Prismatic Wall does Lightning damage as well and is a Wizard spell. So as far as setting Meteor Swarm to Lightning goes you can do that as a Wizard, but it's still DM's discretion if you can actually turn that into a Jericho effect; it's entirely within a DM's purview to rule that Lightning damage is ineffective against a stone structure, for instance.
as far as i can tell, i don't need the spell to be a castable one, it just needs to be written down in the book.
Just gonna highlight something you missed.
Wizard spellbook rules:
"Your spellbookis the repository of the wizardspellsyou know, except your cantrips, which are fixed in your mind."
"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."
The Awakened Spellbook damage-replacement feature:
"When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook, which magically alters the spell’s formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend."
Summary: The only spells you can add to your wizard spellbook are wizard spells. You cannot add any other spell into, no matter what scribbling or whatever you do. Nothing else will count as a spell in your spellbook.
So, no, what you're trying to do is not even remotely within the Rules as Written.
Prismatic Wall does Lightning damage as well and is a Wizard spell. So as far as setting Meteor Swarm to Lightning goes you can do that as a Wizard
So what you are trying to achieve, you can already do without any druid spell shenanigans.
Although, even if the DM allows the lightning to be effective as damage, destructive wrath for max damage isn't a big deal. While MS is the best Wizard spell for your endeavour, it's not going to actually vaporise it. You will deal heavy damage, but this intent of destroying a castle in one go -- is very limited. There's a reason, even in a world of super wizards, siege weapons are still needed. If a single mage could obliterate castles with a wave of a hand, they'll be hunted and assassinated by other nations or have every nation showering them in gold. Neither are "adventurer in a campaign" scenarios.
If you goal is to get rid of a deserted castle then a wish-replicated earthquake and a few disintegrates will be more effective. If the goal is defeat the BBEG in the castle - consider infiltration or other matters, draw them out and away, or if you've seen then before and have access to it: Gate them into a trapped demiplane. Or just Dream them into exhaustion. Or risk-it-for-a-biscuit and Wish them gone.
There are more effective solutions than trying to jerry-rig rules for a wackadoodle combo. It seems like you're trying to make an "i-win" button, and that's kinda not the point of D&D. But then, whatever floats your party's boats. It's probably better to talk to your DM than us. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Despite most of the responses so far, I think that the original poster probably can do what he is trying to do.
Yes, the Wizard's spellbook is "the repository of the Wizard spells you know", but there isn't actually anything preventing you from also writing anything else that you want into a spellbook. It's just a certain type of book -- a mundane item. From Chapter 5, a spellbook is "a leather-bound tome with 100 blank vellum pages suitable for recording spells."
There is also nothing special about the Wizard spells that are in the Wizard's spellbook. It's just fine inks on a page. In this context, a spell is not really a thing that exists any more than the objects that are described in a fictional book. The game uses the term "spell" in this context all over the place. For example, in the "Your Spellbook" sidebar, we have these statements:
You might find other spells during your adventures. 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.
The above does not necessarily refer to Spell Scrolls or spellbooks. These "spells" could just be written down on ordinary scrolls or books and the game still refers to these as spells.
When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook
and
Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it.
. . . again, this other wizard wrote down the "spell" somewhere, not necessarily anywhere specific, and now we are copying this text into our spellbook.
Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.
. . . the requirement for a Wizard to be able to prepare a Wizard spell for casting is that the spell is in the Wizard's spellbook. But the spell can be written anywhere, it just wouldn't be directly useable by the Wizard in those other forms.
You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book
. . . so again, the spell can exist in "another book".
In addition, there is clear evidence that some text besides the Wizard spells can exist within the Wizard's spellbook from this description:
The Book’s Appearance. Your spellbook is a unique compilation of spells, with its own decorative flourishes and margin notes.
Lastly, the Awakened Spellbook feature in question:
When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook, which magically alters the spell's formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend.
Although the RAI might have been referring to "another Wizard spell in your spellbook", that's not actually what it says. It just says "another spell in your spellbook".
So, since the Awakened Spellbook feature itself doesn't create the restriction and since we know that a "spell" can exist in written form anywhere, and since there is no rule against writing whatever you want into your Wizard's spellbook, then this combo from the original post works.
