"the list of sorcerer spells you know" certainly does NOT include all the sorcerer spells, where did I say that? Or where do you think it's necessary that I say that for my argument in #36 to be consistent?
Because "your sorcerer spells" are the only ones that you have a right to cast using spell slots as a sorcerer. If you are multiclassed, your cleric spells are the only ones you have a right to cast using spell slots as a cleric. It is my supposition that the list of spells on the class list is different than the list of spells available to you to cast (which is called "your sorcerer spells" or "the sorcerer spells you know," i.e the ones that you have chosen to associate with that class).
The Sorcerer table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your sorcerer spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these sorcerer spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a long rest.
For example, if you know the 1st-level spell burning hands and have a 1st-level and a 2nd-level spell slot available, you can cast burning hands using either slot.
Okay, I see what you're saying.
So my meaning of "your sorcerer spells" is "sorcerer spell, which you have access to somehow" in general. While your meaning of "your sorcerer spells" is "sorcerer spell, which you learned by virtue of your sorcerer levels, or Magic Initiate (Sorcerer)". Is that right? You are agreeing that "sorcerer spells" are all spells on the sorcerer list. You just don't think that having something be a "sorcerer spell" is sufficient to meaningfully use it for spellcasting or other class features that interact with the spell's sorcerer-y-ness, unless you can also satisfy this extra unwritten hurdle.
If so, I think you've got an uphill battle to show why your reading (which is more limiting on players, and which isn't textually supported, and which causes Chapter 11 "x spells" lists to become incredibly misleading) should be preferred.
I can see a logical basis for assuming that magic from different sources fundamentally works differently, and as such is not interchangeable from one source to another. This is said pretty explicitly from a Lore standpoint. Clerics don't need any inherent ability to perform magic, they instead receive the power via the god they are devoted to. The god performs it through them. Wizards study the Weave itself, as well as how to manipulate it, to an exhaustive and excruciating detail. Using what they have learned, they are able to manipulate the Weave to produce their spells. There would, logically, be a fundamental difference in how these methods function. If true, this would make it extremely important where you have learned a spell from.
However...
I am aware of no such explanation in the rules, directly or implied, that this is true. Given a lack of explanation, mechanically, of how that would work, we have to assume that all spells function identically. Unless a feature specifically says it's important where you learn the spell from, or limits how or when you could cast it, it shouldn't matter.
To go back to the Wood Elf with the Feat, who also happens to be a Wizard... why wouldn't they be able to add the spell to the spellbook? As a student of magic, why would they not be able to figure out the workings of their innate ability, and codify it into a form that can be replicated by others? And why wouldn't they be able to use their learned magical power to produce the same effect, given they've spent the time and materials to do so?
I can see a logical basis for assuming that magic from different sources fundamentally works differently, and as such is not interchangeable from one source to another. This is said pretty explicitly from a Lore standpoint. Clerics don't need any inherent ability to perform magic, they instead receive the power via the god they are devoted to. The god performs it through them. Wizards study the Weave itself, as well as how to manipulate it, to an exhaustive and excruciating detail. Using what they have learned, they are able to manipulate the Weave to produce their spells. There would, logically, be a fundamental difference in how these methods function. If true, this would make it extremely important where you have learned a spell from.
However...
I am aware of no such explanation in the rules, directly or implied, that this is true. Given a lack of explanation, mechanically, of how that would work, we have to assume that all spells function identically. Unless a feature specifically says it's important where you learn the spell from, or limits how or when you could cast it, it shouldn't matter.
This is exactly what each spellcasting feature does when it says "The Sorcerer table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your sorcerer spells of 1st level and higher."
Is it one of your sorcerer spells? Does the source of that spell say "this counts as a sorcerer spell for you"? Is the source of that spell a choice that you made according to your sorcerer spellcasting feature? No? then it isn't a sorcerer spell for you, even if it is on the sorcerer spell list. It is simple and supported by the rules and reiterated for you in each Spellcasting feature and again in the multiclassing rules.
I believe at this point the reader should see all they need to see about how the two opposing camps are engaging with the rules text. One side is performing close analysis of text, offering frequent quotations, refraining from letting unstated assumption lead their conclusions, taking the rule text on its face when they call things "sorcerer spells," engaging with opposing arguments and asking questions. The other side is... not really doing that. You be the judge about which is which.
