breakthroughs and whatnot, but that is not why they are free, and no connection between intellectual breakthroughs and free spells is drawn in the rules. Correlation is not causation. Implications are not rules.
So, on the contrary, there are only very specifically defined situations where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook with cost: "When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher". Examples given in the text include "You could discover a spell recorded on a scroll in an evil wizard’s chest, for example, or in a dusty tome in an ancient library."
"On the contrary" my foot. Everything that I said is 100% verifiably true. What's more, you're seemingly refuting a claim that I never made.
So now we have a 3rd situation. A spell learned from a Feat. This situation much more closely resembles learning a spell upon level up than a situation of finding a spell recorded on a scroll. The Feat specifically says that we learn the spell, not find the spell.
Even if we don't want to apply the rule for learning spells upon level up, all we have to do is see that this 3rd situation is NOT specifically listed as one of the situations which would require a cost, and so it does not have a cost.
It's astoundingly obvious that the situation in question resembles the situation wherein you can scribe spells that you have prepared into your spellbook. I don't think it quite works, because the feat's spell is known but not technically prepared, but it's very close and it's fairly clear that this is the rule the SAC ruling was referring to. Anyways, even if it more closely resembled the situations with no cost than the situations with full cost, that wouldn't mean that you can scribe it without cost, because it is under no obligation to fit into any of the situations. You can't have a square peg and say that it fits in a pentagonal hole just because it's closer to fitting into the pentagonal hole than a circular hole, especially when there's a hole nearby that is very nearly a square but just slightly too thin.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
No such implication is made in any of the text that you quoted. It didn't say that "intellectual breakthroughs" are free, and it definitely didn't say that learning a spell from any source is an "intellectual breakthrough." There's only one situation where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook without cost:
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free.
Meh, I disagree with that. Like I said, it would have been more clear if more words were used, but the reason why the level up spells are free is precisely because they are intellectual breakthroughs.
No, the reason the level up spells are free is because the rules say that they're free. They're also arcane research and intellectual breakthroughs and whatnot, but that is not why they are free, and no connection between intellectual breakthroughs and free spells is drawn in the rules. Correlation is not causation. Implications are not rules.
Nah, the game doesn't work like that. A distinction is made between spells that are learned and then become known that way and spells that are found. The procedures in the Your Spellbook sidebar explain the processes required for converting a found spell or a spell that is otherwise in written form and/or not yet permanently known into a known spell. In these cases, you are in possession of a written form of the spell. You then have the option to go through the special process of learning that spell at your leisure when you have the necessary resources. To learn such a spell via the scribing process that's described, you perform experimentation and use special inks before they become permanently a part of your spellbook and therefore known. That's where the cost comes from. If you are learning a spell in other ways then those costs do not apply. Most likely, the game designers simply do not want the character to be in a situation where something says that "you learn a spell" at that moment, and yet you cannot pay for it -- so learning spells in those ways is free. You can argue all you like about how these things aren't spelled out perfectly for you but that's how the game is designed and that's how it functions.
The procedure for transcribing spells that you have prepared but which do not already exist in your spellbook is just a special case of the above rules for when you are in possession of a spell but do not yet know it. That is because even though a prepared spell is retained in the Wizard's mind, it is only there temporarily. If he were to unprepare that spell without that spell existing in the spellbook then that spell is lost forever. So, you follow the procedure for spells that you already understand how to cast but are not yet permanently known, which is that the experimentation is skipped but you still have to write the spell with the special ink which costs 10 gp.
If instead a Feat tells you that you learn a spell, those rules do not apply. Incidentally, acquiring a spell via Feat generally occurs upon level up anyway if we want to get pedantic about it.
So, on the contrary, there are only very specifically defined situations where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook with cost: "When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher". Examples given in the text include "You could discover a spell recorded on a scroll in an evil wizard’s chest, for example, or in a dusty tome in an ancient library."
"On the contrary" my foot. Everything that I said is 100% verifiably true. What's more, you're seemingly refuting a claim that I never made.
There's only one situation where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook without cost:
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free.
It looks like you're claiming that there's only one situation where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook without cost. If I've misinterpreted that then feel free to clarify.
It's astoundingly obvious that the situation in question resembles the situation wherein you can scribe spells that you have prepared into your spellbook. I don't think it quite works, because the feat's spell is known but not technically prepared, but it's very close and it's fairly clear that this is the rule the SAC ruling was referring to. Anyways, even if it more closely resembled the situations with no cost than the situations with full cost
It absolutely positively does NOT resemble anything of the sort. The feat is allowing the Wizard to learn a spell. The rule that the SAC ruling was referring to was 100% NOT related to scribing spells at all, including those which are prepared in the Wizard's mind. The Feat does not mention anything about a cost and the SAC ruling does not mention anything about a cost. There is no cost for this. Stop charging your Wizards for things that they should not be paying for!