The above does not necessarily refer to Spell Scrolls or spellbooks. These "spells" could just be written down on ordinary scrolls or books and the game still refers to these as spells.
When you find a wizardspell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook
That's the requirement you keep forgetting to write out every time you write 'spells' .
I've argued in the past that the rules described spellbook is exactly the repository of wizard spells that a character can choose to prepare and/or cast as a wizard, not an actual specific in-game item. That list of spells is what all of the features referring to a spellbook is actually talking about, and not the in-game object.
Would you be able to copy Ritual Spells for a Druid into your spell book?
How does that fit with the Ritual Caster feat?
Wizards can cast Wizard ritual spells, not Druid ritual spells. If that Wizard takes the Ritual Caster feat and chooses Druid, they get a ritual book that can be used to copy down Druid ritual spells. They still need to copy them from a written source(beyond the first two which they get in their book when taking the feat) i.e. a spell scroll.
The above does not necessarily refer to Spell Scrolls or spellbooks. These "spells" could just be written down on ordinary scrolls or books and the game still refers to these as spells.
When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook
That's the requirement you keep forgetting to write out every time you write 'spells' .
I've forgotten no such thing. You'll have to elaborate if you're trying to make a point of some sort. All of the blockquotes in my post above are taken directly from the rules word for word. In fact, allow me to quote my own post:
I've argued in the past that the rules described spellbook is exactly the repository of wizard spells that a character can choose to prepare and/or cast as a wizard, not an actual specific in-game item. That list of spells is what all of the features referring to a spellbook is actually talking about, and not the in-game object.
I think that argument holds here.
This is a homebrew interpretation of the term spellbook. If we're talking about the rules as written, the spellbook item is described in Chapter 5 and the useful ways in which a Wizard can use his particular spellbook as part of his Spellcasting Feature is described in Chapter 3.
Would you be able to copy Ritual Spells for a Druid into your spell book?
How does that fit with the Ritual Caster feat?
Wizards can cast Wizard ritual spells, not Druid ritual spells. If that Wizard takes the Ritual Caster feat and chooses Druid, they get a ritual book that can be used to copy down Druid ritual spells. They still need to copy them from a written source(beyond the first two which they get in their book when taking the feat) i.e. a spell scroll.
Actually, if the question here is if the Wizard can literally copy Ritual Spells for a Druid into his spellbook -- sure, you could do that, why not? Meaning, you could copy it over exactly as it was originally written. Of course, this usually doesn't do anything useful for the Wizard. The Ritual Caster feat would not help matters there either.
Keep in mind that this is not what is usually meant by "Copying a Spell into the Book". In the Your Spellbook sidebar for the Wizard, the section which describes Copying a Spell into the Book specifies that you are essentially translating the text of the spell into "your own notation", which is then written into the spellbook with fine inks. This is the process that is necessary so that the Wizard may later prepare a spell from the spellbook. The Wizard is only able to do this with Wizard spells.
But again, you can write whatever you want into the book. There is no rule which says otherwise.
Regardless of whether or not they specifically put “wizard” next to every instance of the word “spell” when describing the class feature, basic reading comprehension tells us that the entire feature is clearly intended to interact only with spells on the Wizard class list. Cherry-picking a few phrases where “wizard” wasn’t explicitly name-dropped represents at best a conclusion flawed by incomplete comprehension of the topic, and at worst a specious and bad faith attempt to twist a demonstrably incorrect interpretation of “RAW” into a pretzel.
I've argued in the past that the rules described spellbook is exactly the repository of wizard spells that a character can choose to prepare and/or cast as a wizard, not an actual specific in-game item. That list of spells is what all of the features referring to a spellbook is actually talking about, and not the in-game object.
I think that argument holds here.
This is a homebrew interpretation of the term spellbook. If we're talking about the rules as written, the spellbook item is described in Chapter 5 and the useful ways in which a Wizard can use his particular spellbook as part of his Spellcasting Feature is described in Chapter 3.
