I have made direct quotes from the rule books 8 times so far in this thread and I have also explained many of the rules and mechanics and game concepts without using direct quotes. That's far more evidence than anyone else has provided. What exactly do you think is missing?
I have quoted the rules which demonstrate that spells can exist in written form anywhere, that it is possible to write whatever you want into a spellbook, and that the portion of the Awakened Spellbook Feature being discussed has its own explicit rules and mechanics which do not rely on any of the rules and mechanics that are dictated by the Wizard's Spellcasting Feature. Those are all of the rules that you should need to understand how this works.
My take would be you could write other things in a wizard spellbook if you wanted but even if you copied a druid spell it would not be a "spell" in the wizards spell book; it would simply be a doodle just like drawing a flower. (I could copy the squiggles of ancient Greek writing in a book but would not understand it or be able to make any use of it.) Therefore it would not meet any requirement to "have a spell in your spellbook.
The rules for the wizard spell book and copying spells into it state:
"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.
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. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation."
Copying a spell involves practising it, understanding it and translating it to your own notation.
"Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place."
Copies of actual spells by a wizard into another book create another spell book which can be a backup to their main spellbook.
Spellbooks are books that contain spells. A wizard's spell book can ONLY have wizard spells written into it because "you must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.". Any spell written to the wizard spell book is transcribed into their OWN notation. It isn't just some sort of copy or tracing of a spell - it is actually figuring out what the spell does, how it works and making notes for the wizard themself to be able to cast it. You can write other stuff in your spellbook if you like but they aren't spells.
and from the DMG we have:
"A spell scroll bears the words of a single spell, written in a mystical cipher. If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible."
Spell scrolls of other classes are UNINTELLIGIBLE. This makes it impossible to copy them in any meaningful way. Spells in a wizard spell book are transcribed into the wizard's own methodology. A spell that is unintelligible can't be transcribed. It won't mean anything to the wizard though perhaps a druid reading it might be able to figure it out. Since a wizard CAN'T copy a druid spell to their spell book as a spell, features like the awakened spellbook damage changes wouldn't work since the spell is unintelligible.
Of course a DM could rule otherwise but RAW a wizard can't even read a druid spell never mind make a copy of it in their spell book.
------------------
As far as destroying castles goes, the only spell I can see that might be effective at his is Earthquake. Not so much due to the damage done, though that will certainly cause significant destruction of 500hp of bludgeoning damage over 1 minute to structure ... but the fissures that also appear cause the immediate collapse of structures.
"Fissures. Fissures open throughout the spell’s area at the start of your next turn after you cast the spell. A total of 1d6 such fissures open in locations chosen by the DM. Each is 1d10 × 10 feet deep, 10 feet wide, and extends from one edge of the spell’s area to the opposite side. A creature standing on a spot where a fissure opens must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or fall in. A creature that successfully saves moves with the fissure’s edge as it opens. A fissure that opens beneath a structure causes it to automatically collapse (see below)."
"Structures. The tremor deals 50 bludgeoning damage to any structure in contact with the ground in the area when you cast the spell and at the start of each of your turns until the spell ends. If a structure drops to 0 hit points, it collapses and potentially damages nearby creatures."
A few fissures beneath a castle combined with the damage to structures is likely to leave very little of the castle standing. The spell also has a 100' radius or 200' diameter so it can affect quite substantial structures.
On the other hand, Storm of Vengeance does a meagre amount of damage except for one round where it can do 6 x 10d6 lightning bolts but all at separate targets - these do on average 35 hit points of damage each (While Earthquake does 50 hit points to every structure in contact with the ground within its radius every round for 1 minute).
Similarly, meteor swarm is pretty anemic. It has 4 x 40' radius spheres and in each the damage is "A creature takes 20d6 fire damage and 20d6 bludgeoning damage" - averages 70 fire + 70 bludgeoning.
The spell doesn't actually specify the damage to structures though it can damage objects "The spell damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried.". Keep in mind that the DMG defines an object as "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects." ... so RAW, Meteor Swarm does absolutely nothing to buildings because they are not "objects" - though a DM can rule otherwise.
So basically, out of these spells, Earthquake is the one designed to knock down buildings and probably the only one that could knock down a castle (though a wizard could use a Wish spell to cast it).
My take would be you could write other things in a wizard spellbook if you wanted but even if you copied a druid spell it would not be a "spell" in the wizards spell book; it would simply be a doodle just like drawing a flower. (I could copy the squiggles of ancient Greek writing in a book but would not understand it or be able to make any use of it.) Therefore it would not meet any requirement to "have a spell in your spellbook.
Ok, so you said you could copy a druid spell into the book. So, why would it "not be a spell"? You just said it was a spell! I agree that the Wizard cannot understand it or be able to make any use of it via his Spellcasting Feature. Why do you think that has anything to do with whether or not you "have a spell in your spellbook"?
Remember, the lore for the Awakened Spellbook Feature is that the spellbook itself becomes sentient. The spellbook itself literally grants you the benefits of the Feature ("At 2nd level, while you are holding the book, it grants you the following benefits: . . .") The Wizard doesn't need to know the details of how to search through the book for the necessary content -- the book itself is doing this for the Wizard when the Wizard casts a Wizard spell via his Spellcasting Feature. The Awakened Spellbook Feature defines its own mechanics for this ("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.") The Feature does what it says it does. You can just do this when you cast a spell -- because that's what the Feature says.
The spellbook sidebar, which David42 quoted relevantly, tells you every rule associated with “Copying a spell into the book.” Those are the extent of the rules on getting any spell into the book.
My take would be you could write other things in a wizard spellbook if you wanted but even if you copied a druid spell it would not be a "spell" in the wizards spell book; it would simply be a doodle just like drawing a flower. (I could copy the squiggles of ancient Greek writing in a book but would not understand it or be able to make any use of it.) Therefore it would not meet any requirement to "have a spell in your spellbook.
