ie if an rule in the game tells me to choose a spell from the wizard spell list, that spell would per definition be a "wizard spell", thus for instance letting the spells gained via levels in arcane trickster, eldritch knight and from magic initiate (wizard) benefit from a feature such as "empowered evocation" that works only with wizard spells?
If that is the case, is that why sage advice claims that the spell learned from magic initiate (sorcerer) can be cast using spell slots by a character who has at least 1 level of sorcerer? and if this be the case would not the spells granted by the abberant dragonmark feat be considered sorcerer spells since they are drawn from the sorcerer spell list, despite their reliance on constitution rather than charisma? and should this be the case could one not make an perfectly viable fire genasi sorcerer who eschews having charisma in favour of constiution? One whose only spells that use attack or damage rolls is produce flame, burning hands and the cantrip and spell granted by abberant dragonmark?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
ie if an rule in the game tells me to choose a spell from the wizard spell list, that spell would per definition be a "wizard spell", thus for instance letting the spells gained via levels in arcane trickster, eldritch knight and from magic initiate (wizard) benefit from a feature such as "empowered evocation" that works only with wizard spells?
Yes. EK and AT spells are wizard spells. And get all the perks that implies.
If that is the case, is that why sage advice claims that the spell learned from magic initiate (sorcerer) can be cast using spell slots by a character who has at least 1 level of sorcerer? and if this be the case would not the spells granted by the abberant dragonmark feat be considered sorcerer spells since they are drawn from the sorcerer spell list, despite their reliance on constitution rather than charisma? and should this be the case could one not make an perfectly viable fire genasi sorcerer who eschews having charisma in favour of constiution? One whose only spells that use attack or damage rolls is produce flame, burning hands and the cantrip and spell granted by abberant dragonmark?
Abberant Dragonmark is a bit fuzzier. Yes, they are sorcerer spells by the same rules as magic initiate. Whether they are cast with CON or CHA when using slots is where there is room for debate. I say ask the DM and don't argue with them. If you are the DM, you decide.
This is one of those things the rules don't define in any rigorous way. Based on the Sage Advice Compendium answer and several tweets by Jeremy Crawford addressing the topic, "[class] spell" is roughly shorthand for "a spell that you're casting as [class]", or "a spell you got access to through [class] and are casting using [class]'s Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature." The implication is that if you took the Magic Initiate feat and chose the sorcerer class, you're casting that spell as if you were a sorcerer, but if you got access to a spell from a racial trait, it's not necessarily a sorcerer spell for you even if it's on the sorcerer spell list.
I agree with DxJxC on Aberrant Dragonmark being slightly ambiguous, because the spell is "cast through your mark." Does that make it a distinct form of spellcasting from sorcery? I don't think it's worth making that distinction but your DM may disagree.
Sorcerer is a special case because there's a lot of overlap between sorcerous origins and magic that comes from your race or is unique to you. It's not unreasonable to argue that an air genasi's spells are a form of storm sorcery and should qualify for a storm sorcerer's metamagic features, but there's no official rule tying those two mechanics together so it's up to you and the DM to come to an agreement on that.
I am firmly in the camp that the plain language of the PHB introduces us to "[class] spells" mostly in the context of directing you to the "[class] spell list," and that defining "[class] spell" as anything other than "spell which appears on the [class] spell list, or which your class features specifically tell you to treat as an [class] spell for you" starts to cause more gray fuzziness than it's worth. I've had this debate with many of the usual suspects on multiple occasions, so rather than kicking it back off, I'll just link to a succinct recap of why I believe that to be true. Just note that "[class] spells" and "your [class] spells" still are a bit different, the "your" subset refers to spells you actually know, not the total universe of [class] spells out there on the Spell List.
Specific exception for features that change which class the chosen spell(s) belong to. The Arcana Cleric's Arcane Initiate/Mastery features pick spells from the Wizard list that become Cleric spells (for the caster), and Bard's Magical Secrets do the same with choices from all class spell lists.
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.
