That is true for a Sorcerer, who casts spells they "know" using their spell slots. It is emphatically not true for Wizard, for the reasons quoted above. Another great quote showing that JC doesn't understand or read his own rule system and that SAC cannot stand in as a rule text. This is not a debateable RAI vs. RAW situation, Wizards do not cast spells that they "know," nor do they add spells that they "know" to their spellbook. Provably, demonstrably incorrect, and never should have made it past a proof reading. Absolute garbage.
You're right about that. RAW is not debatable--a Wizard with Magic Initiate (Wizard) can add their 1st level spell from that feat into their Wizard spellbook. Period.
The only debatable aspect is whether or not they must scribe a spell scroll of their Magic Initiate spell before they can add it to their spellbook, and that only depends on whether the MI spell counts as "prepared" or "known". I cleave to a more strict interpretation of it just being known. Thus, they would have to scribe the scroll from their memory before transferring it to their spellbook.
Others may disagree and consider the spell permanently prepared. The only thing that changes is whether or not a DM requires additional time & gold to accomplish, not whether it can be accomplished at all. It can.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Putting aside that I misunderstood the question with my first post, this question is something I've grappled with in the past.
First of all, it's good to look at the specific language of the class features, and not just how you think you understand them working:
Learning Spells of 1st Level and Higher
Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook for free. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the “Your Spellbook” sidebar).
YOUR SPELLBOOK
The spells that you add to your spellbook as you gain levels reflect the arcane research you conduct on your own, as well as intellectual breakthroughs you have had about the nature of the multiverse. You might find other spells during your adventures. 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.
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.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.
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.
Color coded to split the three different ways that spells get added to books.
First, Spells you gain at level up just pop into there, no cost or time prepared, the only requirement being that it be one of two level-appropriate Wizard spells chosen at the time of each level up. Are the spells granted by Magic Initiate (Wizard) "wizard spells for a level which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table?" No, they're something else, so they don't get into the book that way.
Second, Spells you copy when found, which cost gold value resources and time, the requirement being that (1) you have "found" it, and (2) that it be a Wizard spell of 1st level or higher, and (3) that it be of a level for which you can prepare (i.e. of a level for which you have spell slots according to Wizard table), and (4) that you spend 2 hours and 50 gp of materials per spell level. Have you "found" a spell which you have "learned" but not written down? Hmmmm not really, not in the way that that word is usually used? (2)-(4) are easy enough to satisfy, "copying" can equally mean copying from a source or copying from memory... but "found"? That's a major linguistic hurdle for me, nothing in Magic Initiate says that you have "found" a spell, and the examples provided in the Spellbook section (scroll, tome) are of tangible written records. For my vote, No, they don't get into the spellbook merely because you have "learned" or "can cast" them from another class or source, unless you're looking at them in some written format.
Third, spells you have "prepared" can be copied from memory, again using time/gp cost to do so. This specifically requires spells "prepared," not spells "known" or "learned" or any other similar sounding concept. Magic Intiate does not "prepare" any spells. Known-spell-casters (Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Rangers, Paladins, EKs, ATs) don't "prepare" spells either, they simply "know" or "learn" them. Racial spells aren't prepared either, whether by default or by racial feat, the race is simply granted the ability to cast them a certain number of times per rest. Clerics, Druids, and Artificers do "prepare" spells however, so a Wizard should have no trouble copying one of their Cleric/Druid/Artificer spells from memory, if it is also a Wizard spell and meets the other level requirements, or copying any Wizard spells they currently have prepared. No, you can't spellbook a spell that you haven't "prepared."
Hope that clears that up. WIzards copy spells into their books in one of three ways (level up, "found", or "prepared"), and Magic Initiate doesn't meet any of those three requirements.
Sigred, RAW does not mean "rules as written in SAC." There is nothing in the PHB that says that Magic Intiate writes a spell into your spellbook. There is nothing in the Wizard Spellcasting entry that lets you write a "known" spell into your spellbook.