Ok, so you said you could copy a druid spell into the book. So, why would it "not be a spell"? You just said it was a spell! I agree that the Wizard cannot understand it or be able to make any use of it via his Spellcasting Feature. Why do you think that has anything to do with whether or not you "have a spell in your spellbook"?
Remember, the lore for the Awakened Spellbook Feature is that the spellbook itself becomes sentient. The spellbook itself literally grants you the benefits of the Feature ("At 2nd level, while you are holding the book, it grants you the following benefits: . . .") The Wizard doesn't need to know the details of how to search through the book for the necessary content -- the book itself is doing this for the Wizard when the Wizard casts a Wizard spell via his Spellcasting Feature. The Awakened Spellbook Feature defines its own mechanics for this ("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.") The Feature does what it says it does. You can just do this when you cast a spell -- because that's what the Feature says.
Why would it "not be a spell"? It would be a spell in the sense that you've transcribed the words, but there would be no magical power behind them, and no magic could be performed with that writing. A Druid could not use that written copy to cast the spell as a ritual, because that's not how a Druid's spellcasting works. They can only ritual-cast a spell they have prepared that day. A Druid could not use that written copy to cast the spell as they would off a spell scroll, because it was not transcribed as a spell scroll. When a spell scroll is transcribed, the spell is essentially "cast" into the scroll, which is why reading a spell scroll to cast the spell a) does not require a spell slot, b) does not require components, and c) can only be done once for that scroll. Once you've used it, the magic that was stored in it is gone. Someone with the Ritual Caster(Druid) feat could not use your written copy, because the feat only lets them ritual cast from the ritual book granted by the feat. And of course, your Wizard couldn't cast the spell because a) it wasn't transcribed using the process described in the rules and b) it's not a Wizard spell. And nothing you said about the Awakened Spellbook subclass feature(which is only for Order Of Scribes, not Wizards in general) changes any of these rules.
As with any rules, if your table wants to houserule things so spells work differently, go for it. But the the rules as they are written do not support what you're trying to do.
Why would it "not be a spell"? Same reason if you copied a recipe into your cookbook but it was in a language you didn't understand. Is it a recipe? Not really as you can't use it to cook anything. It is a bunch of squiggles. Actually you would have no way of knowing what it really was in the first place. Someone could have told you it was a recipe to make chocolate cake but since you can't read it, it could also be directions for sheering a sheep.
The spellbook sidebar, which David42 quoted relevantly, tells you every rule associated with “Copying a spell into the book.” Those are the extent of the rules on getting any spell into the book.
Anything else is “the rules don’t say I can’t.”
This is actually true, but it doesn't make the point that you think it does.
Why would it "not be a spell"? It would be a spell in the sense that you've transcribed the words, but there would be no magical power behind them, and no magic could be performed with that writing.
This is correct! EXCEPT . . . that doesn't make it "not be a spell"! It IS a spell! You've just said so yourself!
In fact, the Wizard doesn't even have to know that the spell is there -- it would still be a spell. Someone might take his spellbook in the middle of the night while he is asleep and write the spell into the spellbook in invisible ink. That's still a spell.
And nothing you said about the Awakened Spellbook subclass feature(which is only for Order Of Scribes, not Wizards in general) changes any of these rules.
This is another example of where you are correct, but it doesn't make the point that you think it does. In fact, the portion of the Awakened Spellbook Feature being discussed does not USE any of these rules, so there's no need to change any of them. The Feature simply does what it says it does.
Why would it "not be a spell"? Same reason if you copied a recipe into your cookbook but it was in a language you didn't understand. Is it a recipe? Not really as you can't use it to cook anything. It is a bunch of squiggles. Actually you would have no way of knowing what it really was in the first place. Someone could have told you it was a recipe to make chocolate cake but since you can't read it, it could also be directions for sheering a sheep.
Ok, this is actually personally amusing to me -- before I even read this post I was considering using the exact same analogy! The chef with the cookbook! That's sort of hilarious in a you-had-to-be-there sort of way.
Anyway, the point is, you've made my point for me almost perfectly. Except for the conclusion. A recipe is in my cookbook in a language I don't understand. I can't use it to cook anything. I don't even know if it's a recipe or not. Is it a recipe? OF COURSE IT IS! You've already said that it is!
A wizard's spell book can ONLY have wizard spells written into it . . .
You can write other stuff in your spellbook if you like but they aren't spells.
The purpose of a spellbook is to contain spells. But they don't have to. They also don't ONLY contain spells -- they can also have other stuff in them. The spellbook item is described in Chapter 5. When you spend the 50 gp to buy a new one from a shop, they typically do not yet contain any spells. They are "suitable for recording spells", but you could put whatever you want in them or just leave them empty.
It is false that a wizard's spell book can only have wizard spells written into it. We'll get back to this later, but you're confusing deliberately using the Spellcasting Feature with the act of using the normal ability to simply interact with a mundane item.
In fact, you can indeed write other stuff in your spellbook, and they may or may not be spells.
As for your discussion of the spell scroll item -- That is a specific magic item with its own rules and mechanics and functionality. That is not the only way that a spell can exist in written form out in the wild, that is a misconception. As for whether or not all spells in written form are unintelligible, that is a lot less clear. In addition, that does NOT matter. For example, I do not know how to read the Mandarin language. But if I find a recipe written in Mandarin I'm quite sure that I could write it into my cookbook and if I showed it to someone who does read Mandarin they would be able to understand what I've written. And if it happened to actually be a recipe that I've just put into the cookbook, then guess what? It's a recipe! Of course it is!