I am firmly in the camp that the plain language of the PHB introduces us to "[class] spells" mostly in the context of directing you to the "[class] spell list," and that defining "[class] spell" as anything other than "spell which appears on the [class] spell list, or which your class features specifically tell you to treat as an [class] spell for you" starts to cause more gray fuzziness than it's worth. I've had this debate with many of the usual suspects on multiple occasions, so rather than kicking it back off, I'll just link to a succinct recap of why I believe that to be true. Just note that "[class] spells" and "your [class] spells" still are a bit different, the "your" subset refers to spells you actually know, not the total universe of [class] spells out there on the Spell List.
you you say that not only is an fireball learned by an arcane trickster, eldrich knight and wizard compatible with empowered evocation, but just any casting of fireball, even if i am casting the spell as an light cleric or fiendish warlock or an sorcerer?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I am firmly in the camp that the plain language of the PHB introduces us to "[class] spells" mostly in the context of directing you to the "[class] spell list," and that defining "[class] spell" as anything other than "spell which appears on the [class] spell list, or which your class features specifically tell you to treat as an [class] spell for you" starts to cause more gray fuzziness than it's worth. I've had this debate with many of the usual suspects on multiple occasions, so rather than kicking it back off, I'll just link to a succinct recap of why I believe that to be true. Just note that "[class] spells" and "your [class] spells" still are a bit different, the "your" subset refers to spells you actually know, not the total universe of [class] spells out there on the Spell List.
you you say that not only is an fireball learned by an arcane trickster, eldrich knight and wizard compatible with empowered evocation, but just any casting of fireball, even if i am casting the spell as an light cleric or fiendish warlock or an sorcerer?
ATs & EKs both explicitly learn, prepare, and cast spells from the Wizard spell list as Wizard spells, per their specific Spellcasting features. Clerics, Warlocks, and Sorcerers do not; they use their own class spell lists.
The Fireball learned by a Light Cleric is a Domain spell, and Domain spells are Cleric spells. They are not compatible with any features requiring a Wizard spell.
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.
I am firmly in the camp that the plain language of the PHB introduces us to "[class] spells" mostly in the context of directing you to the "[class] spell list," and that defining "[class] spell" as anything other than "spell which appears on the [class] spell list, or which your class features specifically tell you to treat as an [class] spell for you" starts to cause more gray fuzziness than it's worth. I've had this debate with many of the usual suspects on multiple occasions, so rather than kicking it back off, I'll just link to a succinct recap of why I believe that to be true. Just note that "[class] spells" and "your [class] spells" still are a bit different, the "your" subset refers to spells you actually know, not the total universe of [class] spells out there on the Spell List.
you you say that not only is an fireball learned by an arcane trickster, eldrich knight and wizard compatible with empowered evocation, but just any casting of fireball, even if i am casting the spell as an light cleric or fiendish warlock or an sorcerer?
ATs & EKs both explicitly learn, prepare, and cast spells from the Wizard spell list as Wizard spells, per their specific Spellcasting features. Clerics, Warlocks, and Sorcerers do not; they use their own class spell lists.
The Fireball learned by a Light Cleric is a Domain spell, and Domain spells are Cleric spells. They are not compatible with any features requiring a Wizard spell.
yes i have seen your specific stance on the matter, i am just asking this guy to clarify theirs
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
If you’re a character with Fireball as one of “your” spells (see below), and you bump up against a feature that looks for “a Wizard spell” or “your Wizard spells,” yes, I treat it as a Wizard spell, since Fireball is on the Wizard Spell List, regardless of by what means you are casting it. Holding otherwise I think has knock-on effects.... like rendering a Wizard either unable to copy new Wizard Spells into their book or make ANY spell copy able, if being written in a spell book is the one and only check for Wizard-spell-ness. And “Wizard spells are spells on the Wizard spell list” is the only practicable way I can see to track what class the spells on your character sheet belong to live at the table, with the the official WotC-published character sheet template. An interpretation that can only be adjudicated by referring to a memory of what you selected at what level six months ago on a prior version of your sheet assumes too much about the ubiquitousness of using a dndbeyond character sheet that tracks extra info.
