PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Shadowcraft Mages and Augemented Spell Lists



Keld Denar
2010-05-09, 10:30 AM
From a previous thread to prevent gumming up his thead.


Shadow Miracle is bunk because of the wording. Its on YOUR spell list, not THE sorcerer/wizard list, and the Shadow Illusion ability EXPLICITLY references THE sorcerer/wizard list and thus doesn't work. Why do people insist on propagting this? There are lots of ways to get a spell on YOUR spell list, that doesn't make them sorcerer/wizard spells. If you want to discuss this, start a new thread though.


Because it doesn't reference THE sorceror/wizard list. It references YOUR sorceror/wizard list.

Any spell legally added to your list is part of your list. If you legally add miracle (via domain), it's on your list. If you legally add all cleric spells to your list (Rainbow Servant 10) then all cleric spells are part of your list.

Lists aren't immutable, and inviolate as printed. They can grow, change, and evolve, just as the game can.

Now that both views have been presented, it can be left for individuals to decide, and further debate can be made in a new thread.

I look dimly on trying to essentially cheap shot a view as the officially correct one, and then refer all further debate on it elsewhere, so as to have an unopposed view in this thread. Both sides of the coin are now visible. People can interpret as they will.

For reference


Shadow Illusion (Su): Beginning at 3rd level, a shadowcraft mage is able to infuse some of his figments (see the list below) with material from the Plane of Shadow, making them partially real. The subschool of these spells changes from figment to shadow. A shadowcraft mage can use the altered spell to mimic any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell at least one level lower than the illusion spell. The altered spell functions identically to the shadow conjuration or shadow evocation spell, except that the spell's strength equals 10% per level of the figment spell used.
<snip>
A shadowcraft mage can apply shadow illusion to any of the following figment spells: silent image, minor image, major image, persistent image, and programmed image


Any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Period. Not cleric conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Not adept conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Not divine bard conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Not Rainbow Servant conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Not Wyrm Wizard conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Not "random-dude-with-Arcane-Disciple" conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell.

I understand that spell lists are mutable, for an individual. If you add a spell to your spell list, it grants you a certain amount of privelidge. You can use spell trigger items, prepare the spell in slots, or cast it spontaneously depending on your ability. It does NOT change the fact that they are not sorcerer/wizard spells. They are mearly non-sorcerer/wizard spells that you PERSONALLY are able to use.

Shadow Illusion doesn't reference the individual, though. It references the masses. If it really allowed ALL spells, then somewhere in the multiverse, there's a Rainbow Servant wizard who can scribe arcane scrollls of divine spells. Or an Arcane Disciple. Or a Wyrm Wizard, or someone who used the PHB rules for develping new spells to clone existing divine spells. Hell, you could take gain a domain and cast Domain Substitution (CChamp) to swap around your spells to any spell EVER printed at some point.

Its a slippery slope. If you can cast spells that aren't wizard/sorcerer spells off your own list, what stops you from casting wizard/sorcerer spells off Joe-the-wizard-standing-next-to-you's list? Or Bob-the-wizard-in-Sigil-who-knows-every-spell-period's list? Because it doesn't.

Spell lists were printed to stand independant of each other. A wizard spell is a wizard spell. A cleric spell is a cleric spell. A bard spell is a bard spell. A spell that isn't a sorcerer/wizard spell isn't a sorcerer/wizard spell. Ever. Even if a sorcerer or wizard can cast it. Otherwise EVER spell would be a sorcerer/wizard spell, because somewhere out there in the multiverse, there is a wizard or sorcerer who CAN cast it, and that would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of having spell lists.

The Glyphstone
2010-05-09, 10:34 AM
Just for completeness, shouldn't you include the text of Arcane Disciple?

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-09, 10:40 AM
Here, let me.


Benefit: Add the chosen domain's spells to your class list of arcane spells. If you have arcane spellcasting ability from more than one class, you must pick which arcane spellcasting ability this applies to. Once chosen, this decision cannot be changed for that feat.
You may learn these spells as normal for your class; however, you use Wisdom (rather than the normal ability for your spellcasting) when determining the save DC for the spell. In addition, you must have a Wisdom score equal to 10 + the spell's level in order to prepare or cast a spell gained from this feat.
Each day, you may prepare (or cast, if you cast spells without preparation) a maximum of one of these domain spells of each level.