The mechanical spellbook is that list of spells allowed to be in it. That list of spells is identically the list of spells that goes into it (wizard spells that either you choose when you level or you find and pay time and gold to put into it) as well as what each feature that refers back to when using the spellbook -- at least as far as the game mechanics are concerned, fluff aside.
If you require calling thinking about exactly the same thingin a different way "homebrew," so be it, but call that what it is: a you thing due to your way of thinking. The only part that has mechanical weight to it is the list of spells allowed to be in it, so that list is as good as the spellbook as far as mechanics are concerned.
But again, if you won't separate fluff from mechanics, I'm not sure what value your rules analysis might add to the mechanics of this particular question.
I, on the other hand, find the thought technology of separating mechanics from fluff invaluable when discussing mechanics.
But again, you can write whatever you want into the book. There is no rule which says otherwise.
That's not how the rules work though. They don't list all the things that you cannot do, they say what you can do. And there is no rule that I know of that specifies that you can add Druid spells into your spellbook.
I just figure having a ritual spell from another spell list in your spellbook is a step forward. I know the rule about casting spells from your list, but situations can develop where you might say, I wish I had a copy of that ritual spell right now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Regardless of whether or not they specifically put “wizard” next to every instance of the word “spell” when describing the class feature, basic reading comprehension tells us that the entire feature is clearly intended to interact only with spells on the Wizard class list. Cherry-picking a few phrases where “wizard” wasn’t explicitly name-dropped represents at best a conclusion flawed by incomplete comprehension of the topic, and at worst a specious and bad faith attempt to twist a demonstrably incorrect interpretation of “RAW” into a pretzel.
First, my reading comprehension skills are exceptionally strong. Second, I have never made a bad faith argument in this forum. You will immediately cease all further insults and accusations.
Next, your response shows that you've completely missed the points that I was making. The examples that I used had nothing to do with trying to differentiate between a spell and a wizard spell. Obviously the Wizard's Spellcasting Feature is discussing the useful things that a Wizard can do with Wizard spells. That's irrelevant. I was demonstrating that the game uses the term "spell" in several different contexts.
There is the thing that a Wizard prepares in his mind and the thing that he actually casts. These uses of the term "spell" conjure a concept that is much more of a semi-tangible, yet consumable thing that exists in the world as the Wizard interacts with the Weave of Magic. But then there is also just the ink that's written on a sheet of paper that describes a spell. The game doesn't bother to come up with a seperate term for this such as "spell text" or "spell recipe" or "spell instructions" or "spell blueprint" or anything of the sort. It simply uses the term "spell" to describe this text. Furthermore, this doesn't have to exist only in some sort of rare item or location. There is a misconception that it's only a spell if it's on a Spell Scroll, for example. That's false. A spell could be written on a bar napkin. The game uses the term in that way consistently.
The second important point is that a spellbook is just a specific type of book with blank pages that can be written into. You can write whatever you want in a blank book. Which brings us to this comment:
But again, you can write whatever you want into the book. There is no rule which says otherwise.
That's not how the rules work though. They don't list all the things that you cannot do, they say what you can do. And there is no rule that I know of that specifies that you can add Druid spells into your spellbook.
This isn't even a very good rule of thumb, and in this specific instance it's incorrect. The Fifth Edition ruleset was designed specifically as a natural language, common sense ruleset. We can look to dictionary definitions of many words that are used but not defined within the game. We can use basic real-world assumptions about the details of the game that are too trivial to be mentioned in the rule books. Anything that greatly deviates from this must explicitly do so.
In any game that loosely resembles the real world where a player is given access to an empty book, some ink, and a writing instrument, it should be reasonable to expect that a player might attempt to write something in the book. In the real world we could write whatever we want into an empty book. If for some reason the book and spellbook items listed and described in the D&D 5e rulebooks do not function in this way then they must explicitly say so. Otherwise, it's illogical and nonsensical.
So again, since the Awakened Spellbook feature itself doesn't create the restriction and since we know that a "spell" can exist in written form anywhere, and since there is no rule against writing whatever you want into your Wizard's spellbook, then this combo from the original post works.