Note re: “your” spells... As far as I’m concerned, “Your” spells are quite clearly those you “know,” “learn,” or have available on a list of spells to “prepare” as a prep caster. Other items or racial or class features may provide you the ability to cast a spell without knowing/learning it and being able to use it with spell slots, as with a Tiefling’s Hellish Rebuke ... Is Hellish Rebuke still “your” spell when you can only cast it with an ability, not a slot? I’d say probably yeah, I’d want it to be able to interact with a bonus to “your spells that deal Fire damage” or the like (Elemental Adept and the like aren’t actually worded that way, just thinking ahead to plausible other wordings one might find), but that may lead to the conclusion that you CAN cast such spells with slots, if you have a spellcasting feature that allows you to cast “your [class] spells” and your racial spell appears on that class list.
You know that all the "concerns" you have only exist in your own mind due to not understanding the basic difference between a class spell list and your class spells.
Where/how did you learn the spell? Your spellcasting feature(s) tell you how you can learn spells.
Did you learn Fireball, from the Wizard spell list (class spell list), when you gained a level of Wizard? Then it's a Wizard spell for you (class spell).
Did you learn Fireball by copying it (which you are only able to do because the spell is on the Wizard class spell list) into your Wizard spell book from a written source? Then it's a Wizard spell for you (class spell).
Did you learn Fireball, from the Wizard spell list (class spell list), when you gained a level of Wizard? Then it's a Wizard spell for you (class spell).
Did you learn Fireball, from the Wizard spell list (class spell list), when you reached level 5 Light Cleric? Then it's a Cleric spell for you (class spell). It is not a Wizard spell for you, regardless of how many levels you have in Wizard, you cannot cast it as a Wizard spell, and it does not activate any feature requiring a Wizard spell.
5e cares about where/how you learn spells. I'm not saying I like the design scheme, but they did set it up this way on purpose. Every spell a character can know is always tied back to the source it was learned from. If you learn a spell as a feat or racial feature, that feat/feature will tell you what (if any) class spell it counts as for you. If it does not specify a class, as it is with most racial spells, then it does not count as a class spell for any class.
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.
Holding otherwise I think has knock-on effects.... like rendering a Wizard either unable to copy new Wizard Spells into their book or make ANY spell copy able, if being written in a spell book is the one and only check for Wizard-spell-ness.
Why? The rules for spellbooks explicitly allow you to copy spells from other spellbooks and the rules for spell scrolls explicitly allow wizards to copy wizard spells on scrolls. There's no other ubiquitous written forms for spells that I know of, and any corner cases would likely refer back to the spellbook and spell scroll rules.
And “Wizard spells are spells on the Wizard spell list” is the only practicable way I can see to track what class the spells on your character sheet belong to live at the table, with the the official WotC-published character sheet template. An interpretation that can only be adjudicated by referring to a memory of what you selected at what level six months ago on a prior version of your sheet assumes too much about the ubiquitousness of using a dndbeyond character sheet that tracks extra info.
You have to track what's giving you access to a spell so that you know which spellcasting ability, save DC and attack bonus to use, any special restrictions on its use, exceptions to components, and keep track of its uses (e.g. once per day limitations.) That's also true of spells you get access to through a magic item. The multiclassing rules explicitly tell you that your spells are associated with one of your classes. If you're both a light domain cleric and a wizard, the Fireball you got through your domain spells is associated only with your cleric class.
Character sheets have no relevance to the rules. If a particular character sheet makes it difficult to track these things you can always get a better one or just write on the side of the paper. Players can use whatever means of tracking their stats that they want.
Coder, exactly. They allow you to copy "Wizard spells," not "spells on the Wizard Spell List." If "Wizard Spells" are not "spells on the Wizard Spell List," then the only Wizard Spells that exist are... the spells you already have? The "cantrips" entry is the only section within the Wizard that describes selecting spells from the Wizard Spell List, if you don't accept that "Wizard Spells" mean "spells on the Wizard Spell List." That's the knock-on.
Cantrips
At 1st level, you know three cantrips of your choice from the wizard spell list. You learn additional wizard cantrips of your choice at higher levels, as shown in the Cantrips Known column of the Wizard table.