It all comes down to whether you think:
A: "Your sorcerer spells" are the subset of all of "your spells" which are "sorcerer spells." "Your spells" is not defined explicitly (though it is a term used quite often, as in the sorcerer's metamagic section), but common sense and plain English would dictate that "your" spells would in its most basic sense include spells that you "know", and probably spells that you can "cast" in other ways as well? A little fuzzy... "Sorcerer spells" is specifically defined, however, as being both the spells that are found on the Sorcerer Spell List, and also those spells that your Sorcerer subclass feature explicitly tells you to treat as Sorcerer spells. If one of "your spells" is both a "sorcerer spell" by virtue of the Sorcerer spell list and/or your sorcerer subclass feature, and also a "bard spell" by virtue of the Bard spell list and/or your Bard class or subclass feature, then it is both a "sorcerer spell" and a "bard spell" for the purpose of your features that interact with "your sorcerer spells" or "your bard spells," regardless of which class' progression lead to you learning that spell, or which class' attribute you are associating with that spell's casting (See Chapter 6, Spellcasting).
B: "Your sorcerer spells" are the subset of all "sorcerer spells" which you have [learned from Sorcerer class levels or the Magic Initiate (Sorcerer) feat]. No rule text says this, other than perhaps the fact that the Sorcerer spellcasting feature talks about "your sorcerer spells," while you aren't going to find discussion of "your sorcerer spells" in any other class, feat, etc. If one of "your sorcerer spells" appears on the Bard spell list, but you haven't selected it a second time as one of the spells you learn from Bard progression, then it is not one of "your bard spells," despite appearing on the Bard spell list.
I think A is more textually supported, and actually simpler for a player looking back at a character sheet after many levels of play, and gives the player the benefit of any ambiguity which may exist. B is a very common opinion to hear expressed on these forums as the gospel. Readers and DMs should themselves decide, either interpretation is not likely to cause balance issues, aside from A giving players slightly more flexibility when planning their spell lists.
Is it one of your sorcerer spells? Does the source of that spell say "this counts as a sorcerer spell for you"? Is the source of that spell a choice that you made according to your sorcerer spellcasting feature? No? then it isn't a sorcerer spell for you, even if it is on the sorcerer spell list. It is simple and supported by the rules and reiterated for you in each Spellcasting feature and again in the multiclassing rules.
You know what else doesn't say "this counts as a sorcerer spell for you"? Magic Initiate (Sorcerer). In fact, Spellcasting features don't include that language either, nor does the multiclassing rules in Chapter 6.
Is it one of your sorcerer spells? Does the source of that spell say "this counts as a sorcerer spell for you"? Is the source of that spell a choice that you made according to your sorcerer spellcasting feature? No? then it isn't a sorcerer spell for you, even if it is on the sorcerer spell list. It is simple and supported by the rules and reiterated for you in each Spellcasting feature and again in the multiclassing rules.
You know what else doesn't say "this counts as a sorcerer spell for you"? Magic Initiate (Sorcerer). In fact, Spellcasting features don't include that language either, nor does the multiclassing rules in Chapter 6.
Empty words.
...
Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell.
And you know what, you're right MI doesn't say that. I'm all for having a rule system that doesn't allow you to spend slots on any spell you haven't obtained through a spellcasting feature. Others have concluded that learning a spell through a feat associated with a class associates that learned spell to that class for a character.
Yes. When I learn Burning Hands as a Sorcerer, Burning Hands is "associated" with my Sorcerer class, and uses Charisma as my spellcasting ability. If I am also an Eldritch Knight, Burning Hands is indeed a Wizard spell! However, it is not "associated" with my Eldritch Knight class, and I cannot use Intelligence as my spellcasting ability. (using EK instead of Wizard here, beccause again, mixing Known and Prepared casters really obfuscates where we're disagreeing).
That is true. None of that contradicts that Burning Hands is one of "[my] Sorcerer spells" and also "[my] Wizard spells." If I have a class feature that interacts with "your Wizard spells", it triggers on Burning Hands, even though I'm required to always cast it with Charisma.
Yes. When I learn Burning Hands as a Sorcerer, Burning Hands is "associated" with my Sorcerer class, and uses Charisma as my spellcasting ability. If I am also an Eldritch Knight, Burning Hands is indeed a Wizard spell! However, it is not "associated" with my Eldritch Knight class, and I cannot use Intelligence as my spellcasting ability. (using EK instead of Wizard here, beccause again, mixing Known and Prepared casters really obfuscates where we're disagreeing).