Here's a quick example on that topic. Suppose one of my players discovered a spell that is etched onto a cave wall. The Wizard that he is playing does not have the time or the correct inks and equipment necessary to properly learn the spell at this time. But, he has his spellbook and some cheap ink and a writing instrument. So, he takes a couple of minutes to quickly jot down exactly what he sees on the cave wall into his spellbook. Then, later, he returns to his home town and enters his own laboratory. He now uses his own spellbook as the source material for the spell that he intends to learn. The spell is currently in his spellbook, it just cannot be currently prepared or cast with the Spellcasting Feature. He now goes through all of the proper procedures of decrypting and deciphering the text, reading, studying, experimenting and practicing for the necessary amount of time. He uses the fine inks to write an encoded and encrypted written version of the spell in his own notation into his spellbook. He has now learned the spell and consequently he now possesses a known spell in his spellbook. It has been properly stored into his repository of known spells. If my player came up with this solution, why on earth would I deny this? What rule am I pointing to that says that he is literally not allowed to do this?
So, that brings us to the point that I've been trying to make. Let me try to explain it in a different way. I realize that this post is getting long but I really hope that this will be helpful for some of you.
There is a very consistent game concept of knowing a spell. Every player character or monster that has access to a Spellcasting Feature relies on knowing spells in order to be able to use that Feature to cast those spells. It works differently for each character class, and it's relatively complicated for the Wizard in comparison to the other classes, but the end result is always the same. When you use the Spellcasting Feature to cast a spell you must know that spell:
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.
"Your" spell refers to a spell that you know. That's what makes it yours. This is the only way that the Feature provides for casting leveled spells with the normal casting time. In addition, the known spell must be properly prepared:
requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell: at least 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list.
This implies (although it's less explicit) that you already know the spell well enough and that it is written clearly enough for you to be able to refresh your mind on the details of how to cast the spell very quickly -- and this is written in the same section as the above statement which requires the spell to be known in order to cast it.
So, if the Spellcasting Feature requires that the spell is known, how do you go about knowing a spell? Well, the Spellcasting Feature itself describes all of the methods and procedures that a Wizard must follow to turn a spell into a known spell. The Feature states that "Your spellbook is the repository of the [leveled] wizard spells you know". Then, in the section called "Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher", which includes the "Your Spellbook" sidebar, the Feature specifies the precise ways in which a Wizard learns a spell and therefore turns a spell into a known spell which is properly stored in the repository (in the spellbook).
Now, here's the thing that most of you are missing. All of this is provided as a class Feature that the character may or may not be using at any particular time! If you are not using this class Feature, then the rules and mechanics for that Feature DO NOT APPLY! The Wizard's Spellcasting Feature describes the rules for how a Wizard can cast spells that he knows and the procedures for how the Wizard knows those spells in the first place. That's it! It's a Feature! It works like any other class Feature! When using the Feature you follow the rules that are specified within that Feature.
For example, some classes have a Sneak Attack class Feature. But if I am playing a Barbarian and I make an attack, I do not follow the rules for the Sneak Attack Feature since I am not using that Feature when I make my attack.
The phrase "you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook" does not use or interact with the Wizard's Spellcasting Feature at all. The phrase itself also does not explicitly refer to known spells. If that was the intent, perhaps it should have been written as "in another of your Wizard spells in your spellbook". But it doesn't say that. Features do what they say. This Feature chooses "another spell in your spellbook" so that's what it does.
The phrase "Copying a Spell into the Book." means that it covers all of the spells. If you are relying on "spells" to mean all spells, not just wizard spells, why the special treatment for the subclass feature over the class feature? This feature describes the addition of all spells with the spellbook. Yet it makes no mention of adding spells from any other class list to the book.
If your actual implication is that you "may or may not be using the spellcasting class feature" you do realize that the spellbook mechanic is entirely contained within it, right? so without that feature, you don't have a spellbook. If this is a genuine argument, it is genuinely bad. I am suspicious of it though. It is incomprehensibly convoluted.
You use an example of a rogue/barb ignoring sneak attack rules when not using it, but miss how a wizard using a subclass feature involving a spellbook HAS TO USE the spellbook rules. Like a rogue using Rend Mind or any other subclass feature involving sneak attack still needs to consider the sneak attack rules.
You made a tortured argument to come to the wrong conclusion. It is yucky.
It looks like someone thinks that Awakened Spell book grants the holder some infinite copying feature and somehow also grants some type of interpretation power.
If i had a gnome cook book and sold it to you as a "spell book" written in a long lost language would you be able to copy it and use what you think are spells to cast anything?
Just because the word spell is used does not mean it can be a spell used by every casting class. You can only cast spells from your classes spell list. Unless you have a feat that lets you cast another classes spells. I.E. the ritual feat.
As for the idea of what a book is.
Look at the equipment list, there are different types of books. A common book and a spell book. If D&D did not want a clear and distinct differentiation between the two then they would only have one book listed. Clearly they want there to be a distinct difference. I do believe that ONLY the wizard uses a book to record spells. All other classes use simple memory.
Wizards can only copy wizard spells from scrolls into their spell book.( is the spell on the master wizard list?) Any other spell scroll that is copied is only making a new spell scroll. A simple copy. It is not translated into a wizard spell.
And even though it is not written, as far as I know, The spell must be in a language the caster knows. Just because its a spell does not mean that the character can read a spell written in Draconic.
RAW you can’t even copy an out of class scroll in any way but literally just reproducing the characters; to scribe a scroll you must already have the spell known/prepared.
RAW you can’t even copy an out of class scroll in any way but literally just reproducing the characters; to scribe a scroll you must already have the spell known/prepared.
I thought there might be some kind of feat or ability I didn't know about yet.
up2ng - you seem bound and determine to read something into the rules that simply isn't there, no matter how many times it's explained to you. If your table is fine with it, have fun. But in my experience and probably the experience of pretty much everyone else in this thread, other tables aren't going to interpret it the way you want it to be.
so without that feature, you don't have a spellbook.
This is actually false although it's a common misconception. If I am playing a Barbarian I can walk into a shop and buy a spellbook for 50 gp. Barbarians do not have the Wizard Spellcasting Feature.