Spellbook
At 1st level, you have a spellbook containing six 1st-level wizard spells of your choice. Your spellbook is the repository of the wizard spells you know, except your cantrips, which are fixed in your mind.
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...
At some point, "Wizard Spell" must mean "spell on the Wizard Spell list" for basic features to function. Once you accept that it works that way at this most basic spellcasting-defining level once, I don't know why it would ever change meaning for every other feature using the term "wizard spell," absent any specific written language suggesting that must be the case????
At some point, "Wizard Spell" must mean "spell on the Wizard Spell list" for basic features to function. Once you accept that it works that way at this most basic spellcasting-defining level once, I don't know why it would ever change meaning for every other feature using the term "wizard spell," absent any specific written language suggesting that must be the case????
Like the text "your wizard spells?"
They make it clear when casting spells or using class features that require class spells that they must be of that class for you.
Chicken_Champ. When you add new spells though the wizard spellcasting feature, they are wizard spells. Any spells associated with being from the wizard spell list are wizard spells. We already discussed this in full detail.
Sorry for my long post, let me restate it better. This is my alternative for #2, all spells on the wizard spell list are wizard spells. All spells on the sorcerer spell list are sorcerer spells. However, overlapping spells are different versions of each other. A fireball on the wizard spell list is different than a fireball from the sorcerer spell list. Feats that, for example, grant Wizard spells, grants the wizard version of that spell.
Here is mine, and D&D Beyond's stance on the matter.
Edit: I just saw your argument on the whole Guidance thing. Which in case your going bring it up, I'll bring up my counterpoint.
Nothing I said goes against that, they are different versions of the same spell. They all are based off the same base spell, however have their own addon on top of that. There's a reason why when you select a wizard spell Fireball it doesn't say "This is a wizard spell", it's because that's a added effect of the Wizard and doesn't alter the base spell.
And disclaimer, when I say D&D Beyond's stance on the matter, I mean that is how the website is coded. I do not speak for Adam Bradford or any other D&D Beyond employee.
Any explanation of this topic needs to account for the reason that "your wizard spells" are specifically cast with intelligence, and not with any modifier of any spellcasting class for which that particular spell is on the list of. Why wouldn't the rules simply tell you that you can use any modifier you like for any spell, if that were the case?
CC's interpretation of "class spell" is in the minority within the community, but not directly countered (nor supported) by anything in the rules (grey area, all terms assumed to have the same meaning across all rules which 5e is notoriously inconsistent about).
The majority go with what has been confirmed by SAC and don't stretch it any further (black and white, it is only what it says no transferred meaning between separate features).
Another minority disagree with both of the above interpretations and the official SAC and say class spells are only what are learned by class features (even stricter, features don't even touch unless they say they touch, and "official rulings" are not "rules").
In the end, the only opinion that matters is the DM you are playing with (possibly yourself). I agree with SAC and not pushing any further, but I'm not going to argue semantics here.
If "Wizard Spells" are not "spells on the Wizard Spell List," then the only Wizard Spells that exist are... the spells you already have?
...
At some point, "Wizard Spell" must mean "spell on the Wizard Spell list" for basic features to function. Once you accept that it works that way at this most basic spellcasting-defining level once, I don't know why it would ever change meaning for every other feature using the term "wizard spell," absent any specific written language suggesting that must be the case????
The same phrase can mean different things in different contexts though. The rules can use "wizard spells" in the spell list sense when talking about your starting spells and also use it in the "spells you cast using your wizard spellcasting" sense when Overchannel says "When you cast a wizard spell..."
If "Wizard Spells" are not "spells on the Wizard Spell List," then the only Wizard Spells that exist are... the spells you already have?
...
At some point, "Wizard Spell" must mean "spell on the Wizard Spell list" for basic features to function. Once you accept that it works that way at this most basic spellcasting-defining level once, I don't know why it would ever change meaning for every other feature using the term "wizard spell," absent any specific written language suggesting that must be the case????
The same phrase can mean different things in different contexts though. The rules can use "wizard spells" in the spell list sense when talking about your starting spells and also use it in the "spells you cast using your wizard spellcasting" sense when Overchannel says "When you cast a wizard spell..."