The mechanical spellbook is that list of spells allowed to be in it. That list of spells is identically the list of spells that goes into it (wizard spells that either you choose when you level or you find and pay time and gold to put into it) as well as what each feature that refers back to when using the spellbook -- at least as far as the game mechanics are concerned, fluff aside.
If you require calling thinking about exactly the same thingin a different way "homebrew," so be it, but call that what it is: a you thing due to your way of thinking. The only part that has mechanical weight to it is the list of spells allowed to be in it, so that list is as good as the spellbook as far as mechanics are concerned.
None of this is actually true though. The spellbook is an actual, tangible book. It can be lost or stolen or damaged. There are all sorts of mechanics dedicated specifically to the cost and effort required to duplicate one's spellbook specifically because it is an actual, tangible book that is vulnerable in these ways. It also has weight that contributes to encumbrance and there is a cost to purchase one. And so on. Those are all mechanics which you are ignoring. The things that you are talking about are some of the useful ways in which a Wizard may interact with his spellbook as per his Spellcasting Feature.
If you guys are going to continue to say that I'm wrong on this one then you're going to need to back it up with some tangible evidence.
I just figure having a ritual spell from another spell list in your spellbook is a step forward. I know the rule about casting spells from your list, but situations can develop where you might say, I wish I had a copy of that ritual spell right now.
They might, but unfortunately by RAW you have no ability to meaningfully transcribe those spells using a Wizard class feature. If you want to copy down ritual spells for other classes, you need the Ritual Caster feat. Otherwise, you have no RAW leg to stand on for making use of spells outside of those from your class, barring some other feat, boon, etc. You can always ask your DM if you can make some kind of check involving it, but just because something would be nice doesn't mean there needs to be a RAW way to make it happen.
“Second, I have never made a bad faith argument in this forum.” but then you go on to reference your earlier Airbud argument (“the rules don’t say dogs can’t play basketball”). That argument is born in bad faith, and you have to make a real effort — which I would say you haven’t done so far — to make it even near good faith argument territory. If you are really making this argument genuinely then I doubt anyone will be able to find a flaw in it. You’re right; the rules really don’t say all sorts of things that are no part of the game.
So you can lose/copy your spellbook. Do any of the mechanics associated with those aspects have anything to do with fluff or are they related to the spell list? Do the rules give you gold and ink costs for adding spells from other class lists? Can a wizard add Earth Shield or Pyroblast or Singularity from other games to it? Is anything else besides the appropriately added wizard spells ever referred to in mechanics for the book? In fact, if you reread the sidebar, you will find that only the repository of spells has any mechanical weight, even when the physical item is involved.
you can have wizard spells appropriately added and fluff in your spellbook. Fluff has no mechanical value.
“Second, I have never made a bad faith argument in this forum.” but then you go on to reference your earlier Airbud argument (“the rules don’t say dogs can’t play basketball”). That argument is born in bad faith,
What on earth are you talking about with this? I have argued the exact opposite. Given our real world experiences, can we reasonably expect dogs to be able to play basketball? No. If the game were to introduce a Dog creature complete with stats and abilities then it would have to explicitly state that this Dog creature can play basketball, otherwise it cannot.
Conversely, if I am a player and the DM mentions that there is a dog in the game environment, I am going to picture a dog in my mind. If the DM is actually referring to a creature that resembles a dolphin or a crocodile or a terrifying 5-headed monster, he will have to explicitly explain this, otherwise the word "dog" makes no sense. Since there are no rules about common dogs, we refer to our natural language definition of a dog and the common sense concepts related to them. For example, we might reasonably expect that they might bark or wag their tail or salivate in anticipation of the bacon that we are about to feed them. It should be expected that the player might try to interact with the dog in these ways even though there are no rules about this.
Similarly, if the DM introduces a book into the game environment, he should expect that the player might interact with the book in all sorts of ways. I can pick up and hold the book. I can open the book. I can flip through it's pages. I can read the book. I can write on its blank pages. I could also decide to throw the book at my enemy's head. Or, I might toss the book into a fireplace and set it on fire. I might tear out its pages, crumple them up and throw them in the garbage. Now, if you are telling me that I cannot do any of these things with the books in your world, perhaps because the book is not an actual physical object or something, then you are drifting further and further away from the RAW with arguments like that.
you can have wizard spells appropriately added and fluff in your spellbook. Fluff has no mechanical value.