Hmmmmmm.

The Shadow Magic description does not say a spell from THE Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. It says a Sorcerer/Wizard spell. When you take Arcane Disciple (Luck), Miracle becomes a Sorcerer/Wizard spell for you because it has been added to your arcane class spell list.

You seem to have this personal vendetta about this particular combo. It's really rather worrying. Yes, it's cheesy. No, that doesn't mean it doesn't work - plenty of cheesy combos work fine while being totally ludicrous.

Private-Prinny
2010-05-09, 11:17 AM
If the argument for use of Shadow Miracles is "But it's on your spell list," then logically, a Wizard who bans Evocation shouldn't be able to use Shadow Illusion to mimic Evocations, since banning a school removes it from your spell list for all intents and purposes.

marjan
2010-05-09, 11:22 AM
If the argument for use of Shadow Miracles is "But it's on your spell list," then logically, a Wizard who bans Evocation shouldn't be able to use Shadow Illusion to mimic Evocations, since banning a school removes it from your spell list for all intents and purposes.

That's different, by RAW. Specialization doesn't say anything about removing spells from your list, just that you cannot learn them, prepare them, or use spell-completion and spell-trigger items with such spells.



Spell lists were printed to stand independant of each other.

That would be general rule. Arcane Disciple is specific and specific trumps general.

Swok
2010-05-09, 11:24 AM
"Technically removed" is not the same as removed. They're there, just unavailable.

Private-Prinny
2010-05-09, 11:25 AM
At the very least, a Shadow Miracle should only be able to mimic Conjuration or Evocation spells. Shadow Heal would just be silly.

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-09, 11:30 AM
Heal is a Conjuration spell.

But assuming you meant giving it the same restrictions as Shadow Magic in general... why? Miracle is an Evocation spell. It can mimic any other spell. It's still an Evocation spell when it does this.

If you use Miracle to cast Orb of Acid (for some reason) when you have Spell Focus (Conjuration)? Nope, sorry, the DC doesn't get increased by 1, because it's an Evocation spell.

Also, school specialisation says nothing about altering your spell list - just that you can't prepare spells of your prohibited schools, or cast them from spell completion and spell trigger items.

Technically you can still cast them. Wish has a special rule that says you can't use it to duplicate prohibited spells of over 7th level (or over 5th if they're not on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list). Miracle has no such restriction...

Private-Prinny
2010-05-09, 11:34 AM
Heal is a Conjuration spell.

But assuming you meant giving it the same restrictions as Shadow Magic in general... why? Miracle is an Evocation spell. It can mimic any other spell. It's still an Evocation spell when it does this.

If you use Miracle to cast Orb of Acid (for some reason) when you have Spell Focus (Conjuration)? Nope, sorry, the DC doesn't get increased by 1, because it's an Evocation spell.

Heal is Conjuration (Healing). It's not the right subtype.

And if you, as a DM, think that you should be able to teleport vast distances by using an illusion, something that doesn't actually happen, then fine.

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-09, 11:37 AM
Heal is Conjuration (Healing). It's not the right subtype.

You just stipulated 'Conjuration'. :smallwink:


And if you, as a DM, think that you should be able to teleport vast distances by using an illusion, something that doesn't actually happen, then fine.

Um. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowWalk.htm)

Actually, Shadow subtype spells do happen. They are real effects - they take real matter from the Plane of Shadow to mimic other spells.

What does what I would or would not allow as a DM have to do with what the rules as written say?

The Glyphstone
2010-05-09, 11:59 AM
You just stipulated 'Conjuration'. :smallwink:



Um. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowWalk.htm)

Actually, Shadow subtype spells do happen. They are real effects - they take real matter from the Plane of Shadow to mimic other spells.

What does what I would or would not allow as a DM have to do with what the rules as written say?