It's fine if y'all think this isn't intended, or not how you want to play, or that there's no harm in it. Fine. But it is incontrovertible that this is not the rule as written. End of story, this is not a difference of opinion, this is a fact.
Sigred, RAW does not mean "rules as written in SAC." There is nothing in the PHB that says that Magic Intiate writes a spell into your spellbook. There is nothing in the Wizard Spellcasting entry that lets you write a "known" spell into your spellbook.
It's fine if y'all think this isn't intended, or not how you want to play, or that there's no harm in it. Fine. But it is incontrovertible that this is not the rule as written. End of story, this is not a difference of opinion, this is a fact.
You're arbitrarily missing the point. It has nothing to do with SAC.
The core RAW of Wizard requires a spell be prepared for transcription directly to a spellbook from memory. This is your premise. I agree with you.
The core RAW of Wizard also allows for spells from spell scrolls to be transcribed directly to a spellbook. If this isn't part of your premise, then buddy you are just flat-out wrong.
The core RAW of D&D5e allows for anyone, with a spell either prepared or known, to scribe a spell scroll. That scroll can then be used to transcribe the spell into a spellbook. Full stop.
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.
As a side note, and this certainly is a house rule, I would allow someone with Magic Initiate who multiclasses into the class they had initiate in to 'trade in' the feat for another feat, on the grounds that the feat was just there to represent 'level 0' in that class.
As a side note, and this certainly is a house rule, I would allow someone with Magic Initiate who multiclasses into the class they had initiate in to 'trade in' the feat for another feat, on the grounds that the feat was just there to represent 'level 0' in that class.
I understand the sentiment, but I would advise you not to do that. They still have 2 additional cantrips from the feat, and that's a big deal. They also still have the free 1/LR casting of the MI spell, and I seriously wouldn't scoff at always having 1 use of Shield in my back pocket.
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.
You can take your 1st level Magic Intiate spell and write a Spell Scroll for a downtime/gp cost, yes, agreed.
Resources. Scribing a spell scroll takes an amount of time and money related to the level of the spell the character wants to scribe, as shown in the Spell Scroll Costs table. In addition, the character must have proficiency in the Arcana skill and must provide any material components required for the casting of the spell. Moreover, the character must have the spell prepared, or it must be among the character’s known spells, in order to scribe a scroll of that spell.
And once you have written it on a Spell Scroll, yes, you have "found" the written spell and can then copy it into your Spellbook at a cost 50 gp/2 hours per spell level.
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.
For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.
But can you skip the intermediary step, and just copy straight into your book? No. Call it "practice" or a "rough draft" if you have to in order to justify it, but there is no RAW language within the Wizard Spellcasting section which allows you to directly write a known spell to your spellbook, and houseruling otherwise has significance due to the time/gp cost you're skipping.
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.
You're right about that. RAW is not debatable--a Wizard with Magic Initiate (Wizard) can add their 1st level spell from that feat into their Wizard spellbook. Period.
The only debatable aspect is whether or not they must scribe a spell scroll of their Magic Initiate spell before they can add it to their spellbook, and that only depends on whether the MI spell counts as "prepared" or "known". I cleave to a more strict interpretation of it just being known. Thus, they would have to scribe the scroll from their memory before transferring it to their spellbook.
Others may disagree and consider the spell permanently prepared. The only thing that changes is whether or not a DM requires additional time & gold to accomplish, not whether it can be accomplished at all. It can.
You have a funny way of saying the things that you are not saying then.
As a side note, and this certainly is a house rule, I would allow someone with Magic Initiate who multiclasses into the class they had initiate in to 'trade in' the feat for another feat, on the grounds that the feat was just there to represent 'level 0' in that class.
I understand the sentiment, but I would advise you not to do that. They still have 2 additional cantrips from the feat, and that's a big deal. They also still have the free 1/LR casting of the MI spell, and I seriously wouldn't scoff at always having 1 use of Shield in my back pocket.
Oh, I didn't say they'd keep the benefits. You just go from "2 cantrips, 1 spell known, 1 spell per day" to "3 cantrips, 1+Int Modifier spells known, 2 spells per day".