No such implication is made in any of the text that you quoted. It didn't say that "intellectual breakthroughs" are free, and it definitely didn't say that learning a spell from any source is an "intellectual breakthrough." There's only one situation where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook without cost:
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free.
Meh, I disagree with that. Like I said, it would have been more clear if more words were used, but the reason why the level up spells are free is precisely because they are intellectual breakthroughs.
No, the reason the level up spells are free is because the rules say that they're free. They're also arcane research and intellectual breakthroughs and whatnot, but that is not why they are free, and no connection between intellectual breakthroughs and free spells is drawn in the rules. Correlation is not causation. Implications are not rules.
Nah, the game doesn't work like that. A distinction is made between spells that are learned and then become known that way and spells that are found. The procedures in the Your Spellbook sidebar explain the processes required for converting a found spell or a spell that is otherwise in written form and/or not yet permanently known into a known spell. In these cases, you are in possession of a written form of the spell. You then have the option to go through the special process of learning that spell at your leisure when you have the necessary resources. To learn such a spell via the scribing process that's described, you perform experimentation and use special inks before they become permanently a part of your spellbook and therefore known. That's where the cost comes from. If you are learning a spell in other ways then those costs do not apply. Most likely, the game designers simply do not want the character to be in a situation where something says that "you learn a spell" at that moment, and yet you cannot pay for it -- so learning spells in those ways is free. You can argue all you like about how these things aren't spelled out perfectly for you but that's how the game is designed and that's how it functions.
The procedure for transcribing spells that you have prepared but which do not already exist in your spellbook is just a special case of the above rules for when you are in possession of a spell but do not yet know it. That is because even though a prepared spell is retained in the Wizard's mind, it is only there temporarily. If he were to unprepare that spell without that spell existing in the spellbook then that spell is lost forever. So, you follow the procedure for spells that you already understand how to cast but are not yet permanently known, which is that the experimentation is skipped but you still have to write the spell with the special ink which costs 10 gp.
If instead a Feat tells you that you learn a spell, those rules do not apply.
I pretty much agree with everything you've said here. Especially the last sentence. If a feat tells you that you learn a spell, those rules do not apply. None of these rules apply. None of the spellbook rules apply to the process of learning that spell. You just learn the spell. It doesn't say you pay for scribing the spell into your spellbook, sure, but that's because it doesn't say you scribe the spell into your spellbook at all. The feat itself does not give you any way to scribe the spell into your spellbook. If you want to scribe the spell, you're going to need to go through one of the paths established in the Your Spellbook section, none of which apply to spells learned through feats (although one comes very close).
So, on the contrary, there are only very specifically defined situations where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook with cost: "When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher". Examples given in the text include "You could discover a spell recorded on a scroll in an evil wizard’s chest, for example, or in a dusty tome in an ancient library."
"On the contrary" my foot. Everything that I said is 100% verifiably true. What's more, you're seemingly refuting a claim that I never made.
There's only one situation where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook without cost:
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free.
It looks like you're claiming that there's only one situation where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook without cost. If I've misinterpreted that then feel free to clarify.
What I wasn't claiming was that there aren't specifically defined situations where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook with cost. And yet you tried to refute that point.
It's astoundingly obvious that the situation in question resembles the situation wherein you can scribe spells that you have prepared into your spellbook. I don't think it quite works, because the feat's spell is known but not technically prepared, but it's very close and it's fairly clear that this is the rule the SAC ruling was referring to. Anyways, even if it more closely resembled the situations with no cost than the situations with full cost
It absolutely positively does NOT resemble anything of the sort. The feat is allowing the Wizard to learn a spell. The rule that the SAC ruling was referring to was 100% NOT related to scribing spells at all, including those which are prepared in the Wizard's mind. The Feat does not mention anything about a cost and the SAC ruling does not mention anything about a cost. There is no cost for this. Stop charging your Wizards for things that they should not be paying for!
The feat does not mention anything about a cost because it doesn't mention anything about scribing the spell at all. The SAC doesn't mention anything about a cost because the SAC isn't exhaustive and isn't written as rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Ok, it looks like we agree then. I don't know what all of the arguing was about.