As for the Awakened Spellbook Feature, there is an explicit prerequisite written into the Feature itself which requires that you are holding a spellbook. So, if for some reason you do not possess and/or you are not holding your spellbook, then you simply cannot use this Feature:
At 2nd level, while you are holding the book, it grants you the following benefits:
Trying to say that simply holding a book has anything to do with having and/or using the Spellcasting Feature is wrong. One Feature has nothing to do with the other until it is explicitly necessary. Once we get to the phrase "When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot", then that phrase and only that phrase may or may not be using the Spellcasting Feature to accomplish this (remember, we might be using a Feat or some other method to cast a wizard spell without using the Spellcasting Feature). The reason why we might be using the Spellcasting Feature to accomplish this is because the Awakened Spellbook Feature doesn't actually provide its own method for casting spells. So, to actually cast a spell, one possibility is to use the Spellcasting Feature. However, WHEN we do this, we search the spellbook for a spell -- this is explicitly told to us directly through the Awakened Spellbook Feature. This task does not and CAN NOT use the Spellcasting Feature to be accomplished -- the Spellcasting Feature does not discuss being able to do this at all.
The phrase "Copying a Spell into the Book." means that it covers all of the spells.
You didn't follow the logic of my previous post all the way through. It does NOT cover all possible spells. In fact, there are explicit requirements for which spells may use this procedure. This section of the Your Spellbook sidebar is simply providing a procedure for how a Wizard may learn a spell. This is one of the ways that the spell becomes a known spell to the Wizard so that he may prepare and cast it using the Spellcasting Feature.
It is not saying "this is the only way that you can write anything into the book". It is saying "of all of the possible ways that you can write something into a book, THIS way will allow you to learn and properly store the spell so that you may prepare and cast it".
It looks like someone thinks that Awakened Spell book grants the holder some infinite copying feature and somehow also grants some type of interpretation power.
I'm not sure if you're in the right thread, or at the very least you seem to be way behind on the discussion. What you're referring to here seems to have a lot more to do with the Wizardly Quill Feature. There was a long discussion about that Feature several months ago in a different thread.
If i had a gnome cook book and sold it to you as a "spell book" written in a long lost language would you be able to copy it and use what you think are spells to cast anything?
Just because the word spell is used does not mean it can be a spell used by every casting class. You can only cast spells from your classes spell list. Unless you have a feat that lets you cast another classes spells. I.E. the ritual feat.
Yeah, no. Nobody said anything about trying to cast one of these spells in question. The Feature being discussed only mentions searching for "a [damage] type that appears in another spell in your spellbook". This "another spell" is not being cast at all.
Wizards can only copy wizard spells from scrolls into their spell book.( is the spell on the master wizard list?) Any other spell scroll that is copied is only making a new spell scroll. A simple copy. It is not translated into a wizard spell.
And even though it is not written, as far as I know, The spell must be in a language the caster knows. Just because its a spell does not mean that the character can read a spell written in Draconic.
There is no such language requirement. Part of the process of learning the spell is decrypting and deciphering the source text.
Also, spells that you find do not have to be on a spell scroll or even on a scroll at all. Another common misconception.
----------
Look, this all mostly comes down to how you interpret the phrase "spell in your spellbook". If you believe that this phrase, written this way, somehow automatically refers only to the spells which have been properly stored into the spellbook for the purpose of being able to prepare and cast it as per the mechanics and procedures described in the Spellcasting Feature, then all of this pretty much works as you are saying, and that might even be the intent. It's just not a strict RAW interpretation since that's not what is written.
Look, this all mostly comes down to how you interpret the phrase "spell in your spellbook". If you believe that this phrase, written this way, somehow automatically refers only to the spells which have been properly stored into the spellbook for the purpose of being able to prepare and cast it as per the mechanics and procedures described in the Spellcasting Feature, then all of this pretty much works as you are saying, and that might even be the intent. It's just not a strict RAW interpretation since that's not what is written.
I think the conflict in interpretations is even more fundamental than that. What is a spell?
Can a cleric, druid, bard, sorcerer, artificer physically record a spell in any other format than a spell scroll? You keep mentioning "Also, spells that you find do not have to be on a spell scroll or even on a scroll at all. Another common misconception." ... but I don't recall seeing any rules at all for scribing spells OTHER than the creation of a spell scroll or copying a spell from another spellbook into your own spellbook (wizards only) - so spellbooks (wizards only) and scrolls are the only sources of spells unless I missed something which is entirely possible.
In addition, a spell in a wizard's spellbook is defined as: "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. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation."
A spell in a spellbook is transcribed "using your own notation". A copy of the original wizard's notes that you put into your spellbook isn't a spell for you.
However, that leads to the question of what constitutes a spell when it is written down.
Could a wizard copy the unintelligible scribblings from a druid/cleric/bard spell scroll into unintelligbile scribblings in their magical Awakened spellbook and expect the arcane sentience of the spellbook to be able to understand what is written? RAW I'd say no. A wizard can only copy a spell from their spell list into their spellbook no matter what the source. Is a reproduction of the uninitelligible scribblings from a spell scroll still a spell since it can no longer be cast if someone draws a copy of the scribblings? I'd personally rule no, a copy of the scribblings taken from a spell scroll and not translated doesn't constitute a spell but I could see another DM ruling otherwise if they wanted to allow it.
P.S. On a different but somewhat related topic, I'd add that other than casting ritual spells you can't cast spells from a spellbook in 5e (as was possible in previous editions), you can only cast spells from scrolls, items or ones that are prepared.
Look, this all mostly comes down to how you interpret the phrase "spell in your spellbook". If you believe that this phrase, written this way, somehow automatically refers only to the spells which have been properly stored into the spellbook for the purpose of being able to prepare and cast it as per the mechanics and procedures described in the Spellcasting Feature, then all of this pretty much works as you are saying, and that might even be the intent. It's just not a strict RAW interpretation since that's not what is written.
Yes, exactly. To me, this seems as clear example of being Rules Lawyer. You stick to the exact wording of the rules and deduce clearly overpowered and not inteded use of the feature. Any reasonable DM would not allow this.