That is true. None of that contradicts that Burning Hands is one of "[my] Sorcerer spells" and also "[my] Wizard spells." If I have a class feature that interacts with "your Wizard spells", it triggers on Burning Hands, even though I'm required to always cast it with Charisma.
(at least, that's the strict reading of Chapter 6. What I think Chapter 6 actually meant was "Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one or more of your classes", and that you should actually be allowed to choose to cast it with whatever you want from any class that it qualifies for, once you learn it once... but I will admit that that gets into re-editing rules text and is more of a RAI than RAW interpretation).
Yes. When I learn Burning Hands as a Sorcerer, Burning Hands is "associated" with my Sorcerer class, and uses Charisma as my spellcasting ability. If I am also an Eldritch Knight, Burning Hands is indeed a Wizard spell! However, it is not "associated" with my Eldritch Knight class, and I cannot use Intelligence as my spellcasting ability. (using EK instead of Wizard here, beccause again, mixing Known and Prepared casters really obfuscates where we're disagreeing).
That is true. None of that contradicts that Burning Hands is one of "[my] Sorcerer spells" and also "[my] Wizard spells." If I have a class feature that interacts with "your Wizard spells", it triggers on Burning Hands, even though I'm required to always cast it with Charisma.
Dude, this is what you keep failing to understand; it's not also one of your Wizard/EK spells. You learned the spell as a Sorcerer. It is a Sorcerer spell for you. Unless you also learned the spell from your levels in EK, Burning Handsis not a Wizard spell for you; it is always going to be just a Sorcerer spell for you, and it will not trigger any features you have which trigger off of "your Wizard spells".
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yes, I understand your position. What I do not understand is what text supports, let alone requires, that position. Always happy to see a new citation though?
Yes, I understand your position. What I do not understand is what text supports, let alone requires, that position. Always happy to see a new citation though?
Actually, the problem is that there is no specific text that makes it clear either way. All we have on our side is the unclear text that the rules use, always differentiating "the sorcerer spell list" as seemingly different from "your sorcerer spells" and "the spells that you can cast as a sorcerer" and "the sorcerer spells that you know" and spells associated with a class which seem to be used interchangeably without any hint that they might all be different things.
Personally I haven't dealt with the rules too much on this topic, but I'm inclined to believe Sigred, if only for the sole purpose that there are clear guidelines on how wizard spells are different than sorcerer spells, and that you can prepare a spell as a wizard spell, but can't use it as a sorcerer spell. While at the same time, you can prepare a spell as a wizard spell, then go and prepare it again as a sorcerer spell.
It clearly states in the Wizard spellcasting ability that "In addition, you use your Intelligence modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a wizard spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one." Meanwhile, for sorcerers it states that "In addition, you use your Charisma modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a sorcerer spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one." This provides a clear difference between a sorcerer spell, and a wizard spell.
As clearly seen in the D&D Beyond character sheet, you cannot cast your wizard spells as sorcerer spells, because that's not how that works. You can cast spells from your classes using the same spell slots, but you cannot cast spells as if they were from a different class. However, you can prepare a spell like Firework as a wizard, and prepare Fireball as a sorcerer as well.Maybe you want to cast Fireball using your super high INT then cast it using your super low CHA, or the other way around. Why? Uh, idk lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
"Wizard spells" maybe indeed seem like they behave very differently from "Sorcerer spells," if you give those a meaning that depends on their casting attribute and class spellcasting feature and not solely to their presence on the wizard or sorcerer spell list... and yet it appears that if you're a multiclass Wizard/Cleric and prepare Detect Magic by praying, that preparation allows you to then copy it into your Wizard spell book for 10 gp and 1 hour. Your Detect Magic is a cleric-associated spell for you, cast with Wisdom instead of Intelligence, prepared in a manner wholly unlike how a Wizard prepares his own spells, and yet.... this "cleric spell" can so easily become a "wizard spell," just by sitting down and pondering it for a moment? If it wasn't already a Wizard Spell by virtue of being on the Wizard Spell List, how could this abomination be allowed to happen???
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.
Really looks like you could do this! Could you also do it with Bless? No, you might say, because Bless isn't a "Wizard spell" and doesn't belong in that book! But... how do you know it isn't a "wizard spell"? the quoted section doesn't actually say you can only copy spells that appear on a certain spell list, it says "prepared spell," and if "wizard spell" can come to mean "any spell you get from a wizard feature, and only those spells"... then suddenly Bless or any other cleric-prepared spell can become a Wizard spell if copied this way???