The arguing was coming from your claim that you could scribe a wizard spell learned from Magic Initiate without any cost.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I'm aware. Although I think you'd have to scribe it to cast it with spell slots, since Wizard's Spellcasting only works on spells you've prepared.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I'm aware. Although I think you'd have to scribe it to cast it with spell slots, since Wizard's Spellcasting only works on spells you've prepared.
I agree you'd have to scribe it first. Magic Initiate only makes you learn a spell that you can cast without expending a spell slot
In order to cast a spell with a Wizard spell slot, you need to prepare it from your spellbook.
SAC say when you learn a 1st-level wizard spell, you could add to your spellbook and subsequently prepare. Doing so ain't free unless you gain a level.
Preparing and Casting Spells: The Wizard table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest. You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And that simply cannot be true because the wizard spellcasting feature uses that same wording in several places.
So if "wizard spell" = "learned as a wizard" then a wizard would only ever be allowed to learn spells that it had already learned (and thus forever be stuck with the six 1st level spells it starts with). And this clearly cannot be the rule. And thus "wizard spell" HAS to mean "a spell that is on the list called Wizard Spells"
As I said earlier, the issue stems from the designers not being careful enough when writing the rules. They should have used "your wizard spells" if they wanted to limit what spells the Empowered Evocation feature can be used on.
And the same goes for the Wild Magic Surge feature, it should have said "your sorcerer spells" (the Clockwork Soul sorc has a feature that does so).
If one reads through the classes there are several that uses "your [class] spells", the rules for using a spellcasting focus for example uses it everywhere I've seen.
The Spellcasting features on those subclasses don't assume "wizard spell" = "wizard spell list". They have to make it clear that's what the term means in that specific context first -- which wouldn't be necessary if that was the way the term was normally used
Basically, when the rules mean "a spell from a specific list", they say so -- as Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster demonstrate
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You are skipping the part where the wizard's Spellcasting feature specifically defines what "wizard spell" means for that feature
If "wizard spell" just meant "on the wizard spell list", that would be unnecessary
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Exactly my point, when they say Wizard spell it refers to spells from "Wizard Spell List" Not "learned as Wizard" since Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight aren't Wizard.
If a feature was intended to work on a spell you know, it would say so. Instead Empowered Evocation simply say a wizard evocation spell.
If a class class spell was a spell learned as your class, Boon of Spell Mastery wouldn't need to specify a class spell you can cast.
Relevant information to add here:
This right here tells us that spells aren't automatically spells of a class just because they show up on that list. Rather, they're only listed as spells of the class they're taken from.
Because nothing in the Magic Items rules tells us that spells from magic items count as class spells for us in general, the item would have to tell us it does for it to be counted as such. (The closest thing is that some tell us to use our spellcasting ability modifier.)
When it say "you can use your spell slots to cast the 1st-level sorcerer spell you learn from Magic Initiate." It is referring to "In addition, choose one 1st-level spell to learn from that same list" that the feat say. Meaning sorcerer spell = sorcerer spell list
And "if you are a wizard and pick that class for the feat, you learn a 1st-level wizard spell" also means a spell from the L1 Wizard spell list .
This has the same issue as the SAC answer for wild magic surge and empowered evocation, it tells us what they intended but that doesn't mean that it matches what the rules actually say. Don't get me wrong I'd likely follow the SAC answer for this (others I do not), but I would have preferred it if they had come out with an errata instead of just claiming that the words they wrote aren't there.
I have similar issues with this part of the SAC answer:
I see nothing in the rules for copying a spell that would allow a wizard to just add a spell that he knows to his book.
He could of course go through the procedure of crafting a scroll (because he knows the spell) and then add the spell from that scroll but that is a lot more hoops than what the SAC implies is needed.
Again I could well see allowing the wizard to just add the spell to his book as the SAC says anyway.
Thing is, the effect tells you exactly how it's handled. Because the wand doesn't tell you it's a wizard spell, it's not a wizard spell. The source of a spell tells you, consistently, what type of spell it is on other effects.
From the "Your Spellbook" blurb:
It's a bit iffy because the Magic Initiate spell isn't really prepared, but you can see why they said that.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Whenever the term "learn a spell" is used, that spell becomes a "known spell" for that spellcaster. For some spellcasters, this means that the spell becomes permanently "fixed in their mind" and no additional preparation necessary for the spell to be available to be cast. For a Wizard, it's a bit different. Learned spells become known in the sense that they are stored in the spellbook in such a manner that the spellcaster knows exactly what it means. An additional preparatory step is required to select a portion of these stored spells to move those into being actively but temporarily "fixed in their mind" in order to make the spell available to be cast.