Meaning different things in different contexts is fine when you're talking about definitions you can meaningfully distinguish based on context. It's confusing, and poor design, but you can get through it: in 5E, "action" means:
A specific unit of the turn economy (e.g. your Action, rather than your Bonus Action or Reaction)
Any activity on your turn (e.g., an Incapacitated creature cannot take "actions" on their turn, meaning Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction)
The options of activity available to players on their turn (e.g., you can take the Attack action or the Dodge action)
probably other niche meanings as well!
Context can tell me which of those action meanings (all of which have textual support in the PHB) I am referencing at any given point.
But meaning two things which are used in the same context and have exclusive meanings? Big problem, and not something I'm inclined to just accept absent any proof that I have to. "Wizard spells" can definitely mean "all spells on the Wizard Spell List," because it has to in order for the Wizard to be able to learn spells at all, and because the plain language of "Wizard Spell List" is "list of Wizard Spells." There's quotable RAW support for that. But then you suggest to me that it might also sometimes mean "none of the spells on the Wizard Spell List, except for those that you have learned from Wizard levels" or "spells that you have learned from Wizard levels but which have no ongoing connection to the Wizard spell list"? But, that it means that without there ever being a section in the PHB that describes or provides that meaning???? Uphill battle there, its honestly the more radical of the two propositions.
If there's a shred of support for "Wizard spells means something else, sometimes" you might point to Chapter 6, Multiclassing. First, the way that "wizard spells" and the like are used in the examples in this section appears like it could support your definition. Second, there's this gem:
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. Similarly, a spellcasting focus, such as a holy symbol, can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus.
We've gotten a new vocabulary term, "associated with one of your classes," which appears in this section and nowhere else in 5E. Does it say "your Wizard spells are those spells that are associated with your Wizard class"? No, though that's how everyone commonly reads it. Does it say "your spells that are associated with one of your classes no longer count as Class Spells of any other spell list that they are found on"? No, though that's how everyone commonly reads it. Does it say "the class that your spell is associated with is defined by how you came to know or prepare it"? No. Does it say "you cannot choose to associate a spell that you know and prepare with any one of your other classes for which it appears on that class' spell list," or that this association is set in stone? No.
Assumption, after assumption, after assumption. Chapter 6 does one thing and one thing only: "when you cast the spell" (i.e. at that discrete moment in time when it is being cast), a spell must be "associated with one of your classes" and "use the spellcasting ability of that class." That's it. We can come up with other reasonable inferences about when/how/why spells come to be associated with one (or more?) classes, but at the end of the day, all that Chapter 6 says is that you have to use a spellcasting modifier for your spells that one of your classes allows.
I'm not convinced that it's required, or very wise, to assume that Chapter 6 does anything more than that.
But meaning two things which are used in the same context and have exclusive meanings? Big problem, and not something I'm inclined to just accept absent any proof that I have to.
I'm not denying it's needlessly ambiguous and confusing. But I also don't see a point in insisting that the word-of-god answer has to be wrong.
But then you suggest to me that it might also sometimes mean "none of the spells on the Wizard Spell List, except for those that you have learned from Wizard levels" ...
Preparing and Casting Spells
The Wizard table shows how many spell slots you have to cast your wizard spells of 1st level and higher.
Surely "your wizard spells" are the ones you've learned?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
ie if an rule in the game tells me to choose a spell from the wizard spell list, that spell would per definition be a "wizard spell", thus for instance letting the spells gained via levels in arcane trickster, eldritch knight and from magic initiate (wizard) benefit from a feature such as "empowered evocation" that works only with wizard spells?
If that is the case, is that why sage advice claims that the spell learned from magic initiate (sorcerer) can be cast using spell slots by a character who has at least 1 level of sorcerer? and if this be the case would not the spells granted by the abberant dragonmark feat be considered sorcerer spells since they are drawn from the sorcerer spell list, despite their reliance on constitution rather than charisma? and should this be the case could one not make an perfectly viable fire genasi sorcerer who eschews having charisma in favour of constiution? One whose only spells that use attack or damage rolls is produce flame, burning hands and the cantrip and spell granted by abberant dragonmark?