Ok, it looks like this is where you and some other people are getting stuck. You keep wanting to refer to the mechanics that are listed in the Wizard class. The mechanics that you are talking about are the mechanics for the Spellcasting Feature on that class.
However, the entire point of this discussion is that the Awakened Spellbook Feature in question does not interact with the mechanics of the Spellcasting Feature at all. It provides its own mechanics. We are discussing this statement:
you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook
You don't use the Wizard's Spellcasting Feature at all to properly resolve this statement. None of those mechanics are relevant. All that matters is that the Awakened Spellbook searches through its own pages trying to find a spell that meets the requirements. If it's in there then the requirement is met, otherwise, it's not. That's the whole mechanic. So, the spell that it's looking for might indeed be part of the "fluff" that you are talking about that has been added to the spellbook in addition to the things which have been added as part of the Spellcasting Feature's mechanics. For the purposes of the Awakened Spellbook's mechanics, it doesn't care if the spell that it's looking for is in the "fluff" or not.
That's just not true though. Anything else is fluff for the purposes of the Spellcasting Feature, that's all. But there's no reason why other spells can't be in there. Spells can be written down anywhere and anything can be written in the book. I've already quoted multiple statements from the rule books which supports this. For example, the Wizard could just lend his spellbook to a Druid who possesses the Druid spell in question and he could just write it into the book and give it back to the Wizard. Obviously, this is useless to the Wizard in terms of the Wizard's Spellcasting Feature, but that doesn't mean that this somehow cannot be done for some reason.
No, if there aren’t rules for putting other spells into the book, then as far as anyone but Airbud is concerned, there aren’t rules for putting other spells in the book.
Prismatic Wall does Lightning damage as well and is a Wizard spell. So as far as setting Meteor Swarm to Lightning goes you can do that as a Wizard, but it's still DM's discretion if you can actually turn that into a Jericho effect; it's entirely within a DM's purview to rule that Lightning damage is ineffective against a stone structure, for instance.
Just gonna highlight something you missed.
Wizard spellbook rules:
"Your spellbook is the repository of the wizard spells you know, except your cantrips, which are fixed in your mind."
"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."
The Awakened Spellbook damage-replacement feature:
"When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot, you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook, which magically alters the spell’s formula for this casting only. The latter spell must be of the same level as the spell slot you expend."
Summary: The only spells you can add to your wizard spellbook are wizard spells. You cannot add any other spell into, no matter what scribbling or whatever you do. Nothing else will count as a spell in your spellbook.
So, no, what you're trying to do is not even remotely within the Rules as Written.
-
It is also unnecessary, because:
So what you are trying to achieve, you can already do without any druid spell shenanigans.
Although, even if the DM allows the lightning to be effective as damage, destructive wrath for max damage isn't a big deal. While MS is the best Wizard spell for your endeavour, it's not going to actually vaporise it. You will deal heavy damage, but this intent of destroying a castle in one go -- is very limited. There's a reason, even in a world of super wizards, siege weapons are still needed. If a single mage could obliterate castles with a wave of a hand, they'll be hunted and assassinated by other nations or have every nation showering them in gold. Neither are "adventurer in a campaign" scenarios.
If you goal is to get rid of a deserted castle then a wish-replicated earthquake and a few disintegrates will be more effective. If the goal is defeat the BBEG in the castle - consider infiltration or other matters, draw them out and away, or if you've seen then before and have access to it: Gate them into a trapped demiplane. Or just Dream them into exhaustion. Or risk-it-for-a-biscuit and Wish them gone.
There are more effective solutions than trying to jerry-rig rules for a wackadoodle combo. It seems like you're trying to make an "i-win" button, and that's kinda not the point of D&D. But then, whatever floats your party's boats. It's probably better to talk to your DM than us. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Despite most of the responses so far, I think that the original poster probably can do what he is trying to do.
Yes, the Wizard's spellbook is "the repository of the Wizard spells you know", but there isn't actually anything preventing you from also writing anything else that you want into a spellbook. It's just a certain type of book -- a mundane item. From Chapter 5, a spellbook is "a leather-bound tome with 100 blank vellum pages suitable for recording spells."