I somehow understand your train of thought. I just do not agree with the conclusion. What you are saying is 1) I can write anything in the spellbook, because it is just a book. 2) therefore I can also write there a text which represents a spell, even though I do not know it or do not understand it. It is just a text, but still a spell. 3) Feature of Order of Scribes (Awakened Spellbook) refers generaly to any spell in my spellbook, not only to wizard spells I know. 4) This would theoretically allow this feature to take the damage type mentioned in that spell and apply that to spell of the same level I am casting.
Problem is, that if it would work like this, than the feature is so overpowered. The wizard could write spells from any class in the spellbook (basically for free because it could use just normal ink) and then use it for the Order of the Scribes feature to convert the damage type. Heck, I could even invent my own spells. It does not matter that it is not spell from the rulebook. As long as the text is "a spell" and it contains damage type and a level, I could use it for the Awakened Spellbook feature. I could write in my spellbook text like this: "This text is a spell of 3rd level. It uses acid to burn all my enemies. Spell formula goes like this: abracadabra." Then, according your explanation, this is a spell, it has a level, it has damage type. Of course it does not work, it does nothing, I cannot cast it. But it does not matter, I can now convert my fireball into acidball.
Clearly this is not inteded use of this Awakened Spellbook feature. So, what you are proposing must be wrong. You can use only the spells in the spellbook which you know (and this would be wizard spells), even though the feature does not specify this.
David, just real quick as I'm on a mobile device now. I discussed the different usages of the term "spell" that occurs throughout the game in a previous post. For example, there's the thing you cast and there's also just the written spell formula if you will. Also, I quoted this earlier:
"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."
This suggests that spells are not only located on Spell Scroll magic items and Wizard's spellbooks but could be written down anywhere.
It’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that we are discussing rules and you are not giving me any rules for spells other than wizard spells.
I have made direct quotes from the rule books 8 times so far in this thread and I have also explained many of the rules and mechanics and game concepts without using direct quotes. That's far more evidence than anyone else has provided. What exactly do you think is missing?
I have quoted the rules which demonstrate that spells can exist in written form anywhere, that it is possible to write whatever you want into a spellbook, and that the portion of the Awakened Spellbook Feature being discussed has its own explicit rules and mechanics which do not rely on any of the rules and mechanics that are dictated by the Wizard's Spellcasting Feature. Those are all of the rules that you should need to understand how this works.
My take would be you could write other things in a wizard spellbook if you wanted but even if you copied a druid spell it would not be a "spell" in the wizards spell book; it would simply be a doodle just like drawing a flower. (I could copy the squiggles of ancient Greek writing in a book but would not understand it or be able to make any use of it.) Therefore it would not meet any requirement to "have a spell in your spellbook.
The rules for the wizard spell book and copying spells into it state:
"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.
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. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation."
Copying a spell involves practising it, understanding it and translating it to your own notation.
"Replacing the Book. You can copy a spell from your own spellbook into another book—for example, if you want to make a backup copy of your spellbook. This is just like copying a new spell into your spellbook, but faster and easier, since you understand your own notation and already know how to cast the spell. You need spend only 1 hour and 10 gp for each level of the copied spell.
If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook. Filling out the remainder of your spellbook requires you to find new spells to do so, as normal. For this reason, many wizards keep backup spellbooks in a safe place."
Copies of actual spells by a wizard into another book create another spell book which can be a backup to their main spellbook.
Spellbooks are books that contain spells. A wizard's spell book can ONLY have wizard spells written into it because "you must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.". Any spell written to the wizard spell book is transcribed into their OWN notation. It isn't just some sort of copy or tracing of a spell - it is actually figuring out what the spell does, how it works and making notes for the wizard themself to be able to cast it. You can write other stuff in your spellbook if you like but they aren't spells.
and from the DMG we have:
"A spell scroll bears the words of a single spell, written in a mystical cipher. If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible."
Spell scrolls of other classes are UNINTELLIGIBLE. This makes it impossible to copy them in any meaningful way. Spells in a wizard spell book are transcribed into the wizard's own methodology. A spell that is unintelligible can't be transcribed. It won't mean anything to the wizard though perhaps a druid reading it might be able to figure it out. Since a wizard CAN'T copy a druid spell to their spell book as a spell, features like the awakened spellbook damage changes wouldn't work since the spell is unintelligible.
Of course a DM could rule otherwise but RAW a wizard can't even read a druid spell never mind make a copy of it in their spell book.
------------------
As far as destroying castles goes, the only spell I can see that might be effective at his is Earthquake. Not so much due to the damage done, though that will certainly cause significant destruction of 500hp of bludgeoning damage over 1 minute to structure ... but the fissures that also appear cause the immediate collapse of structures.
"Fissures. Fissures open throughout the spell’s area at the start of your next turn after you cast the spell. A total of 1d6 such fissures open in locations chosen by the DM. Each is 1d10 × 10 feet deep, 10 feet wide, and extends from one edge of the spell’s area to the opposite side. A creature standing on a spot where a fissure opens must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or fall in. A creature that successfully saves moves with the fissure’s edge as it opens.
A fissure that opens beneath a structure causes it to automatically collapse (see below)."
"Structures. The tremor deals 50 bludgeoning damage to any structure in contact with the ground in the area when you cast the spell and at the start of each of your turns until the spell ends. If a structure drops to 0 hit points, it collapses and potentially damages nearby creatures."
A few fissures beneath a castle combined with the damage to structures is likely to leave very little of the castle standing. The spell also has a 100' radius or 200' diameter so it can affect quite substantial structures.
On the other hand, Storm of Vengeance does a meagre amount of damage except for one round where it can do 6 x 10d6 lightning bolts but all at separate targets - these do on average 35 hit points of damage each (While Earthquake does 50 hit points to every structure in contact with the ground within its radius every round for 1 minute).
Similarly, meteor swarm is pretty anemic. It has 4 x 40' radius spheres and in each the damage is "A creature takes 20d6 fire damage and 20d6 bludgeoning damage" - averages 70 fire + 70 bludgeoning.