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Oh the can of semantic worms you are opening...
Yes. EK and AT spells are wizard spells. And get all the perks that implies.
Abberant Dragonmark is a bit fuzzier. Yes, they are sorcerer spells by the same rules as magic initiate. Whether they are cast with CON or CHA when using slots is where there is room for debate. I say ask the DM and don't argue with them. If you are the DM, you decide.
This is one of those things the rules don't define in any rigorous way. Based on the Sage Advice Compendium answer and several tweets by Jeremy Crawford addressing the topic, "[class] spell" is roughly shorthand for "a spell that you're casting as [class]", or "a spell you got access to through [class] and are casting using [class]'s Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature." The implication is that if you took the Magic Initiate feat and chose the sorcerer class, you're casting that spell as if you were a sorcerer, but if you got access to a spell from a racial trait, it's not necessarily a sorcerer spell for you even if it's on the sorcerer spell list.
I agree with DxJxC on Aberrant Dragonmark being slightly ambiguous, because the spell is "cast through your mark." Does that make it a distinct form of spellcasting from sorcery? I don't think it's worth making that distinction but your DM may disagree.
Sorcerer is a special case because there's a lot of overlap between sorcerous origins and magic that comes from your race or is unique to you. It's not unreasonable to argue that an air genasi's spells are a form of storm sorcery and should qualify for a storm sorcerer's metamagic features, but there's no official rule tying those two mechanics together so it's up to you and the DM to come to an agreement on that.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I am firmly in the camp that the plain language of the PHB introduces us to "[class] spells" mostly in the context of directing you to the "[class] spell list," and that defining "[class] spell" as anything other than "spell which appears on the [class] spell list, or which your class features specifically tell you to treat as an [class] spell for you" starts to cause more gray fuzziness than it's worth. I've had this debate with many of the usual suspects on multiple occasions, so rather than kicking it back off, I'll just link to a succinct recap of why I believe that to be true. Just note that "[class] spells" and "your [class] spells" still are a bit different, the "your" subset refers to spells you actually know, not the total universe of [class] spells out there on the Spell List.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Specific exception for features that change which class the chosen spell(s) belong to. The Arcana Cleric's Arcane Initiate/Mastery features pick spells from the Wizard list that become Cleric spells (for the caster), and Bard's Magical Secrets do the same with choices from all class spell lists.
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 you say that not only is an fireball learned by an arcane trickster, eldrich knight and wizard compatible with empowered evocation, but just any casting of fireball, even if i am casting the spell as an light cleric or fiendish warlock or an sorcerer?
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
ATs & EKs both explicitly learn, prepare, and cast spells from the Wizard spell list as Wizard spells, per their specific Spellcasting features. Clerics, Warlocks, and Sorcerers do not; they use their own class spell lists.
The Fireball learned by a Light Cleric is a Domain spell, and Domain spells are Cleric spells. They are not compatible with any features requiring a Wizard spell.
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 have seen your specific stance on the matter, i am just asking this guy to clarify theirs
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
If you’re a character with Fireball as one of “your” spells (see below), and you bump up against a feature that looks for “a Wizard spell” or “your Wizard spells,” yes, I treat it as a Wizard spell, since Fireball is on the Wizard Spell List, regardless of by what means you are casting it. Holding otherwise I think has knock-on effects.... like rendering a Wizard either unable to copy new Wizard Spells into their book or make ANY spell copy able, if being written in a spell book is the one and only check for Wizard-spell-ness. And “Wizard spells are spells on the Wizard spell list” is the only practicable way I can see to track what class the spells on your character sheet belong to live at the table, with the the official WotC-published character sheet template. An interpretation that can only be adjudicated by referring to a memory of what you selected at what level six months ago on a prior version of your sheet assumes too much about the ubiquitousness of using a dndbeyond character sheet that tracks extra info.