It all gets very complicated. Far simpler to just say "wizard spells are on the wizard spell list, or spells that your class feature tells you are wizard spells for you" :)
Magic Initiate If you’re a spellcaster, can you pick your own class when you gain the Magic Initiate feat? Yes, the feat doesn’t say you can’t. For example, if you’re a wizard and gain the Magic Initiate feat, you can choose wizard and thereby learn two more wizard cantrips and another 1st-level wizard spell.
If you have spell slots, can you use them to cast the 1st- level spell you learn with the Magic Initiate feat? Yes, but only if the class you pick for the feat is one of your classes. For example, if you pick sorcerer and you are a sorcerer, the Spellcasting feature for that class tells you that you can use your spell slots to cast the sorcerer spells you know, so you can use your spell slots to cast the 1st-level sorcerer spell you learn from Magic Initiate. Similarly, if you are a wizard and pick that class for the feat, you learn a 1st-level wizard spell, which you could add to your spellbook and subsequently prepare. In short, you must follow your character’s normal spellcasting rules, which determine whether you can expend spell slots on the 1st-level spell you learn from Magic Initiate.
Of course someone's posted it (in fact you did, 3 days ago). The second answer is entirely unsupported by any text whatsoever in the feat that would indicate that Magic Initiate (Wizard) gives you a "wizard spell," unless we accept that "wizard spell" already means "spell on the Wizard Spell List"... in which case the second answer is wrong because it suggests that a Wizard can't cast a Wizard Spell that they've learned from taking Magic Initiate (Sorcerer). Around and around we go.
JC doesn't think out the answers he gives, he just says whatever he gut feels is correct. Either that, or there is a vast and unreleased archive of unpublished but set-in-stone rules which have never seen the light of day, or been released as errata. Or he's a wise and respected authority on reasonable interpretations of rules, in which case, fine play the way he suggests in the SAC... but it still doesn't make SAC "rules as written."
I'm content with agreeing that the RAW is ambiguous on this, and that there's a definite possibility that it was intended the way you (and JC) interpret it.... but I'll fight to the death against a suggestion that the RAW text of the PHB tells us that a "wizard spell" is something more than a "spell on the wizard spell list."
The second answer is because you only get to cast your wizard spells with your wizard spellcasting feature. My entire point in this whole thread is apparently that word "your" is important. It, I guess, means something and is not just extraneous.
"if you give those a meaning that depends on their casting attribute and class spellcasting feature and not solely to their presence on the wizard or sorcerer spell list... and yet it appears that if you're a multiclass Wizard/Cleric and prepare Detect Magic by praying, that preparation allows you to then copy it into your Wizard spell book for 10 gp and 1 hour."
Not tying them solely to their casting attribute, just that their casting attribute serves as a way to tell the difference between the two. Also, not sure why your trying to say wizard spells don't get their meaning form the wizard spellcasting feature... I don't think I need to explain that one. Yes, if you multiclass Wizard/Cleric you can prepare Detect Magic as a Cleric spell, and that allows you to get it cheaper as a wizard. There is literally no issue here, being able to cast the spell as a Cleric spell makes it easier to cast it as a Wizard spell. I already said that it's possible to have two separate version of the same spell, try it in D&D Beyond!
"Really looks like you could do this! Could you also do it with Bless? No, you might say, because Bless isn't a "Wizard spell" and doesn't belong in that book!"
No you cannot do this with Bless, because there is no wizard version of the Bless spell. Thus you cannot prepare Bless no matter if you have the Cleric or Paladin version of it. Do note that having a version of the spell doesn't automatically mean you can cast the other version. Even for the Detect Magic version, knowing the Cleric version doesn't grant you access to the Wizard version, it's just cheaper to unlock.
"It all gets very complicated. Far simpler to just say "wizard spells are on the wizard spell list, or spells that your class feature tells you are wizard spells for you" :) "
Wizard spells are those in the wizard spell list, these are considered separate than the Cleric spells that are also in the wizard spell list. Basically think of each spell having a separate version for each spell list it's on and for when something says it counts as <insert class> spell. Yeah it requires more thinking than what your saying, but it seems to fit in better. This is only what I think, I don't actually know if anyone else thinks along these lines, but it makes sense to me.