There is also nothing special about the Wizard spells that are in the Wizard's spellbook. It's just fine inks on a page. In this context, a spell is not really a thing that exists any more than the objects that are described in a fictional book. The game uses the term "spell" in this context all over the place. For example, in the "Your Spellbook" sidebar, we have these statements:
The above does not necessarily refer to Spell Scrolls or spellbooks. These "spells" could just be written down on ordinary scrolls or books and the game still refers to these as spells.
and
. . . again, this other wizard wrote down the "spell" somewhere, not necessarily anywhere specific, and now we are copying this text into our spellbook.
. . . the requirement for a Wizard to be able to prepare a Wizard spell for casting is that the spell is in the Wizard's spellbook. But the spell can be written anywhere, it just wouldn't be directly useable by the Wizard in those other forms.
. . . so again, the spell can exist in "another book".
In addition, there is clear evidence that some text besides the Wizard spells can exist within the Wizard's spellbook from this description:
Lastly, the Awakened Spellbook feature in question:
Although the RAI might have been referring to "another Wizard spell in your spellbook", that's not actually what it says. It just says "another spell in your spellbook".
So, since the Awakened Spellbook feature itself doesn't create the restriction and since we know that a "spell" can exist in written form anywhere, and since there is no rule against writing whatever you want into your Wizard's spellbook, then this combo from the original post works.
That's the requirement you keep forgetting to write out every time you write 'spells' .
I've argued in the past that the rules described spellbook is exactly the repository of wizard spells that a character can choose to prepare and/or cast as a wizard, not an actual specific in-game item. That list of spells is what all of the features referring to a spellbook is actually talking about, and not the in-game object.
I think that argument holds here.
Wizards can cast Wizard ritual spells, not Druid ritual spells. If that Wizard takes the Ritual Caster feat and chooses Druid, they get a ritual book that can be used to copy down Druid ritual spells. They still need to copy them from a written source(beyond the first two which they get in their book when taking the feat) i.e. a spell scroll.
I've forgotten no such thing. You'll have to elaborate if you're trying to make a point of some sort. All of the blockquotes in my post above are taken directly from the rules word for word. In fact, allow me to quote my own post:
What I quoted there is in fact identical to what you've just written. Nothing was forgotten.
This is a homebrew interpretation of the term spellbook. If we're talking about the rules as written, the spellbook item is described in Chapter 5 and the useful ways in which a Wizard can use his particular spellbook as part of his Spellcasting Feature is described in Chapter 3.
Actually, if the question here is if the Wizard can literally copy Ritual Spells for a Druid into his spellbook -- sure, you could do that, why not? Meaning, you could copy it over exactly as it was originally written. Of course, this usually doesn't do anything useful for the Wizard. The Ritual Caster feat would not help matters there either.
Keep in mind that this is not what is usually meant by "Copying a Spell into the Book". In the Your Spellbook sidebar for the Wizard, the section which describes Copying a Spell into the Book specifies that you are essentially translating the text of the spell into "your own notation", which is then written into the spellbook with fine inks. This is the process that is necessary so that the Wizard may later prepare a spell from the spellbook. The Wizard is only able to do this with Wizard spells.
But again, you can write whatever you want into the book. There is no rule which says otherwise.
Regardless of whether or not they specifically put “wizard” next to every instance of the word “spell” when describing the class feature, basic reading comprehension tells us that the entire feature is clearly intended to interact only with spells on the Wizard class list. Cherry-picking a few phrases where “wizard” wasn’t explicitly name-dropped represents at best a conclusion flawed by incomplete comprehension of the topic, and at worst a specious and bad faith attempt to twist a demonstrably incorrect interpretation of “RAW” into a pretzel.
The mechanical spellbook is that list of spells allowed to be in it. That list of spells is identically the list of spells that goes into it (wizard spells that either you choose when you level or you find and pay time and gold to put into it) as well as what each feature that refers back to when using the spellbook -- at least as far as the game mechanics are concerned, fluff aside.