The spell doesn't actually specify the damage to structures though it can damage objects "The spell damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried.". Keep in mind that the DMG defines an object as "For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects." ... so RAW, Meteor Swarm does absolutely nothing to buildings because they are not "objects" - though a DM can rule otherwise.
So basically, out of these spells, Earthquake is the one designed to knock down buildings and probably the only one that could knock down a castle (though a wizard could use a Wish spell to cast it).
Ok, so you said you could copy a druid spell into the book. So, why would it "not be a spell"? You just said it was a spell! I agree that the Wizard cannot understand it or be able to make any use of it via his Spellcasting Feature. Why do you think that has anything to do with whether or not you "have a spell in your spellbook"?
Remember, the lore for the Awakened Spellbook Feature is that the spellbook itself becomes sentient. The spellbook itself literally grants you the benefits of the Feature ("At 2nd level, while you are holding the book, it grants you the following benefits: . . .") The Wizard doesn't need to know the details of how to search through the book for the necessary content -- the book itself is doing this for the Wizard when the Wizard casts a Wizard spell via his Spellcasting Feature. The Awakened Spellbook Feature defines its own mechanics for this ("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.") The Feature does what it says it does. You can just do this when you cast a spell -- because that's what the Feature says.
The spellbook sidebar, which David42 quoted relevantly, tells you every rule associated with “Copying a spell into the book.” Those are the extent of the rules on getting any spell into the book.
Anything else is “the rules don’t say I can’t.”
When you find a spell from any other class than wizard, you can't do anything described in Your Spellbook with it.
I allow wizards in my campaign to take notes in their spellbook about any spell or subject, but it has no mechanical effect.
Why would it "not be a spell"? It would be a spell in the sense that you've transcribed the words, but there would be no magical power behind them, and no magic could be performed with that writing. A Druid could not use that written copy to cast the spell as a ritual, because that's not how a Druid's spellcasting works. They can only ritual-cast a spell they have prepared that day. A Druid could not use that written copy to cast the spell as they would off a spell scroll, because it was not transcribed as a spell scroll. When a spell scroll is transcribed, the spell is essentially "cast" into the scroll, which is why reading a spell scroll to cast the spell a) does not require a spell slot, b) does not require components, and c) can only be done once for that scroll. Once you've used it, the magic that was stored in it is gone. Someone with the Ritual Caster(Druid) feat could not use your written copy, because the feat only lets them ritual cast from the ritual book granted by the feat. And of course, your Wizard couldn't cast the spell because a) it wasn't transcribed using the process described in the rules and b) it's not a Wizard spell. And nothing you said about the Awakened Spellbook subclass feature(which is only for Order Of Scribes, not Wizards in general) changes any of these rules.
As with any rules, if your table wants to houserule things so spells work differently, go for it. But the the rules as they are written do not support what you're trying to do.
Why would it "not be a spell"? Same reason if you copied a recipe into your cookbook but it was in a language you didn't understand. Is it a recipe? Not really as you can't use it to cook anything. It is a bunch of squiggles. Actually you would have no way of knowing what it really was in the first place. Someone could have told you it was a recipe to make chocolate cake but since you can't read it, it could also be directions for sheering a sheep.
It's funny, I agree with pretty much everything that you guys are saying, I just disagree with your conclusion. For example:
This is actually true, but it doesn't make the point that you think it does.
Yes! This is true!
This is correct! EXCEPT . . . that doesn't make it "not be a spell"! It IS a spell! You've just said so yourself!
In fact, the Wizard doesn't even have to know that the spell is there -- it would still be a spell. Someone might take his spellbook in the middle of the night while he is asleep and write the spell into the spellbook in invisible ink. That's still a spell.
This is another example of where you are correct, but it doesn't make the point that you think it does. In fact, the portion of the Awakened Spellbook Feature being discussed does not USE any of these rules, so there's no need to change any of them. The Feature simply does what it says it does.
Ok, this is actually personally amusing to me -- before I even read this post I was considering using the exact same analogy! The chef with the cookbook! That's sort of hilarious in a you-had-to-be-there sort of way.
Anyway, the point is, you've made my point for me almost perfectly. Except for the conclusion. A recipe is in my cookbook in a language I don't understand. I can't use it to cook anything. I don't even know if it's a recipe or not. Is it a recipe? OF COURSE IT IS! You've already said that it is!
The purpose of a spellbook is to contain spells. But they don't have to. They also don't ONLY contain spells -- they can also have other stuff in them. The spellbook item is described in Chapter 5. When you spend the 50 gp to buy a new one from a shop, they typically do not yet contain any spells. They are "suitable for recording spells", but you could put whatever you want in them or just leave them empty.
It is false that a wizard's spell book can only have wizard spells written into it. We'll get back to this later, but you're confusing deliberately using the Spellcasting Feature with the act of using the normal ability to simply interact with a mundane item.
In fact, you can indeed write other stuff in your spellbook, and they may or may not be spells.
As for your discussion of the spell scroll item -- That is a specific magic item with its own rules and mechanics and functionality. That is not the only way that a spell can exist in written form out in the wild, that is a misconception. As for whether or not all spells in written form are unintelligible, that is a lot less clear. In addition, that does NOT matter. For example, I do not know how to read the Mandarin language. But if I find a recipe written in Mandarin I'm quite sure that I could write it into my cookbook and if I showed it to someone who does read Mandarin they would be able to understand what I've written. And if it happened to actually be a recipe that I've just put into the cookbook, then guess what? It's a recipe! Of course it is!