Shadow Walk is a weird example, it always seemed to me that it should be in the same school as Teleport/Planeshift, since it involves planar travel.

A better citation, the actual definition of the Shadow subtype. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#shadow)

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-09, 12:06 PM
I just thought responding to "Illusion spells should not be able to teleport you vast distances" with an Illusion spell with the explicit purpose of teleporting you vast distances was hilarious.

Private-Prinny
2010-05-09, 12:11 PM
I just thought responding to "Illusion spells should not be able to teleport you vast distances" with an Illusion spell with the explicit purpose of teleporting you vast distances was hilarious.

Except that it's not. Highway speed =/= teleportation. Still, I should've used a better example.

Akal Saris
2010-05-09, 12:21 PM
And more to the point, most of the higher level slots for a SCM will be shadow spells with 100% or more reality. So if an illusion is 100% as effective as the real spell, for all purposes, it is the real spell? I don't know.

Regarding shadow miracles: I think they work for a sorcerer or wizard, though not a beguiler. It's not really a slippery slope because most rational people can distinguish the line between "it's a sorc/wiz spell for me" and "it's a sorc/wiz spell for some random hypothetical rainbow servant sorcerer." Most people anyhow.

That said, Miracle is already an exception to the general rules since it represents direct divine intercession. Any DM would be perfectly within her limits to say that you can't fully represent that kind of power with an illusion, even one at 120% hyper-reality.

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-09, 12:27 PM
That said, Miracle is already an exception to the general rules since it represents direct divine intercession. Any DM would be perfectly within her limits to say that you can't fully represent that kind of power with an illusion, even one at 120% hyper-reality.

Alternatively, considering you're an Arcane Disciple and actually have a patron god, it works just as well as a real Miracle?

Sure, the god can probably tell is an illusionary Miracle but do you think that would stop them from helping their Arcane Disciple? We're talking about the servant of a god who can cast ninth level spells here. The god is going to take notice.

olentu
2010-05-09, 02:11 PM
Allow me to pose a question. Where is the definition of what a sorcerer or wizard spell is. I could see several possible things that could work as evidenced by the differing viewpoints in this thread but I am asking what if any is the basis for the position put forth or if the various sides are just making up a definition and working off of that.

Private-Prinny
2010-05-09, 02:15 PM
Allow me to pose a question. Where is the definition of what a sorcerer or wizard spell is. I could see several possible things that could work as evidenced by the differing viewpoints in this thread but I am asking what if any is the basis for the position put forth or if the various sides are just making up a definition and working off of that.

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/sorcererWizardSpells.htm) is the accepted definition of Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. The problem is the vague definition of Arcane Disciple, which Yuki posted earlier.

olentu
2010-05-09, 02:17 PM
This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/sorcererWizardSpells.htm) is the accepted definition of Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. The problem is the vague definition of Arcane Disciple, which Yuki posted earlier.

I did not ask what the definition of the sorcerer/wizard spell list is I asked for the definition of what a sorcerer or wizard spell is.

Akal Saris
2010-05-09, 02:24 PM
Alternatively, considering you're an Arcane Disciple and actually have a patron god, it works just as well as a real Miracle?

Sure, the god can probably tell is an illusionary Miracle but do you think that would stop them from helping their Arcane Disciple? We're talking about the servant of a god who can cast ninth level spells here. The god is going to take notice.

Maybe the god wouldn't mind, especially since most deities with the Luck portfolio are pretty chill - odds are your SCM will be worshipping Baravar Cloakshadow, Dallah Thaun, or Tymora, if using standard deities. But there's any number of reasons why the god might mind - maybe she only grants miracles to a specific group of people like Mystra's Seven Sisters, or she simply doesn't have the power to grant miracles so often, or maybe it's just not possible to create a miracle from the Plane of Shadow. I mean, I understand your argument, but I think mine is just as valid for different reasons.

marjan
2010-05-09, 02:32 PM
... maybe it's just not possible to create a miracle from the Plane of Shadow...

According to RAW, it's possible. I'm not saying that you have to allow it in games, but that comes down to Rule 0.