Note re: “your” spells... As far as I’m concerned, “Your” spells are quite clearly those you “know,” “learn,” or have available on a list of spells to “prepare” as a prep caster. Other items or racial or class features may provide you the ability to cast a spell without knowing/learning it and being able to use it with spell slots, as with a Tiefling’s Hellish Rebuke ... Is Hellish Rebuke still “your” spell when you can only cast it with an ability, not a slot? I’d say probably yeah, I’d want it to be able to interact with a bonus to “your spells that deal Fire damage” or the like (Elemental Adept and the like aren’t actually worded that way, just thinking ahead to plausible other wordings one might find), but that may lead to the conclusion that you CAN cast such spells with slots, if you have a spellcasting feature that allows you to cast “your [class] spells” and your racial spell appears on that class list.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You know that all the "concerns" you have only exist in your own mind due to not understanding the basic difference between a class spell list and your class spells.
Where/how did you learn the spell? Your spellcasting feature(s) tell you how you can learn spells.
Did you learn Fireball, from the Wizard spell list (class spell list), when you gained a level of Wizard? Then it's a Wizard spell for you (class spell).
Did you learn Fireball by copying it (which you are only able to do because the spell is on the Wizard class spell list) into your Wizard spell book from a written source? Then it's a Wizard spell for you (class spell).
Did you learn Fireball, from the Wizard spell list (class spell list), when you gained a level of Wizard? Then it's a Wizard spell for you (class spell).
Did you learn Fireball, from the Wizard spell list (class spell list), when you reached level 5 Light Cleric? Then it's a Cleric spell for you (class spell). It is not a Wizard spell for you, regardless of how many levels you have in Wizard, you cannot cast it as a Wizard spell, and it does not activate any feature requiring a Wizard spell.
5e cares about where/how you learn spells. I'm not saying I like the design scheme, but they did set it up this way on purpose. Every spell a character can know is always tied back to the source it was learned from. If you learn a spell as a feat or racial feature, that feat/feature will tell you what (if any) class spell it counts as for you. If it does not specify a class, as it is with most racial spells, then it does not count as a class spell for any class.
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.
Why? The rules for spellbooks explicitly allow you to copy spells from other spellbooks and the rules for spell scrolls explicitly allow wizards to copy wizard spells on scrolls. There's no other ubiquitous written forms for spells that I know of, and any corner cases would likely refer back to the spellbook and spell scroll rules.
You have to track what's giving you access to a spell so that you know which spellcasting ability, save DC and attack bonus to use, any special restrictions on its use, exceptions to components, and keep track of its uses (e.g. once per day limitations.) That's also true of spells you get access to through a magic item. The multiclassing rules explicitly tell you that your spells are associated with one of your classes. If you're both a light domain cleric and a wizard, the Fireball you got through your domain spells is associated only with your cleric class.
Character sheets have no relevance to the rules. If a particular character sheet makes it difficult to track these things you can always get a better one or just write on the side of the paper. Players can use whatever means of tracking their stats that they want.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Coder, exactly. They allow you to copy "Wizard spells," not "spells on the Wizard Spell List." If "Wizard Spells" are not "spells on the Wizard Spell List," then the only Wizard Spells that exist are... the spells you already have? The "cantrips" entry is the only section within the Wizard that describes selecting spells from the Wizard Spell List, if you don't accept that "Wizard Spells" mean "spells on the Wizard Spell List." That's the knock-on.
At some point, "Wizard Spell" must mean "spell on the Wizard Spell list" for basic features to function. Once you accept that it works that way at this most basic spellcasting-defining level once, I don't know why it would ever change meaning for every other feature using the term "wizard spell," absent any specific written language suggesting that must be the case????
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Like the text "your wizard spells?"
They make it clear when casting spells or using class features that require class spells that they must be of that class for you.
Chicken_Champ. When you add new spells though the wizard spellcasting feature, they are wizard spells. Any spells associated with being from the wizard spell list are wizard spells. We already discussed this in full detail.
Here is mine, and D&D Beyond's stance on the matter.
Edit: I just saw your argument on the whole Guidance thing. Which in case your going bring it up, I'll bring up my counterpoint.