Here's a quick example on that topic. Suppose one of my players discovered a spell that is etched onto a cave wall. The Wizard that he is playing does not have the time or the correct inks and equipment necessary to properly learn the spell at this time. But, he has his spellbook and some cheap ink and a writing instrument. So, he takes a couple of minutes to quickly jot down exactly what he sees on the cave wall into his spellbook. Then, later, he returns to his home town and enters his own laboratory. He now uses his own spellbook as the source material for the spell that he intends to learn. The spell is currently in his spellbook, it just cannot be currently prepared or cast with the Spellcasting Feature. He now goes through all of the proper procedures of decrypting and deciphering the text, reading, studying, experimenting and practicing for the necessary amount of time. He uses the fine inks to write an encoded and encrypted written version of the spell in his own notation into his spellbook. He has now learned the spell and consequently he now possesses a known spell in his spellbook. It has been properly stored into his repository of known spells. If my player came up with this solution, why on earth would I deny this? What rule am I pointing to that says that he is literally not allowed to do this?
So, that brings us to the point that I've been trying to make. Let me try to explain it in a different way. I realize that this post is getting long but I really hope that this will be helpful for some of you.
There is a very consistent game concept of knowing a spell. Every player character or monster that has access to a Spellcasting Feature relies on knowing spells in order to be able to use that Feature to cast those spells. It works differently for each character class, and it's relatively complicated for the Wizard in comparison to the other classes, but the end result is always the same. When you use the Spellcasting Feature to cast a spell you must know that spell:
"Your" spell refers to a spell that you know. That's what makes it yours. This is the only way that the Feature provides for casting leveled spells with the normal casting time. In addition, the known spell must be properly prepared:
This implies (although it's less explicit) that you already know the spell well enough and that it is written clearly enough for you to be able to refresh your mind on the details of how to cast the spell very quickly -- and this is written in the same section as the above statement which requires the spell to be known in order to cast it.
So, if the Spellcasting Feature requires that the spell is known, how do you go about knowing a spell? Well, the Spellcasting Feature itself describes all of the methods and procedures that a Wizard must follow to turn a spell into a known spell. The Feature states that "Your spellbook is the repository of the [leveled] wizard spells you know". Then, in the section called "Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher", which includes the "Your Spellbook" sidebar, the Feature specifies the precise ways in which a Wizard learns a spell and therefore turns a spell into a known spell which is properly stored in the repository (in the spellbook).
Now, here's the thing that most of you are missing. All of this is provided as a class Feature that the character may or may not be using at any particular time! If you are not using this class Feature, then the rules and mechanics for that Feature DO NOT APPLY! The Wizard's Spellcasting Feature describes the rules for how a Wizard can cast spells that he knows and the procedures for how the Wizard knows those spells in the first place. That's it! It's a Feature! It works like any other class Feature! When using the Feature you follow the rules that are specified within that Feature.
For example, some classes have a Sneak Attack class Feature. But if I am playing a Barbarian and I make an attack, I do not follow the rules for the Sneak Attack Feature since I am not using that Feature when I make my attack.
The phrase "you can temporarily replace its damage type with a type that appears in another spell in your spellbook" does not use or interact with the Wizard's Spellcasting Feature at all. The phrase itself also does not explicitly refer to known spells. If that was the intent, perhaps it should have been written as "in another of your Wizard spells in your spellbook". But it doesn't say that. Features do what they say. This Feature chooses "another spell in your spellbook" so that's what it does.
The phrase "Copying a Spell into the Book." means that it covers all of the spells. If you are relying on "spells" to mean all spells, not just wizard spells, why the special treatment for the subclass feature over the class feature? This feature describes the addition of all spells with the spellbook. Yet it makes no mention of adding spells from any other class list to the book.
If your actual implication is that you "may or may not be using the spellcasting class feature" you do realize that the spellbook mechanic is entirely contained within it, right? so without that feature, you don't have a spellbook. If this is a genuine argument, it is genuinely bad. I am suspicious of it though. It is incomprehensibly convoluted.
You use an example of a rogue/barb ignoring sneak attack rules when not using it, but miss how a wizard using a subclass feature involving a spellbook HAS TO USE the spellbook rules. Like a rogue using Rend Mind or any other subclass feature involving sneak attack still needs to consider the sneak attack rules.
You made a tortured argument to come to the wrong conclusion. It is yucky.
It looks like someone thinks that Awakened Spell book grants the holder some infinite copying feature and somehow also grants some type of interpretation power.
If i had a gnome cook book and sold it to you as a "spell book" written in a long lost language would you be able to copy it and use what you think are spells to cast anything?
Just because the word spell is used does not mean it can be a spell used by every casting class. You can only cast spells from your classes spell list. Unless you have a feat that lets you cast another classes spells. I.E. the ritual feat.
As for the idea of what a book is.
Look at the equipment list, there are different types of books. A common book and a spell book.
If D&D did not want a clear and distinct differentiation between the two then they would only have one book listed. Clearly they want there to be a distinct difference.
I do believe that ONLY the wizard uses a book to record spells. All other classes use simple memory.
Wizards can only copy wizard spells from scrolls into their spell book.( is the spell on the master wizard list?)
Any other spell scroll that is copied is only making a new spell scroll. A simple copy. It is not translated into a wizard spell.
And even though it is not written, as far as I know, The spell must be in a language the caster knows. Just because its a spell does not mean that the character can read a spell written in Draconic.
RAW you can’t even copy an out of class scroll in any way but literally just reproducing the characters; to scribe a scroll you must already have the spell known/prepared.
I thought there might be some kind of feat or ability I didn't know about yet.
up2ng - you seem bound and determine to read something into the rules that simply isn't there, no matter how many times it's explained to you. If your table is fine with it, have fun. But in my experience and probably the experience of pretty much everyone else in this thread, other tables aren't going to interpret it the way you want it to be.
This is actually false although it's a common misconception. If I am playing a Barbarian I can walk into a shop and buy a spellbook for 50 gp. Barbarians do not have the Wizard Spellcasting Feature.