People keep saying the spell gained from the feat isn't known to the wizard, as they don't know spells they only prep them. But in the class it literally says the spellbook is a repository of spells known. Now to prep and cast the spell using spell slots they must have the spell in the spell book.
The feat says you learn the spell. That conceivably means you know it, right?
The other thing I'm confused about is why people say you need a spell scroll to copy a spell into your spellbook? There's nothing saying it has to be. It just says if you come across the spell in another way you can transcribe it. The only actual requirements described for a spell to be able to be transcribed are that you have access to it and that it is a wizard spell. Nothing says it has to be a spell scroll.
-
So if you learn the spell, you know it, fully and completely - and you don't need magical spell scrolls to transcribe spells from - why would you need to make a spell scroll before copying it into the book?
There is a bit in the text block that does say 'deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it' but that only means the spell must be written not that it has to be a spell scroll magic item. There is no indication stating 'how' you learned the spell from the feat, you just did. You could say you learned it from another wizard and so you could just write out the spell as you learned it into a sheet of paper and then 'transcribe' it into your book. But you could also say you learned it yourself and so all that notation and deciphering is skipped - in which case it is exactly like when 'replacing' the spell which would mean you could not only put it into your spellbook right away (no magic item crafting first) but it would be even cheaper.
But in neither case is a spell scroll required.
Can you both explain why you insist a spell scroll is required when the copying a spell text block says you can copy from any source, and even lists non-spell-scroll examples?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
There is no reasonable interpretation of the english word "find" in the sentence "On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook" that means "known." If english isn't your first language, or you're otherwise uncertain of what is meant, helpful examples are even provided: "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."
I will admit that "learn" vs "known" language is very fuzzy and inconsistent across classes and feats, I'm fully willing to acknowledge that "learned" and "known" are usually intended to be used as synonyms wherever they're found. But it's tough to say that a Wizard "knows" every spell in their spellbook, because that leads to unintended consequences like them being permitted to cast them with their Pact Magic slots without having them prepared. The Spellbook spells are almost called "known" again within that sidebar ("...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..."), so maybe the Pact Magic interaction is just an unintended consequence we'll have to accept...
But either way, "all spells in your spellbook are known" DOES NOT require that "all spells you know may be written in your spellbook." It isn't just that the rules are silent as to whether this would be allowed, we have a rather detailed and extensive sidebar which tells us precisely which spells go in, and they are 1) the two at each level up, 2) those that you "find," and 3) those that you have "prepared"
It need not be a Spell Scroll, any old written version of the spell will work to copy from. But the only mechanism we're provided anywhere by which a character can write a "known" spell out is by crafting a Spell Scroll, so absent some written indication that there's other ways to jot down spell notes, that's what we have to stick with.
You're right about that. RAW is not debatable--a Wizard with Magic Initiate (Wizard) can add their 1st level spell from that feat into their Wizard spellbook. Period.
The only debatable aspect is whether or not they must scribe a spell scroll of their Magic Initiate spell before they can add it to their spellbook, and that only depends on whether the MI spell counts as "prepared" or "known". I cleave to a more strict interpretation of it just being known. Thus, they would have to scribe the scroll from their memory before transferring it to their spellbook.
Others may disagree and consider the spell permanently prepared. The only thing that changes is whether or not a DM requires additional time & gold to accomplish, not whether it can be accomplished at all. It can.
You have a funny way of saying the things that you are not saying then.
I don't know how to explain nuance to you... ffs "others may disagree" is just an acknowledgement that I'm not speaking for anyone else. Please stop being so obtuse.
Cyber, I'm only addressing scrolls because Chicken seems to think a spell can only be transcribed into a spellbook if it is found in written form, or "prepared". There is no definitive ruling (AFAIK) on whether an MI spell counts as "known" or "prepared", so he is assuming it's not prepared and can't be transcribed.