From the PHB Chapter 3: Classes --> Wizard --> Class Features --> Spellcasting --> Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher:
Then, from the Your Spellbook sidebar:
When you find a scroll or spellbook or some other spell in written form, these are not automatically learned. The rest of the sidebar outlines the procedures that a Wizard must undertake to learn those spells (which adds them to their spellbook), which involves a time and monetary cost. But spells that are learned via an intellectual breakthrough, such as the ones learned upon level up, are not subject to the time and monetary cost.
While it would have been more clear if more words were used, the implication is that if a Feat or other Feature explicitly says that a Wizard learns a leveled spell or if that spell becomes known to a Wizard, then that is an intellectual breakthrough that automatically gets added to the spellbook without being subject to the time and monetary cost.
Yes, this is pretty much my interpretation as well.
I think that the idea that "wizard evocation spell" is supposed to mean "evocation spell you learned as a wizard" is too narrow and restrictive and is debunked by game elements such as the Arcane Trickster. But, the idea that "wizard evocation spell" is supposed to mean "evocation spell on the wizard list" is too broad and doesn't align well with the rules for multi-classing and other game elements and SAC rulings.
The way that I'm seeing it is that there can be different "versions" of the same spell. Meaning, there are slightly different details about the precise procedure for interacting with the Weave which all result in and manifest as the same spell -- these different methodologies for interacting with the Weave are learned by the different classes. When you learn a spell, you learn one of these versions of it by pulling the information from one of the class lists essentially. Then, if you want to cast the spell that you've learned, you must cast that version of it. The terms Wizard spell and Sorcerer spell refer to those versions of the same spell. But, you don't have to necessarily be a Wizard to learn the Wizard spell -- it just means that you are learning the version of the spell which comes from the Wizard Spells list (which is what the Arcane Trickster does).
So yeah, this is really the question at hand. You are looking at this as being fully restrictive by default. I was looking at this as being unrestrictive by default -- meaning, only the general rules and restrictions imposed by the PHB Chapter 10's rules for spellcasting apply by default. The various spellcasting methods then impose their own additional rules and restrictions -- the Wizard Spellcasting class Feature explicitly tells us that only spells from the Wizard Class list may be learned via that feature, for example. If it works this way then in cases where you can cast the spell directly without learning it, you should be able to cast any version of that spell unless that is explicitly restricted. There seem to be only one or two examples given so far where a spell is learned without specifying a list to learn it from, such as the Fey Touched Feat. Admittedly, my interpretation doesn't align well with the wording of this Feat. Sometimes when there is only one example that doesn't fit then maybe the authors just weren't careful about how they wrote it, but in this case that might not be a great explanation.
The Fey Touched Feat seems to indicate that there exists additional versions of the spell -- additional ways to interact with the Weave to manifest the spell -- which no class inherently knows about.
In that case, being fully restrictive by default can be a reasonable explanation for how these things work since now it might be possible that magic items such as the Wand of Magic Missiles simply use a version of the spell that is not available to any of the classes and is otherwise undefined. Meaning, that it's never a Wizard spell unless it says so.
I might be getting convinced that that is the better interpretation simply because there doesn't appear to be any text in the game which refutes this interpretation.
No such implication is made in any of the text that you quoted. It didn't say that "intellectual breakthroughs" are free, and it definitely didn't say that learning a spell from any source is an "intellectual breakthrough." There's only one situation where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook without cost:
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Meh, I disagree with that. Like I said, it would have been more clear if more words were used, but the reason why the level up spells are free is precisely because they are intellectual breakthroughs. They "reflect the arcane research you conduct on your own, as well as intellectual breakthroughs you have had about the nature of the multiverse." This is just like how the time and material costs listed for copying a spell "represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it". The reason for the cost is because of the components and inks which are required to complete that process.
So, on the contrary, there are only very specifically defined situations where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook with cost: "When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher". Examples given in the text include "You could discover a spell recorded on a scroll in an evil wizard’s chest, for example, or in a dusty tome in an ancient library."
So now we have a 3rd situation. A spell learned from a Feat. This situation much more closely resembles learning a spell upon level up than a situation of finding a spell recorded on a scroll. The Feat specifically says that we learn the spell, not find the spell.
Even if we don't want to apply the rule for learning spells upon level up, all we have to do is see that this 3rd situation is NOT specifically listed as one of the situations which would require a cost, and so it does not have a cost.