Divide by Zero
2010-05-09, 02:37 PM
I did not ask what the definition of the sorcerer/wizard spell list is I asked for the definition of what a sorcerer or wizard spell is.

A sorcerer or wizard spell is any spell that appears on the sorcerer/wizard spell list.

Arcane Disciple adds spells to "your class spell list." Assuming your class is sorcerer or wizard, that would be the sorcerer spell list. It's only the list as far as you are concerned, but it's still the list.

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-09, 02:40 PM
I did not ask what the definition of the sorcerer/wizard spell list is I asked for the definition of what a sorcerer or wizard spell is.

The game does not specifically come out and say "a Sorcerer/Wizard spell is x" because, quite frankly, there is absolutely no need for the game to say that.

The Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is, surprisingly enough, the list of Sorcerer/Wizard spells. A Sorcerer/Wizard spell is a spell that is listed in the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.

If you somehow manage to add a spell onto your personal spell list, and you're a Sorcerer or Wizard, it is, for you, a Sorcerer/Wizard spell. Because it's on your personal Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.

If you're a Beguiler and you take Arcane Disciple, it's a Beguiler spell, so it won't work with Shadow Magic, which specifically says it duplicates Sorcerer or Wizard spells.

If someone else manages to get extra spells on his Sorcerer/Wizard spell list - such as, say, through Arcane Disciple, or Rainbow Servant's capstone class ability - they can treat it as a Sorcerer/Wizard spell, because it's on their spell list, but you can't. Because for you it's not a Sorcerer/Wizard spell.

You see?

olentu
2010-05-09, 02:47 PM
The game does not specifically come out and say "a Sorcerer/Wizard spell is x" because, quite frankly, there is absolutely no need for the game to say that.

The Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is, surprisingly enough, the list of Sorcerer/Wizard spells. A Sorcerer/Wizard spell is a spell that is listed in the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.

If you somehow manage to add a spell onto your personal spell list, and you're a Sorcerer or Wizard, it is, for you, a Sorcerer/Wizard spell. Because it's on your personal Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.

If you're a Beguiler and you take Arcane Disciple, it's a Beguiler spell, so it won't work with Shadow Magic, which specifically says it duplicates Sorcerer or Wizard spells.

Ah now see it obviously does since you believe that a spell on the personal list of a character with the sorcerer or wizard class works while on the other hand keld denar appears to believe that the spell must be on the general sorcerer/wizard spell list. Unless you are saying that you are not having a disagreement then the situation is not as clear as you say.

marjan
2010-05-09, 02:55 PM
Ah now see it obviously does since you believe that a spell on the personal list of a character with the sorcerer or wizard class works while on the other hand keld denar appears to believe that the spell must be on the general sorcerer/wizard spell list. Unless you are saying that you are not having a disagreement then the situation is not as clear as you say.

As far as I can tell, it's clear to people here that any spell on sorceror/wizard list is sorceror/wizard. They are not arguing that, they are arguing weather or not Arcane Disciple adds spells to sorceror/wizard list.

olentu
2010-05-09, 03:09 PM
As far as I can tell, it's clear to people here that any spell on sorceror/wizard list is sorceror/wizard. They are not arguing that, they are arguing weather or not Arcane Disciple adds spells to sorceror/wizard list.

I see it as this. A spellcaster has a personal list of spells. For keld denar just because a spell is on this list and you are a sorcerer or wizard the spell is not necessarily a sorcerer or wizard spell if it is not on the general sorcerer/wizard spell list. On the other hand yuki_akuma proposes if one is a sorcerer or wizard and a spell is one ones personal list then the spell is a sorcerer or wizard spell even if it is not on the general sorcerer/wizard spell list.

However I was given the definition of the general sorcerer/wizard spell list and at the moment I do not believe that anyone is arguing that arcane disciple adds the spells to that general list.

Pluto
2010-05-09, 03:22 PM
However I was given the definition of the general sorcerer/wizard spell list and at the moment I do not believe that anyone is arguing that arcane disciple adds the spells to that general list.
Kind of.