I'm saying that, even if all those premises are factually true, the Wizard can 100% just make a scroll and copy it into their book that way. It's only a matter of whether a DM will require them to take the extra step, not whether it's possible. It absolutely is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
There's no ruling required as to whether MI counts as "prepared," because it's ludicrous on its face. The only way to "prepare" something is using a class feature which allows you to do so. Wizards "prepare" spells from the spellbooks, Druids and Clerics and Artificers from the entire breadth of spells their class provides. An MI spell is no more a "prepared spell" than it is a known Maneuver, or an Elemental Discipline, or a ki point. You can't just substitute one defined game term for another, with no mechanism for doing so.
This is getting really pedantic over RAW. The RAI is clear, but we're definitely arguing over the minutiae of word choices here - words written by designers who did not write with the expectation of things needing to be scrutinised in tiny detail, they used idiomatic speech to give you the idea.
If we went strictly by your intreptation this would mean: a wizard cannot teach (extra) spells to another wizard - they must show provide a written copy only, you cannot take what is learned and permanently and clearly in your head and put it into your book you must first make a magic item instead, and similar such restrictions. This means for you Magic Initiate: Wizard is less beneficial for a wizard than any other Magic Initiate feat is for the respective class, in terms of being able to cast that chosen spell with spell slots as well as the once-per-day. Let's review:
Bard & Sorcerer & Warlock: it's a freebie to their spells known they can cast once without spell slots and can cast using spell slots. No costs. Cleric & Druid: they can already prepare it for casting whenever they want, so this is just a free cast without prep in addition to being able to prep and cast with spell slots. No costs. Wizard: can cast once per day without prep/slots. To cast this spell (which they have learned and know how to cast) with slots must first create an expensive magic scroll then transcribe into their spell book which also destroys the scroll. Requiring lots of time and gold.
I have a hard time believing this was the intention.
Given the above, and the SAC clarifying that indeed their intention was not to make it as above, let's go over that text in the 'copy a spell' bit again.
"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."
The elements of copying the spell are:
Reproducing the basic form of the spell
Then deciphering the unique system of notation
Practicing the spell to understand the sounds/gestures required
Then transcribe it into spellbook using your own notation.
By the feat we have learned the spell and can cast it, so we can already reproduce the basic form of the spell, we already learned it so we have already deciphered the system of notation (it could have even been a spell we figured out on our own after all), and we've already practiced it since we already understand the sounds and gestures required.
So isn't 4 the only one left? Only 2 requires "written form" and we've already gone past that to have learned the spell in the first place hence our ability to cast it. So, why can't we just do the only missing step of 4?
So yeah, we can just copy the spell into the book as far as I can see. Even cheaper too, since the "cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it" -- but since we've already covered all that thanks to the feat so really what we're transcribing by this point is a spell we already know, have learned, can cast - and there's a section on replacing spells thats says "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."
So it would be understandable and agreeable for the transcribing to only cost 1 hour and 10 gp.
-
Given the intention of the feat, the SAC, the wording used when taken in idiomatic phrasing -- Still see no reason to think a spell scroll would be the only way a Wizard would get to use the feat the way the other classes get to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I don't care about the logic of what sounds easy to you or I (neither of whom are wizards). I don't care whether MI: Wizard is as useful to a wizard as MI: Sorcerer is to a sorcerer. All I care about is:
Wizard's Spellcasting feature tells us how it works
Magic Initiate tells us how it works
the rules that those two things lay out don't provide a mechanism for MI to result in a spell written in the wizard's spellbook, without some extra hoops being jumped through
Houserule it if you want, but that's what's written. Deal with it. It isn't pedantic to center a RAW discussion on what is written. Seems like if I was a pawn on a chess board it would be easy enough to move two spaces every time I move forward, if I can do it once. But I'm not a pawn, chess is a rule system and not a simulation, and that's not how the rules work.
We seem to be reading two different things because what I'm reading is RAW to me, not a houserule. What I'm reading as RAW has been clarified as RAI by designers as well.
I think we've gone as far as we can in civil discourse (judging from your abrupt "Deal with it" response). At the end of the day I'm not here to change your mind.