No, the reason the level up spells are free is because the rules say that they're free. They're also arcane research and intellectual breakthroughs and whatnot, but that is not why they are free, and no connection between intellectual breakthroughs and free spells is drawn in the rules. Correlation is not causation. Implications are not rules.
"On the contrary" my foot. Everything that I said is 100% verifiably true. What's more, you're seemingly refuting a claim that I never made.
It's astoundingly obvious that the situation in question resembles the situation wherein you can scribe spells that you have prepared into your spellbook. I don't think it quite works, because the feat's spell is known but not technically prepared, but it's very close and it's fairly clear that this is the rule the SAC ruling was referring to. Anyways, even if it more closely resembled the situations with no cost than the situations with full cost, that wouldn't mean that you can scribe it without cost, because it is under no obligation to fit into any of the situations. You can't have a square peg and say that it fits in a pentagonal hole just because it's closer to fitting into the pentagonal hole than a circular hole, especially when there's a hole nearby that is very nearly a square but just slightly too thin.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Nah, the game doesn't work like that. A distinction is made between spells that are learned and then become known that way and spells that are found. The procedures in the Your Spellbook sidebar explain the processes required for converting a found spell or a spell that is otherwise in written form and/or not yet permanently known into a known spell. In these cases, you are in possession of a written form of the spell. You then have the option to go through the special process of learning that spell at your leisure when you have the necessary resources. To learn such a spell via the scribing process that's described, you perform experimentation and use special inks before they become permanently a part of your spellbook and therefore known. That's where the cost comes from. If you are learning a spell in other ways then those costs do not apply. Most likely, the game designers simply do not want the character to be in a situation where something says that "you learn a spell" at that moment, and yet you cannot pay for it -- so learning spells in those ways is free. You can argue all you like about how these things aren't spelled out perfectly for you but that's how the game is designed and that's how it functions.
The procedure for transcribing spells that you have prepared but which do not already exist in your spellbook is just a special case of the above rules for when you are in possession of a spell but do not yet know it. That is because even though a prepared spell is retained in the Wizard's mind, it is only there temporarily. If he were to unprepare that spell without that spell existing in the spellbook then that spell is lost forever. So, you follow the procedure for spells that you already understand how to cast but are not yet permanently known, which is that the experimentation is skipped but you still have to write the spell with the special ink which costs 10 gp.
If instead a Feat tells you that you learn a spell, those rules do not apply. Incidentally, acquiring a spell via Feat generally occurs upon level up anyway if we want to get pedantic about it.
Um . . .
It looks like you're claiming that there's only one situation where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook without cost. If I've misinterpreted that then feel free to clarify.
It absolutely positively does NOT resemble anything of the sort. The feat is allowing the Wizard to learn a spell. The rule that the SAC ruling was referring to was 100% NOT related to scribing spells at all, including those which are prepared in the Wizard's mind. The Feat does not mention anything about a cost and the SAC ruling does not mention anything about a cost. There is no cost for this. Stop charging your Wizards for things that they should not be paying for!
I pretty much agree with everything you've said here. Especially the last sentence. If a feat tells you that you learn a spell, those rules do not apply. None of these rules apply. None of the spellbook rules apply to the process of learning that spell. You just learn the spell. It doesn't say you pay for scribing the spell into your spellbook, sure, but that's because it doesn't say you scribe the spell into your spellbook at all. The feat itself does not give you any way to scribe the spell into your spellbook. If you want to scribe the spell, you're going to need to go through one of the paths established in the Your Spellbook section, none of which apply to spells learned through feats (although one comes very close).
What I wasn't claiming was that there aren't specifically defined situations where the rules describe a spell being added to your spellbook with cost. And yet you tried to refute that point.
The feat does not mention anything about a cost because it doesn't mention anything about scribing the spell at all. The SAC doesn't mention anything about a cost because the SAC isn't exhaustive and isn't written as rules.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Ok, it looks like we agree then. I don't know what all of the arguing was about.
The arguing was coming from your claim that you could scribe a wizard spell learned from Magic Initiate without any cost.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Oh, the spell learned from Magic Initiate doesn't need to be scribed. It is already learned through the Feat.
I'm aware. Although I think you'd have to scribe it to cast it with spell slots, since Wizard's Spellcasting only works on spells you've prepared.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I agree you'd have to scribe it first. Magic Initiate only makes you learn a spell that you can cast without expending a spell slot
In order to cast a spell with a Wizard spell slot, you need to prepare it from your spellbook.
SAC say when you learn a 1st-level wizard spell, you could add to your spellbook and subsequently prepare. Doing so ain't free unless you gain a level.