Arcane Disciple explicitly adds domain spells to the class [read:Sorcerer/Wizard] spell list, unlike other sources of spells known (eg. Fiend-Blooded) or spell list extensions (eg. Sandshaper).

olentu
2010-05-09, 03:33 PM
Kind of.

Arcane Disciple explicitly adds domain spells to the class [read:Sorcerer/Wizard] spell list, unlike other sources of spells known (eg. Fiend-Blooded) or spell list extensions (eg. Sandshaper).

So from your post I suppose you are championing the position that arcane disciple adds the spells to the general sorcerer/wizard spell list. Well if that is the case then it appears that the moment has changed with your arrival and that is a good thing as it presents more options for discussion.

The Glyphstone
2010-05-09, 03:37 PM
So from your post I suppose you are championing the position that arcane disciple adds the spells to the general sorcerer/wizard spell list. Well if that is the case then it appears that the moment has changed with your arrival and that is a good thing as it presents more options for discussion.

Or, he's positing that there are three categories, not two:
1) The general sorc/wiz spell list.
2) The personal sorc/wiz spell list, modified by Arcane Disciple.
2) The personal caster's spell list, which may be 1) or 2) with the addition of certain abilities such as Sandshaper, which is worded differently than Arcane Disciple - adding them to your spell list without adding them to your class list.

olentu
2010-05-09, 03:44 PM
Or, he's positing that there are three categories, not two:
1) The general sorc/wiz spell list.
2) The personal sorc/wiz spell list, modified by Arcane Disciple.
2) The personal caster's spell list, which may be 1) or 2) with the addition of certain abilities such as Sandshaper, which is worded differently than Arcane Disciple - adding them to your spell list without adding them to your class list.

I suppose but that brings up the question as to where exactly a personal sorcerer wizard spell list as opposed to the personal spell list of a sorcerer or wizard is defined to be a distinct entity.

Also since the quoted selection has me only talking about someone "arguing that arcane disciple adds the spells to that general list" I would assume that his post is talking about the general list rather then then some personal sorcerer/wizard list.

And of course all of this distracts from the question of where the definition of what a sorcerer or wizard spell is is.

Divide by Zero
2010-05-09, 03:58 PM
So from your post I suppose you are championing the position that arcane disciple adds the spells to the general sorcerer/wizard spell list. Well if that is the case then it appears that the moment has changed with your arrival and that is a good thing as it presents more options for discussion.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it adds to the general list - that is, you take Arcane Disciple and suddenly every wizard and sorcerer in the world has access to it. The only argument I see is whether "your class spell list" and "the Sor/Wiz spell list" are the same thing for purposes of Shadowcraft Mage.

olentu
2010-05-09, 04:01 PM
I don't think anyone is arguing that it adds to the general list - that is, you take Arcane Disciple and suddenly every wizard and sorcerer in the world has access to it. The only argument I see is whether "your class spell list" and "the Sor/Wiz spell list" are the same thing for purposes of Shadowcraft Mage.

I also did not believe that anyone was currently arguing that the feat adds to the general list but if the disagreement was not with that section but rather the previous part of my post then why quote a part that is not being disagreed with.

Pluto
2010-05-09, 05:02 PM
Also since the quoted selection has me only talking about someone "arguing that arcane disciple adds the spells to that general list" I would assume that his post is talking about the general list rather then then some personal sorcerer/wizard list.
I think there's a problem with semantics here.
"Personal spell list" and "General spell list" are not meaningful game terms.

I assumed that by the personal, you meant "spells available to a character" and that by general, you meant the class spell list. I've never seen anything to differentiate a particular character's Sorcerer/Wizard Spell list from the widely available Sorcerer/Wizard spells.

Shadow Evocation references "sorcerer or wizard spells," which are defined only by the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.

Recaster, Wyrm Wizard and Arcane Disciple explicitly augment class spell lists.

For a Sorcerer or Wizard, that means that the pool of "sorcerer or wizard spells" for Shadow Evocation expands with these feats or with levels in these classes.