This is supported because being a sorcerer with Fireball does not automatically allow you to cast it as a wizard spell despite it also being on the wizard spell list. It remains as a sorcerer spell because you prepared it as such, however it does not stop you (and apparently according to you makes it easier) to also prepare it as a wizard spell.
This is a bit of a long post, but i think it relates to the OP. Under this ruling, Magic Initiate (at least to SA, although that's a separate argument and not very important to my point, this is just a example) grants spells that are the version of the class you pick. If you pick Wizard and for example take Firebolt, then you learn the Wizard version of firebolt and thus can cast it as a Wizard spell, but not as a Sorcerer spell. They use the same spell slots anyways (in this case, none).
However, the wood elf magic feat (not the actual name but hey I'm copying off the OP cause I don't want to search it up rn) grants the wood elf version of the spells given, not any other version. Thus they cannot be cast like a druid spell (for example). You cannot cast this using spell slots because you don't have the class feature Wood Elf Spellcasting to tell you that you can cast Wood Elf spells with spell slots. (For reference, the Wizard spellcasting features states that "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 [Wizard] spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. ")
Edit: To be fair, yeah I admit my argument is probably more based off interpretation and how features connect with each other, rather than RAW because as you said RAW is very ambiguous. I'm probably arguing a bit too much as well. I think it's probably best that we both agree RAW is ambiguous and leave it at that. Either way the OP's post has probably been answered by now.
Technically third edit: Being a slight bit stupid rn. No fire bolt isn't a Cleric spell that's a bad example, switched to Sorcerer instead. Added "and for when something says it counts as <insert class> spell" to try to get more edge cases, but I still probably can word that better. Ah whatever, I spend way too much time on this post. It's even longer now, going to try to shorten my posts in the future, this is probably coming off as rambling than arguing.
Because "your sorcerer spells" are the only ones that you have a right to cast using spell slots as a sorcerer. If you are multiclassed, your cleric spells are the only ones you have a right to cast using spell slots as a cleric. It is my supposition that the list of spells on the class list is different than the list of spells available to you to cast (which is called "your sorcerer spells" or "the sorcerer spells you know," i.e the ones that you have chosen to associate with that class).
Okay, I see what you're saying.
So my meaning of "your sorcerer spells" is "sorcerer spell, which you have access to somehow" in general. While your meaning of "your sorcerer spells" is "sorcerer spell, which you learned by virtue of your sorcerer levels, or Magic Initiate (Sorcerer)". Is that right? You are agreeing that "sorcerer spells" are all spells on the sorcerer list. You just don't think that having something be a "sorcerer spell" is sufficient to meaningfully use it for spellcasting or other class features that interact with the spell's sorcerer-y-ness, unless you can also satisfy this extra unwritten hurdle.
If so, I think you've got an uphill battle to show why your reading (which is more limiting on players, and which isn't textually supported, and which causes Chapter 11 "x spells" lists to become incredibly misleading) should be preferred.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
My reading is completely supported by the rules. In fact it is the only one that is.
I can see a logical basis for assuming that magic from different sources fundamentally works differently, and as such is not interchangeable from one source to another. This is said pretty explicitly from a Lore standpoint. Clerics don't need any inherent ability to perform magic, they instead receive the power via the god they are devoted to. The god performs it through them. Wizards study the Weave itself, as well as how to manipulate it, to an exhaustive and excruciating detail. Using what they have learned, they are able to manipulate the Weave to produce their spells. There would, logically, be a fundamental difference in how these methods function. If true, this would make it extremely important where you have learned a spell from.
However...
I am aware of no such explanation in the rules, directly or implied, that this is true. Given a lack of explanation, mechanically, of how that would work, we have to assume that all spells function identically. Unless a feature specifically says it's important where you learn the spell from, or limits how or when you could cast it, it shouldn't matter.
To go back to the Wood Elf with the Feat, who also happens to be a Wizard... why wouldn't they be able to add the spell to the spellbook? As a student of magic, why would they not be able to figure out the workings of their innate ability, and codify it into a form that can be replicated by others? And why wouldn't they be able to use their learned magical power to produce the same effect, given they've spent the time and materials to do so?
This is exactly what each spellcasting feature does when it says "The Sorcerer table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your sorcerer spells of 1st level and higher."
Is it one of your sorcerer spells? Does the source of that spell say "this counts as a sorcerer spell for you"? Is the source of that spell a choice that you made according to your sorcerer spellcasting feature? No? then it isn't a sorcerer spell for you, even if it is on the sorcerer spell list. It is simple and supported by the rules and reiterated for you in each Spellcasting feature and again in the multiclassing rules.