As for the Awakened Spellbook Feature, there is an explicit prerequisite written into the Feature itself which requires that you are holding a spellbook. So, if for some reason you do not possess and/or you are not holding your spellbook, then you simply cannot use this Feature:
Trying to say that simply holding a book has anything to do with having and/or using the Spellcasting Feature is wrong. One Feature has nothing to do with the other until it is explicitly necessary. Once we get to the phrase "When you cast a wizard spell with a spell slot", then that phrase and only that phrase may or may not be using the Spellcasting Feature to accomplish this (remember, we might be using a Feat or some other method to cast a wizard spell without using the Spellcasting Feature). The reason why we might be using the Spellcasting Feature to accomplish this is because the Awakened Spellbook Feature doesn't actually provide its own method for casting spells. So, to actually cast a spell, one possibility is to use the Spellcasting Feature. However, WHEN we do this, we search the spellbook for a spell -- this is explicitly told to us directly through the Awakened Spellbook Feature. This task does not and CAN NOT use the Spellcasting Feature to be accomplished -- the Spellcasting Feature does not discuss being able to do this at all.
You didn't follow the logic of my previous post all the way through. It does NOT cover all possible spells. In fact, there are explicit requirements for which spells may use this procedure. This section of the Your Spellbook sidebar is simply providing a procedure for how a Wizard may learn a spell. This is one of the ways that the spell becomes a known spell to the Wizard so that he may prepare and cast it using the Spellcasting Feature.
It is not saying "this is the only way that you can write anything into the book". It is saying "of all of the possible ways that you can write something into a book, THIS way will allow you to learn and properly store the spell so that you may prepare and cast it".
I'm not sure if you're in the right thread, or at the very least you seem to be way behind on the discussion. What you're referring to here seems to have a lot more to do with the Wizardly Quill Feature. There was a long discussion about that Feature several months ago in a different thread.
Yeah, no. Nobody said anything about trying to cast one of these spells in question. The Feature being discussed only mentions searching for "a [damage] type that appears in another spell in your spellbook". This "another spell" is not being cast at all.
There is no such language requirement. Part of the process of learning the spell is decrypting and deciphering the source text.
Also, spells that you find do not have to be on a spell scroll or even on a scroll at all. Another common misconception.
----------
Look, this all mostly comes down to how you interpret the phrase "spell in your spellbook". If you believe that this phrase, written this way, somehow automatically refers only to the spells which have been properly stored into the spellbook for the purpose of being able to prepare and cast it as per the mechanics and procedures described in the Spellcasting Feature, then all of this pretty much works as you are saying, and that might even be the intent. It's just not a strict RAW interpretation since that's not what is written.
I think the conflict in interpretations is even more fundamental than that. What is a spell?
Can a cleric, druid, bard, sorcerer, artificer physically record a spell in any other format than a spell scroll? You keep mentioning "Also, spells that you find do not have to be on a spell scroll or even on a scroll at all. Another common misconception." ... but I don't recall seeing any rules at all for scribing spells OTHER than the creation of a spell scroll or copying a spell from another spellbook into your own spellbook (wizards only) - so spellbooks (wizards only) and scrolls are the only sources of spells unless I missed something which is entirely possible.
In addition, a spell in a wizard's spellbook is defined as: "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. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation."
A spell in a spellbook is transcribed "using your own notation". A copy of the original wizard's notes that you put into your spellbook isn't a spell for you.
However, that leads to the question of what constitutes a spell when it is written down.
Could a wizard copy the unintelligible scribblings from a druid/cleric/bard spell scroll into unintelligbile scribblings in their magical Awakened spellbook and expect the arcane sentience of the spellbook to be able to understand what is written? RAW I'd say no. A wizard can only copy a spell from their spell list into their spellbook no matter what the source. Is a reproduction of the uninitelligible scribblings from a spell scroll still a spell since it can no longer be cast if someone draws a copy of the scribblings? I'd personally rule no, a copy of the scribblings taken from a spell scroll and not translated doesn't constitute a spell but I could see another DM ruling otherwise if they wanted to allow it.
P.S. On a different but somewhat related topic, I'd add that other than casting ritual spells you can't cast spells from a spellbook in 5e (as was possible in previous editions), you can only cast spells from scrolls, items or ones that are prepared.
Yes, exactly. To me, this seems as clear example of being Rules Lawyer. You stick to the exact wording of the rules and deduce clearly overpowered and not inteded use of the feature. Any reasonable DM would not allow this.
I somehow understand your train of thought. I just do not agree with the conclusion.
What you are saying is
1) I can write anything in the spellbook, because it is just a book.
2) therefore I can also write there a text which represents a spell, even though I do not know it or do not understand it. It is just a text, but still a spell.
3) Feature of Order of Scribes (Awakened Spellbook) refers generaly to any spell in my spellbook, not only to wizard spells I know.
4) This would theoretically allow this feature to take the damage type mentioned in that spell and apply that to spell of the same level I am casting.
Problem is, that if it would work like this, than the feature is so overpowered. The wizard could write spells from any class in the spellbook (basically for free because it could use just normal ink) and then use it for the Order of the Scribes feature to convert the damage type.
Heck, I could even invent my own spells. It does not matter that it is not spell from the rulebook. As long as the text is "a spell" and it contains damage type and a level, I could use it for the Awakened Spellbook feature.
I could write in my spellbook text like this: "This text is a spell of 3rd level. It uses acid to burn all my enemies. Spell formula goes like this: abracadabra."
Then, according your explanation, this is a spell, it has a level, it has damage type. Of course it does not work, it does nothing, I cannot cast it. But it does not matter, I can now convert my fireball into acidball.
Clearly this is not inteded use of this Awakened Spellbook feature. So, what you are proposing must be wrong. You can use only the spells in the spellbook which you know (and this would be wizard spells), even though the feature does not specify this.
David, just real quick as I'm on a mobile device now. I discussed the different usages of the term "spell" that occurs throughout the game in a previous post. For example, there's the thing you cast and there's also just the written spell formula if you will. Also, I quoted this earlier:
"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."
This suggests that spells are not only located on Spell Scroll magic items and Wizard's spellbooks but could be written down anywhere.