I've said my piece, other readers can agree or disagree. I'll be unsubbing from this thread. Have fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I wish that the frequent posters on this site had more seriously engaged with my "what are rules?" thread back in the day, because it seems like so many of these arguments seem to come down to people unncessarily disagreeing about basic terms. "RAW" does not mean "an ok way to rule it" or "the way that makes sense to me" or even "the way that folks generally agree that it works." It means "what the PHB, the DMG, and the MM tell us in writing." There is no "RAW to me" that Magic Intiate grants a prepared spell, or that non-prepared "known" spells can be written in a spellbook. I'm sorry if "deal with it" comes off as harsh, but there it is, that simply isn't something that's been written.
I too will unsub, what's the point if we can't even agree on what the word "written" means.
That is true for a Sorcerer, who casts spells they "know" using their spell slots. It is emphatically not true for Wizard, for the reasons quoted above. Another great quote showing that JC doesn't understand or read his own rule system and that SAC cannot stand in as a rule text. This is not a debateable RAI vs. RAW situation, Wizards do not cast spells that they "know," nor do they add spells that they "know" to their spellbook. Provably, demonstrably incorrect, and never should have made it past a proof reading. Absolute garbage.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Actually, if you lose your spellbook, you are allowed to transcribe a new book based on the spells you have prepared (see Replacing the Book).
You're right about that. RAW is not debatable--a Wizard with Magic Initiate (Wizard) can add their 1st level spell from that feat into their Wizard spellbook. Period.
The only debatable aspect is whether or not they must scribe a spell scroll of their Magic Initiate spell before they can add it to their spellbook, and that only depends on whether the MI spell counts as "prepared" or "known". I cleave to a more strict interpretation of it just being known. Thus, they would have to scribe the scroll from their memory before transferring it to their spellbook.
Others may disagree and consider the spell permanently prepared. The only thing that changes is whether or not a DM requires additional time & gold to accomplish, not whether it can be accomplished at all. It can.
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.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sigred, RAW does not mean "rules as written in SAC." There is nothing in the PHB that says that Magic Intiate writes a spell into your spellbook. There is nothing in the Wizard Spellcasting entry that lets you write a "known" spell into your spellbook.
It's fine if y'all think this isn't intended, or not how you want to play, or that there's no harm in it. Fine. But it is incontrovertible that this is not the rule as written. End of story, this is not a difference of opinion, this is a fact.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You're arbitrarily missing the point. It has nothing to do with SAC.
The core RAW of Wizard requires a spell be prepared for transcription directly to a spellbook from memory. This is your premise. I agree with you.
The core RAW of Wizard also allows for spells from spell scrolls to be transcribed directly to a spellbook. If this isn't part of your premise, then buddy you are just flat-out wrong.
The core RAW of D&D5e allows for anyone, with a spell either prepared or known, to scribe a spell scroll. That scroll can then be used to transcribe the spell into a spellbook. Full stop.
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.
As a side note, and this certainly is a house rule, I would allow someone with Magic Initiate who multiclasses into the class they had initiate in to 'trade in' the feat for another feat, on the grounds that the feat was just there to represent 'level 0' in that class.
I understand the sentiment, but I would advise you not to do that. They still have 2 additional cantrips from the feat, and that's a big deal. They also still have the free 1/LR casting of the MI spell, and I seriously wouldn't scoff at always having 1 use of Shield in my back pocket.
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.
You can take your 1st level Magic Intiate spell and write a Spell Scroll for a downtime/gp cost, yes, agreed.
And once you have written it on a Spell Scroll, yes, you have "found" the written spell and can then copy it into your Spellbook at a cost 50 gp/2 hours per spell level.
But can you skip the intermediary step, and just copy straight into your book? No. Call it "practice" or a "rough draft" if you have to in order to justify it, but there is no RAW language within the Wizard Spellcasting section which allows you to directly write a known spell to your spellbook, and houseruling otherwise has significance due to the time/gp cost you're skipping.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Nobody is saying that.