I believe at this point the reader should see all they need to see about how the two opposing camps are engaging with the rules text. One side is performing close analysis of text, offering frequent quotations, refraining from letting unstated assumption lead their conclusions, taking the rule text on its face when they call things "sorcerer spells," engaging with opposing arguments and asking questions. The other side is... not really doing that. You be the judge about which is which.
It all comes down to whether you think:
A: "Your sorcerer spells" are the subset of all of "your spells" which are "sorcerer spells." "Your spells" is not defined explicitly (though it is a term used quite often, as in the sorcerer's metamagic section), but common sense and plain English would dictate that "your" spells would in its most basic sense include spells that you "know", and probably spells that you can "cast" in other ways as well? A little fuzzy... "Sorcerer spells" is specifically defined, however, as being both the spells that are found on the Sorcerer Spell List, and also those spells that your Sorcerer subclass feature explicitly tells you to treat as Sorcerer spells. If one of "your spells" is both a "sorcerer spell" by virtue of the Sorcerer spell list and/or your sorcerer subclass feature, and also a "bard spell" by virtue of the Bard spell list and/or your Bard class or subclass feature, then it is both a "sorcerer spell" and a "bard spell" for the purpose of your features that interact with "your sorcerer spells" or "your bard spells," regardless of which class' progression lead to you learning that spell, or which class' attribute you are associating with that spell's casting (See Chapter 6, Spellcasting).
B: "Your sorcerer spells" are the subset of all "sorcerer spells" which you have [learned from Sorcerer class levels or the Magic Initiate (Sorcerer) feat]. No rule text says this, other than perhaps the fact that the Sorcerer spellcasting feature talks about "your sorcerer spells," while you aren't going to find discussion of "your sorcerer spells" in any other class, feat, etc. If one of "your sorcerer spells" appears on the Bard spell list, but you haven't selected it a second time as one of the spells you learn from Bard progression, then it is not one of "your bard spells," despite appearing on the Bard spell list.
I think A is more textually supported, and actually simpler for a player looking back at a character sheet after many levels of play, and gives the player the benefit of any ambiguity which may exist. B is a very common opinion to hear expressed on these forums as the gospel. Readers and DMs should themselves decide, either interpretation is not likely to cause balance issues, aside from A giving players slightly more flexibility when planning their spell lists.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You know what else doesn't say "this counts as a sorcerer spell for you"? Magic Initiate (Sorcerer). In fact, Spellcasting features don't include that language either, nor does the multiclassing rules in Chapter 6.
Empty words.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
...
And you know what, you're right MI doesn't say that. I'm all for having a rule system that doesn't allow you to spend slots on any spell you haven't obtained through a spellcasting feature. Others have concluded that learning a spell through a feat associated with a class associates that learned spell to that class for a character.
Yes. When I learn Burning Hands as a Sorcerer, Burning Hands is "associated" with my Sorcerer class, and uses Charisma as my spellcasting ability. If I am also an Eldritch Knight, Burning Hands is indeed a Wizard spell! However, it is not "associated" with my Eldritch Knight class, and I cannot use Intelligence as my spellcasting ability. (using EK instead of Wizard here, beccause again, mixing Known and Prepared casters really obfuscates where we're disagreeing).
That is true. None of that contradicts that Burning Hands is one of "[my] Sorcerer spells" and also "[my] Wizard spells." If I have a class feature that interacts with "your Wizard spells", it triggers on Burning Hands, even though I'm required to always cast it with Charisma.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
(at least, that's the strict reading of Chapter 6. What I think Chapter 6 actually meant was "Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one or more of your classes", and that you should actually be allowed to choose to cast it with whatever you want from any class that it qualifies for, once you learn it once... but I will admit that that gets into re-editing rules text and is more of a RAI than RAW interpretation).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Dude, this is what you keep failing to understand; it's not also one of your Wizard/EK spells. You learned the spell as a Sorcerer. It is a Sorcerer spell for you. Unless you also learned the spell from your levels in EK, Burning Hands is not a Wizard spell for you; it is always going to be just a Sorcerer spell for you, and it will not trigger any features you have which trigger off of "your Wizard spells".