For sanity's sake, we can -- and probably should -- treat the spells as if they existed in a 'personal list' or as mere expansions of spells available, but by the text, class spell lists themselves are altered by Arcane Disciple and its ilk, leaving me without a compelling case against the legality of Shadow Miracles.

(That isn't to say they should be allowed; it just shouldn't be the printed rules that nix them.)

olentu
2010-05-09, 06:09 PM
I think there's a problem with semantics here.
"Personal spell list" and "General spell list" are not meaningful game terms.

I assumed that by the personal, you meant "spells available to a character" and that by general, you meant the class spell list. I've never seen anything to differentiate a particular character's Sorcerer/Wizard Spell list from the widely available Sorcerer/Wizard spells.

Shadow Evocation references "sorcerer or wizard spells," which are defined only by the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.

Recaster, Wyrm Wizard and Arcane Disciple explicitly augment class spell lists.

For a Sorcerer or Wizard, that means that the pool of "sorcerer or wizard spells" for Shadow Evocation expands with these feats or with levels in these classes.

For sanity's sake, we can -- and probably should -- treat the spells as if they existed in a 'personal list' or as mere expansions of spells available, but by the text, class spell lists themselves are altered by Arcane Disciple and its ilk, leaving me without a compelling case against the legality of Shadow Miracles.

(That isn't to say they should be allowed; it just shouldn't be the printed rules that nix them.)

I was saying that there would be two lists the personal spell list of a character and the generally available to all sorcerers and wizards sorcerer/wizard spell list. I was also saying that previous to the post that you originally responded to I appeared to me that of the two sides of the discussion neither were arguing that arcane disciple adds spells to the generally available sorcerer/wizard spell list and that instead their disagreement was over whether the spells on the personal list of a sorcerer or a wizard counted as sorcerer or wizard spells.

I then after your response concluded that you also proposed that there were only two types of lists. First a characters personal spell list. Second the generally available sorcerer/wizard spell list. From that I concluded that you were saying that arcane disciple added to the generally available sorcerer/wizard spell list and thus you took the third position that previously had no advocates.

It was not until the_glyphstone presented the concept that the idea of some sort of personal sorcerer/wizard spell list (that is distinct from the generally available sorcerer/wizard spell list and the characters personal spell list though may contain some or all of the same spells) came up.

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-09, 06:16 PM
Well, Keld Denar did argue that allowing Shadowcraft Mages to treat Arcane Disciple spells as being on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list means that everyone can.

Which is absurd. But there you go, someone was arguing that.

olentu
2010-05-09, 06:46 PM
Well, Keld Denar did argue that allowing Shadowcraft Mages to treat Arcane Disciple spells as being on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list means that everyone can.

Which is absurd. But there you go, someone was arguing that.

He argued that shadowcraft mages can not cast a shadow miracle and so he must not have been arguing that arcane disciple adds the spells to the generally available sorcerer/wizard spell list since that would allow for shadow miracles. He may have used such an example of the problems that might be caused by something that he argues does not work but as he was arguing that it did not work he could not have been arguing that it works that way.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-05-10, 01:25 AM
For sanity's sake, we can -- and probably should -- treat the spells as if they existed in a 'personal list' or as mere expansions of spells available, but by the text, class spell lists themselves are altered by Arcane Disciple and its ilk, leaving me without a compelling case against the legality of Shadow Miracles.

(That isn't to say they should be allowed; it just shouldn't be the printed rules that nix them.)

The problem is not that the domain spells become part of the class list. The problem is shadowed spells are xp free.

If a shadow mage wizard wanted the destruction domain so he could say cast a shadowed implosion spell or the Fire domain for access to elemental swarm that really wouldn't be a major issue now would it?

Its those two elements taken together create the the problem.

Here is your compelling case. "I'm the dungeon master, I think its over powered and broken as is thus banned, their will be no xp free miracles."
It is not only a DM's right to ban things he feels are broken or to overpowered its part of his job.

JaronK
2010-05-10, 01:44 AM
I'm of the camp that it doesn't work, because there's a difference between "The Sorcerer/Wizard spell list" and "your spell list." Arcane Disciple doesn't turn a spell into a Sorcerer or Wizard spell... if it did, every other Sorcerer or Wizard out there could suddenly gain use of the spell, as it's now a Sorcerer or Wizard spell. It instead adds the spells to your spell list.