If you require calling thinking about exactly the same thing in a different way "homebrew," so be it, but call that what it is: a you thing due to your way of thinking. The only part that has mechanical weight to it is the list of spells allowed to be in it, so that list is as good as the spellbook as far as mechanics are concerned.
But again, if you won't separate fluff from mechanics, I'm not sure what value your rules analysis might add to the mechanics of this particular question.
I, on the other hand, find the thought technology of separating mechanics from fluff invaluable when discussing mechanics.
That's not how the rules work though. They don't list all the things that you cannot do, they say what you can do. And there is no rule that I know of that specifies that you can add Druid spells into your spellbook.
I just figure having a ritual spell from another spell list in your spellbook is a step forward. I know the rule about casting spells from your list, but situations can develop where you might say, I wish I had a copy of that ritual spell right now.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
First, my reading comprehension skills are exceptionally strong. Second, I have never made a bad faith argument in this forum. You will immediately cease all further insults and accusations.
Next, your response shows that you've completely missed the points that I was making. The examples that I used had nothing to do with trying to differentiate between a spell and a wizard spell. Obviously the Wizard's Spellcasting Feature is discussing the useful things that a Wizard can do with Wizard spells. That's irrelevant. I was demonstrating that the game uses the term "spell" in several different contexts.
There is the thing that a Wizard prepares in his mind and the thing that he actually casts. These uses of the term "spell" conjure a concept that is much more of a semi-tangible, yet consumable thing that exists in the world as the Wizard interacts with the Weave of Magic. But then there is also just the ink that's written on a sheet of paper that describes a spell. The game doesn't bother to come up with a seperate term for this such as "spell text" or "spell recipe" or "spell instructions" or "spell blueprint" or anything of the sort. It simply uses the term "spell" to describe this text. Furthermore, this doesn't have to exist only in some sort of rare item or location. There is a misconception that it's only a spell if it's on a Spell Scroll, for example. That's false. A spell could be written on a bar napkin. The game uses the term in that way consistently.
The second important point is that a spellbook is just a specific type of book with blank pages that can be written into. You can write whatever you want in a blank book. Which brings us to this comment:
This isn't even a very good rule of thumb, and in this specific instance it's incorrect. The Fifth Edition ruleset was designed specifically as a natural language, common sense ruleset. We can look to dictionary definitions of many words that are used but not defined within the game. We can use basic real-world assumptions about the details of the game that are too trivial to be mentioned in the rule books. Anything that greatly deviates from this must explicitly do so.
In any game that loosely resembles the real world where a player is given access to an empty book, some ink, and a writing instrument, it should be reasonable to expect that a player might attempt to write something in the book. In the real world we could write whatever we want into an empty book. If for some reason the book and spellbook items listed and described in the D&D 5e rulebooks do not function in this way then they must explicitly say so. Otherwise, it's illogical and nonsensical.
So again, since the Awakened Spellbook feature itself doesn't create the restriction and since we know that a "spell" can exist in written form anywhere, and since there is no rule against writing whatever you want into your Wizard's spellbook, then this combo from the original post works.
None of this is actually true though. The spellbook is an actual, tangible book. It can be lost or stolen or damaged. There are all sorts of mechanics dedicated specifically to the cost and effort required to duplicate one's spellbook specifically because it is an actual, tangible book that is vulnerable in these ways. It also has weight that contributes to encumbrance and there is a cost to purchase one. And so on. Those are all mechanics which you are ignoring. The things that you are talking about are some of the useful ways in which a Wizard may interact with his spellbook as per his Spellcasting Feature.
If you guys are going to continue to say that I'm wrong on this one then you're going to need to back it up with some tangible evidence.
They might, but unfortunately by RAW you have no ability to meaningfully transcribe those spells using a Wizard class feature. If you want to copy down ritual spells for other classes, you need the Ritual Caster feat. Otherwise, you have no RAW leg to stand on for making use of spells outside of those from your class, barring some other feat, boon, etc. You can always ask your DM if you can make some kind of check involving it, but just because something would be nice doesn't mean there needs to be a RAW way to make it happen.