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yes, I understand your position. What I do not understand is what text supports, let alone requires, that position. Always happy to see a new citation though?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Actually, the problem is that there is no specific text that makes it clear either way. All we have on our side is the unclear text that the rules use, always differentiating "the sorcerer spell list" as seemingly different from "your sorcerer spells" and "the spells that you can cast as a sorcerer" and "the sorcerer spells that you know" and spells associated with a class which seem to be used interchangeably without any hint that they might all be different things.
Personally I haven't dealt with the rules too much on this topic, but I'm inclined to believe Sigred, if only for the sole purpose that there are clear guidelines on how wizard spells are different than sorcerer spells, and that you can prepare a spell as a wizard spell, but can't use it as a sorcerer spell. While at the same time, you can prepare a spell as a wizard spell, then go and prepare it again as a sorcerer spell.
It clearly states in the Wizard spellcasting ability that "In addition, you use your Intelligence modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a wizard spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one." Meanwhile, for sorcerers it states that "In addition, you use your Charisma modifier when setting the saving throw DC for a sorcerer spell you cast and when making an attack roll with one." This provides a clear difference between a sorcerer spell, and a wizard spell.
As clearly seen in the D&D Beyond character sheet, you cannot cast your wizard spells as sorcerer spells, because that's not how that works. You can cast spells from your classes using the same spell slots, but you cannot cast spells as if they were from a different class. However, you can prepare a spell like Firework as a wizard, and prepare Fireball as a sorcerer as well.Maybe you want to cast Fireball using your super high INT then cast it using your super low CHA, or the other way around. Why? Uh, idk lol.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
"Wizard spells" maybe indeed seem like they behave very differently from "Sorcerer spells," if you give those a meaning that depends on their casting attribute and class spellcasting feature and not solely to their presence on the wizard or sorcerer spell list... and yet it appears that if you're a multiclass Wizard/Cleric and prepare Detect Magic by praying, that preparation allows you to then copy it into your Wizard spell book for 10 gp and 1 hour. Your Detect Magic is a cleric-associated spell for you, cast with Wisdom instead of Intelligence, prepared in a manner wholly unlike how a Wizard prepares his own spells, and yet.... this "cleric spell" can so easily become a "wizard spell," just by sitting down and pondering it for a moment? If it wasn't already a Wizard Spell by virtue of being on the Wizard Spell List, how could this abomination be allowed to happen???
Really looks like you could do this! Could you also do it with Bless? No, you might say, because Bless isn't a "Wizard spell" and doesn't belong in that book! But... how do you know it isn't a "wizard spell"? the quoted section doesn't actually say you can only copy spells that appear on a certain spell list, it says "prepared spell," and if "wizard spell" can come to mean "any spell you get from a wizard feature, and only those spells"... then suddenly Bless or any other cleric-prepared spell can become a Wizard spell if copied this way???
It all gets very complicated. Far simpler to just say "wizard spells are on the wizard spell list, or spells that your class feature tells you are wizard spells for you" :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Did anyone post this yet?
sage advice compendium version 2.4
pg 8
Magic Initiate
If you’re a spellcaster, can you pick your own class when you gain the Magic Initiate feat?
Yes, the feat doesn’t say you can’t. For example, if you’re a wizard and gain the Magic Initiate feat, you can choose wizard and thereby learn two more wizard cantrips and another 1st-level wizard spell.
If you have spell slots, can you use them to cast the 1st- level spell you learn with the Magic Initiate feat?
Yes, but only if the class you pick for the feat is one of your classes. For example, if you pick sorcerer and you are a sorcerer, the Spellcasting feature for that class tells you that you can use your spell slots to cast the sorcerer spells you know, so you can use your spell slots to cast the 1st-level sorcerer spell you learn from Magic Initiate. Similarly, if you are a wizard and pick that class for the feat, you learn a 1st-level wizard spell, which you could add to your spellbook and subsequently prepare.
In short, you must follow your character’s normal spellcasting rules, which determine whether you can expend spell slots on the 1st-level spell you learn from Magic Initiate.
Of course someone's posted it (in fact you did, 3 days ago). The second answer is entirely unsupported by any text whatsoever in the feat that would indicate that Magic Initiate (Wizard) gives you a "wizard spell," unless we accept that "wizard spell" already means "spell on the Wizard Spell List"... in which case the second answer is wrong because it suggests that a Wizard can't cast a Wizard Spell that they've learned from taking Magic Initiate (Sorcerer). Around and around we go.