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.
You have a funny way of saying the things that you are not saying then.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Oh, I didn't say they'd keep the benefits. You just go from "2 cantrips, 1 spell known, 1 spell per day" to "3 cantrips, 1+Int Modifier spells known, 2 spells per day".
I'm confused on two things:
People keep saying the spell gained from the feat isn't known to the wizard, as they don't know spells they only prep them. But in the class it literally says the spellbook is a repository of spells known. Now to prep and cast the spell using spell slots they must have the spell in the spell book.
The feat says you learn the spell. That conceivably means you know it, right?
The other thing I'm confused about is why people say you need a spell scroll to copy a spell into your spellbook? There's nothing saying it has to be. It just says if you come across the spell in another way you can transcribe it. The only actual requirements described for a spell to be able to be transcribed are that you have access to it and that it is a wizard spell. Nothing says it has to be a spell scroll.
-
So if you learn the spell, you know it, fully and completely - and you don't need magical spell scrolls to transcribe spells from - why would you need to make a spell scroll before copying it into the book?
There is a bit in the text block that does say 'deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it' but that only means the spell must be written not that it has to be a spell scroll magic item. There is no indication stating 'how' you learned the spell from the feat, you just did. You could say you learned it from another wizard and so you could just write out the spell as you learned it into a sheet of paper and then 'transcribe' it into your book. But you could also say you learned it yourself and so all that notation and deciphering is skipped - in which case it is exactly like when 'replacing' the spell which would mean you could not only put it into your spellbook right away (no magic item crafting first) but it would be even cheaper.
But in neither case is a spell scroll required.
Can you both explain why you insist a spell scroll is required when the copying a spell text block says you can copy from any source, and even lists non-spell-scroll examples?
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
There is no reasonable interpretation of the english word "find" in the sentence "On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook" that means "known." If english isn't your first language, or you're otherwise uncertain of what is meant, helpful examples are even provided: "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."
I will admit that "learn" vs "known" language is very fuzzy and inconsistent across classes and feats, I'm fully willing to acknowledge that "learned" and "known" are usually intended to be used as synonyms wherever they're found. But it's tough to say that a Wizard "knows" every spell in their spellbook, because that leads to unintended consequences like them being permitted to cast them with their Pact Magic slots without having them prepared. The Spellbook spells are almost called "known" again within that sidebar ("...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..."), so maybe the Pact Magic interaction is just an unintended consequence we'll have to accept...
But either way, "all spells in your spellbook are known" DOES NOT require that "all spells you know may be written in your spellbook." It isn't just that the rules are silent as to whether this would be allowed, we have a rather detailed and extensive sidebar which tells us precisely which spells go in, and they are 1) the two at each level up, 2) those that you "find," and 3) those that you have "prepared"
It need not be a Spell Scroll, any old written version of the spell will work to copy from. But the only mechanism we're provided anywhere by which a character can write a "known" spell out is by crafting a Spell Scroll, so absent some written indication that there's other ways to jot down spell notes, that's what we have to stick with.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't know how to explain nuance to you... ffs "others may disagree" is just an acknowledgement that I'm not speaking for anyone else. Please stop being so obtuse.
Cyber, I'm only addressing scrolls because Chicken seems to think a spell can only be transcribed into a spellbook if it is found in written form, or "prepared". There is no definitive ruling (AFAIK) on whether an MI spell counts as "known" or "prepared", so he is assuming it's not prepared and can't be transcribed.
I'm saying that, even if all those premises are factually true, the Wizard can 100% just make a scroll and copy it into their book that way. It's only a matter of whether a DM will require them to take the extra step, not whether it's possible. It absolutely is.
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.