“Second, I have never made a bad faith argument in this forum.” but then you go on to reference your earlier Airbud argument (“the rules don’t say dogs can’t play basketball”). That argument is born in bad faith, and you have to make a real effort — which I would say you haven’t done so far — to make it even near good faith argument territory. If you are really making this argument genuinely then I doubt anyone will be able to find a flaw in it. You’re right; the rules really don’t say all sorts of things that are no part of the game.
So you can lose/copy your spellbook. Do any of the mechanics associated with those aspects have anything to do with fluff or are they related to the spell list? Do the rules give you gold and ink costs for adding spells from other class lists? Can a wizard add Earth Shield or Pyroblast or Singularity from other games to it? Is anything else besides the appropriately added wizard spells ever referred to in mechanics for the book? In fact, if you reread the sidebar, you will find that only the repository of spells has any mechanical weight, even when the physical item is involved.
you can have wizard spells appropriately added and fluff in your spellbook. Fluff has no mechanical value.
What on earth are you talking about with this? I have argued the exact opposite. Given our real world experiences, can we reasonably expect dogs to be able to play basketball? No. If the game were to introduce a Dog creature complete with stats and abilities then it would have to explicitly state that this Dog creature can play basketball, otherwise it cannot.
Conversely, if I am a player and the DM mentions that there is a dog in the game environment, I am going to picture a dog in my mind. If the DM is actually referring to a creature that resembles a dolphin or a crocodile or a terrifying 5-headed monster, he will have to explicitly explain this, otherwise the word "dog" makes no sense. Since there are no rules about common dogs, we refer to our natural language definition of a dog and the common sense concepts related to them. For example, we might reasonably expect that they might bark or wag their tail or salivate in anticipation of the bacon that we are about to feed them. It should be expected that the player might try to interact with the dog in these ways even though there are no rules about this.
Similarly, if the DM introduces a book into the game environment, he should expect that the player might interact with the book in all sorts of ways. I can pick up and hold the book. I can open the book. I can flip through it's pages. I can read the book. I can write on its blank pages. I could also decide to throw the book at my enemy's head. Or, I might toss the book into a fireplace and set it on fire. I might tear out its pages, crumple them up and throw them in the garbage. Now, if you are telling me that I cannot do any of these things with the books in your world, perhaps because the book is not an actual physical object or something, then you are drifting further and further away from the RAW with arguments like that.
Ok, it looks like this is where you and some other people are getting stuck. You keep wanting to refer to the mechanics that are listed in the Wizard class. The mechanics that you are talking about are the mechanics for the Spellcasting Feature on that class.
However, the entire point of this discussion is that the Awakened Spellbook Feature in question does not interact with the mechanics of the Spellcasting Feature at all. It provides its own mechanics. We are discussing this statement:
You don't use the Wizard's Spellcasting Feature at all to properly resolve this statement. None of those mechanics are relevant. All that matters is that the Awakened Spellbook searches through its own pages trying to find a spell that meets the requirements. If it's in there then the requirement is met, otherwise, it's not. That's the whole mechanic. So, the spell that it's looking for might indeed be part of the "fluff" that you are talking about that has been added to the spellbook in addition to the things which have been added as part of the Spellcasting Feature's mechanics. For the purposes of the Awakened Spellbook's mechanics, it doesn't care if the spell that it's looking for is in the "fluff" or not.
But you forget that the only spells in the book are the ones the mechanics allow you to add. Anything else is fluff.
That's just not true though. Anything else is fluff for the purposes of the Spellcasting Feature, that's all. But there's no reason why other spells can't be in there. Spells can be written down anywhere and anything can be written in the book. I've already quoted multiple statements from the rule books which supports this. For example, the Wizard could just lend his spellbook to a Druid who possesses the Druid spell in question and he could just write it into the book and give it back to the Wizard. Obviously, this is useless to the Wizard in terms of the Wizard's Spellcasting Feature, but that doesn't mean that this somehow cannot be done for some reason.
No, if there aren’t rules for putting other spells into the book, then as far as anyone but Airbud is concerned, there aren’t rules for putting other spells in the book.
Ok, I can see that you're not getting it and now you're just repeating yourself so I'll just agree to disagree.