JC doesn't think out the answers he gives, he just says whatever he gut feels is correct. Either that, or there is a vast and unreleased archive of unpublished but set-in-stone rules which have never seen the light of day, or been released as errata. Or he's a wise and respected authority on reasonable interpretations of rules, in which case, fine play the way he suggests in the SAC... but it still doesn't make SAC "rules as written."
I'm content with agreeing that the RAW is ambiguous on this, and that there's a definite possibility that it was intended the way you (and JC) interpret it.... but I'll fight to the death against a suggestion that the RAW text of the PHB tells us that a "wizard spell" is something more than a "spell on the wizard spell list."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The second answer is because you only get to cast your wizard spells with your wizard spellcasting feature. My entire point in this whole thread is apparently that word "your" is important. It, I guess, means something and is not just extraneous.
I see no issue here.
"if you give those a meaning that depends on their casting attribute and class spellcasting feature and not solely to their presence on the wizard or sorcerer spell list... and yet it appears that if you're a multiclass Wizard/Cleric and prepare Detect Magic by praying, that preparation allows you to then copy it into your Wizard spell book for 10 gp and 1 hour."
Not tying them solely to their casting attribute, just that their casting attribute serves as a way to tell the difference between the two. Also, not sure why your trying to say wizard spells don't get their meaning form the wizard spellcasting feature... I don't think I need to explain that one. Yes, if you multiclass Wizard/Cleric you can prepare Detect Magic as a Cleric spell, and that allows you to get it cheaper as a wizard. There is literally no issue here, being able to cast the spell as a Cleric spell makes it easier to cast it as a Wizard spell. I already said that it's possible to have two separate version of the same spell, try it in D&D Beyond!
"Really looks like you could do this! Could you also do it with Bless? No, you might say, because Bless isn't a "Wizard spell" and doesn't belong in that book!"
No you cannot do this with Bless, because there is no wizard version of the Bless spell. Thus you cannot prepare Bless no matter if you have the Cleric or Paladin version of it. Do note that having a version of the spell doesn't automatically mean you can cast the other version. Even for the Detect Magic version, knowing the Cleric version doesn't grant you access to the Wizard version, it's just cheaper to unlock.
"It all gets very complicated. Far simpler to just say "wizard spells are on the wizard spell list, or spells that your class feature tells you are wizard spells for you" :) "
Wizard spells are those in the wizard spell list, these are considered separate than the Cleric spells that are also in the wizard spell list. Basically think of each spell having a separate version for each spell list it's on and for when something says it counts as <insert class> spell. Yeah it requires more thinking than what your saying, but it seems to fit in better. This is only what I think, I don't actually know if anyone else thinks along these lines, but it makes sense to me.
This is supported because being a sorcerer with Fireball does not automatically allow you to cast it as a wizard spell despite it also being on the wizard spell list. It remains as a sorcerer spell because you prepared it as such, however it does not stop you (and apparently according to you makes it easier) to also prepare it as a wizard spell.
This is a bit of a long post, but i think it relates to the OP. Under this ruling, Magic Initiate (at least to SA, although that's a separate argument and not very important to my point, this is just a example) grants spells that are the version of the class you pick. If you pick Wizard and for example take Firebolt, then you learn the Wizard version of firebolt and thus can cast it as a Wizard spell, but not as a Sorcerer spell. They use the same spell slots anyways (in this case, none).
However, the wood elf magic feat (not the actual name but hey I'm copying off the OP cause I don't want to search it up rn) grants the wood elf version of the spells given, not any other version. Thus they cannot be cast like a druid spell (for example). You cannot cast this using spell slots because you don't have the class feature Wood Elf Spellcasting to tell you that you can cast Wood Elf spells with spell slots. (For reference, the Wizard spellcasting features states that "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 [Wizard] spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. ")
Edit: To be fair, yeah I admit my argument is probably more based off interpretation and how features connect with each other, rather than RAW because as you said RAW is very ambiguous. I'm probably arguing a bit too much as well. I think it's probably best that we both agree RAW is ambiguous and leave it at that. Either way the OP's post has probably been answered by now.
Technically third edit: Being a slight bit stupid rn. No fire bolt isn't a Cleric spell that's a bad example, switched to Sorcerer instead. Added "and for when something says it counts as <insert class> spell" to try to get more edge cases, but I still probably can word that better. Ah whatever, I spend way too much time on this post. It's even longer now, going to try to shorten my posts in the future, this is probably coming off as rambling than arguing.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.