There's no ruling required as to whether MI counts as "prepared," because it's ludicrous on its face. The only way to "prepare" something is using a class feature which allows you to do so. Wizards "prepare" spells from the spellbooks, Druids and Clerics and Artificers from the entire breadth of spells their class provides. An MI spell is no more a "prepared spell" than it is a known Maneuver, or an Elemental Discipline, or a ki point. You can't just substitute one defined game term for another, with no mechanism for doing so.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Chicken_Champ
This is getting really pedantic over RAW. The RAI is clear, but we're definitely arguing over the minutiae of word choices here - words written by designers who did not write with the expectation of things needing to be scrutinised in tiny detail, they used idiomatic speech to give you the idea.
If we went strictly by your intreptation this would mean: a wizard cannot teach (extra) spells to another wizard - they must show provide a written copy only, you cannot take what is learned and permanently and clearly in your head and put it into your book you must first make a magic item instead, and similar such restrictions. This means for you Magic Initiate: Wizard is less beneficial for a wizard than any other Magic Initiate feat is for the respective class, in terms of being able to cast that chosen spell with spell slots as well as the once-per-day. Let's review:
Bard & Sorcerer & Warlock: it's a freebie to their spells known they can cast once without spell slots and can cast using spell slots. No costs.
Cleric & Druid: they can already prepare it for casting whenever they want, so this is just a free cast without prep in addition to being able to prep and cast with spell slots. No costs.
Wizard: can cast once per day without prep/slots. To cast this spell (which they have learned and know how to cast) with slots must first create an expensive magic scroll then transcribe into their spell book which also destroys the scroll. Requiring lots of time and gold.
I have a hard time believing this was the intention.
Given the above, and the SAC clarifying that indeed their intention was not to make it as above, let's go over that text in the 'copy a spell' bit again.
"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."
The elements of copying the spell are:
By the feat we have learned the spell and can cast it, so we can already reproduce the basic form of the spell, we already learned it so we have already deciphered the system of notation (it could have even been a spell we figured out on our own after all), and we've already practiced it since we already understand the sounds and gestures required.
So isn't 4 the only one left? Only 2 requires "written form" and we've already gone past that to have learned the spell in the first place hence our ability to cast it. So, why can't we just do the only missing step of 4?
So yeah, we can just copy the spell into the book as far as I can see. Even cheaper too, since the "cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it" -- but since we've already covered all that thanks to the feat so really what we're transcribing by this point is a spell we already know, have learned, can cast - and there's a section on replacing spells thats says "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."
So it would be understandable and agreeable for the transcribing to only cost 1 hour and 10 gp.
-
Given the intention of the feat, the SAC, the wording used when taken in idiomatic phrasing -- Still see no reason to think a spell scroll would be the only way a Wizard would get to use the feat the way the other classes get to.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I don't care about the logic of what sounds easy to you or I (neither of whom are wizards). I don't care whether MI: Wizard is as useful to a wizard as MI: Sorcerer is to a sorcerer. All I care about is:
Houserule it if you want, but that's what's written. Deal with it. It isn't pedantic to center a RAW discussion on what is written. Seems like if I was a pawn on a chess board it would be easy enough to move two spaces every time I move forward, if I can do it once. But I'm not a pawn, chess is a rule system and not a simulation, and that's not how the rules work.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
We seem to be reading two different things because what I'm reading is RAW to me, not a houserule. What I'm reading as RAW has been clarified as RAI by designers as well.
I think we've gone as far as we can in civil discourse (judging from your abrupt "Deal with it" response). At the end of the day I'm not here to change your mind.
I've said my piece, other readers can agree or disagree. I'll be unsubbing from this thread. Have fun.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I wish that the frequent posters on this site had more seriously engaged with my "what are rules?" thread back in the day, because it seems like so many of these arguments seem to come down to people unncessarily disagreeing about basic terms. "RAW" does not mean "an ok way to rule it" or "the way that makes sense to me" or even "the way that folks generally agree that it works." It means "what the PHB, the DMG, and the MM tell us in writing." There is no "RAW to me" that Magic Intiate grants a prepared spell, or that non-prepared "known" spells can be written in a spellbook. I'm sorry if "deal with it" comes off as harsh, but there it is, that simply isn't something that's been written.
I too will unsub, what's the point if we can't even agree on what the word "written" means.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.