Nothing I said goes against that, they are different versions of the same spell. They all are based off the same base spell, however have their own addon on top of that. There's a reason why when you select a wizard spell Fireball it doesn't say "This is a wizard spell", it's because that's a added effect of the Wizard and doesn't alter the base spell.
And disclaimer, when I say D&D Beyond's stance on the matter, I mean that is how the website is coded. I do not speak for Adam Bradford or any other D&D Beyond employee.
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.
Any explanation of this topic needs to account for the reason that "your wizard spells" are specifically cast with intelligence, and not with any modifier of any spellcasting class for which that particular spell is on the list of. Why wouldn't the rules simply tell you that you can use any modifier you like for any spell, if that were the case?
See what I meant about those semantic worms?
CC's interpretation of "class spell" is in the minority within the community, but not directly countered (nor supported) by anything in the rules (grey area, all terms assumed to have the same meaning across all rules which 5e is notoriously inconsistent about).
The majority go with what has been confirmed by SAC and don't stretch it any further (black and white, it is only what it says no transferred meaning between separate features).
Another minority disagree with both of the above interpretations and the official SAC and say class spells are only what are learned by class features (even stricter, features don't even touch unless they say they touch, and "official rulings" are not "rules").
In the end, the only opinion that matters is the DM you are playing with (possibly yourself). I agree with SAC and not pushing any further, but I'm not going to argue semantics here.
I think that’s a fair summary.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The same phrase can mean different things in different contexts though. The rules can use "wizard spells" in the spell list sense when talking about your starting spells and also use it in the "spells you cast using your wizard spellcasting" sense when Overchannel says "When you cast a wizard spell..."
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Meaning different things in different contexts is fine when you're talking about definitions you can meaningfully distinguish based on context. It's confusing, and poor design, but you can get through it: in 5E, "action" means:
Context can tell me which of those action meanings (all of which have textual support in the PHB) I am referencing at any given point.
But meaning two things which are used in the same context and have exclusive meanings? Big problem, and not something I'm inclined to just accept absent any proof that I have to. "Wizard spells" can definitely mean "all spells on the Wizard Spell List," because it has to in order for the Wizard to be able to learn spells at all, and because the plain language of "Wizard Spell List" is "list of Wizard Spells." There's quotable RAW support for that. But then you suggest to me that it might also sometimes mean "none of the spells on the Wizard Spell List, except for those that you have learned from Wizard levels" or "spells that you have learned from Wizard levels but which have no ongoing connection to the Wizard spell list"? But, that it means that without there ever being a section in the PHB that describes or provides that meaning???? Uphill battle there, its honestly the more radical of the two propositions.
If there's a shred of support for "Wizard spells means something else, sometimes" you might point to Chapter 6, Multiclassing. First, the way that "wizard spells" and the like are used in the examples in this section appears like it could support your definition. Second, there's this gem:
We've gotten a new vocabulary term, "associated with one of your classes," which appears in this section and nowhere else in 5E. Does it say "your Wizard spells are those spells that are associated with your Wizard class"? No, though that's how everyone commonly reads it. Does it say "your spells that are associated with one of your classes no longer count as Class Spells of any other spell list that they are found on"? No, though that's how everyone commonly reads it. Does it say "the class that your spell is associated with is defined by how you came to know or prepare it"? No. Does it say "you cannot choose to associate a spell that you know and prepare with any one of your other classes for which it appears on that class' spell list," or that this association is set in stone? No.
Assumption, after assumption, after assumption. Chapter 6 does one thing and one thing only: "when you cast the spell" (i.e. at that discrete moment in time when it is being cast), a spell must be "associated with one of your classes" and "use the spellcasting ability of that class." That's it. We can come up with other reasonable inferences about when/how/why spells come to be associated with one (or more?) classes, but at the end of the day, all that Chapter 6 says is that you have to use a spellcasting modifier for your spells that one of your classes allows.
I'm not convinced that it's required, or very wise, to assume that Chapter 6 does anything more than that.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not denying it's needlessly ambiguous and confusing. But I also don't see a point in insisting that the word-of-god answer has to be wrong.
Surely "your wizard spells" are the ones you've learned?
The Forum Infestation (TM)