I think there's a clear definition of Wizard/Sorcerer spells, namely any spell that has "Wizard/Sorcerer" in the entry for what type of spell it is, or something similar. Arcane Disciple doesn't change this, it just gives you more spells on your own personal list of available spells.

Whether it's overpowered or not is irrelevant. Whether it should be banned or not is irrelevant. Those are personal decisions all DMs make independently. I think Monks are overpowered and thus banned in my game... the one I'm running where everyone has to be a Commoner. In another game I've run, any T3 or below gestalt is fair game, and in a third Loredrake Kobolds are perfectly fine. Whether it's RAW is the question here.

JaronK

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-10, 01:57 AM
From a previous thread to prevent gumming up his thead.

For reference


Any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Period. Not cleric conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Not adept conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Not divine bard conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Not Rainbow Servant conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Not Wyrm Wizard conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell. Not "random-dude-with-Arcane-Disciple" conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell.

I understand that spell lists are mutable, for an individual. If you add a spell to your spell list, it grants you a certain amount of privelidge. You can use spell trigger items, prepare the spell in slots, or cast it spontaneously depending on your ability. It does NOT change the fact that they are not sorcerer/wizard spells. They are mearly non-sorcerer/wizard spells that you PERSONALLY are able to use.

Shadow Illusion doesn't reference the individual, though. It references the masses. If it really allowed ALL spells, then somewhere in the multiverse, there's a Rainbow Servant wizard who can scribe arcane scrollls of divine spells. Or an Arcane Disciple. Or a Wyrm Wizard, or someone who used the PHB rules for develping new spells to clone existing divine spells. Hell, you could take gain a domain and cast Domain Substitution (CChamp) to swap around your spells to any spell EVER printed at some point.
It does not reference the masses. It does not reference "any spell from the sorceror/wizard spell list". It references "any sorcerer or wizard conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell at least one level lower than the illusion spell."

What is a sorceror or wizard spell? Well, if it's added to your sorceror/wizard spell list and it's cast from your sorceror/wizard spell slots? It's a sorceror/wizard spell when you cast it.

On a side note: Rainbow Servant doesn't have a spell list. It explicitly adds "all cleric spells" to "your class list". If "your class list" is "sorceror" or "wizard", then "all cleric spells" are "sorceror/wizard" spells, when you cast them.

To show the difference? You can't use a Divine miracle scroll. In order to use a scroll of miracle, it must be arcane.

Same with Arcane Disciple. They are Arcane spells, cast from sorceror/wizard spell slots, using all level-dependent variables from your sorceror/wizard class, and on your sorceror/wizard spell list.

What more do you need? What does it take to qualify? "printed in a WotC published sourcebook as a class spell for X class" doesn't cut it. "printed in a WotC source" doesn't exist in a game world.


Its a slippery slope. If you can cast spells that aren't wizard/sorcerer spells off your own list, what stops you from casting wizard/sorcerer spells off Joe-the-wizard-standing-next-to-you's list? Or Bob-the-wizard-in-Sigil-who-knows-every-spell-period's list? Because it doesn't.

Spell lists were printed to stand independant of each other. A wizard spell is a wizard spell. A cleric spell is a cleric spell. A bard spell is a bard spell. A spell that isn't a sorcerer/wizard spell isn't a sorcerer/wizard spell. Ever. Even if a sorcerer or wizard can cast it. Otherwise EVER spell would be a sorcerer/wizard spell, because somewhere out there in the multiverse, there is a wizard or sorcerer who CAN cast it, and that would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of having spell lists.

Except when a cleric spell is added to a wizard's wizard spell list, by feat or class feature that explicitly states that it does this. Every spell isn't a sorceror/wizard spell. What some guy somewhere else can do is irrelevant. When you're referencing what is a sorceror/wizard spell for effects that you cast and you generate, you determine that by what is castable BY YOU as a sorceror/wizard spell.

It's not a slippery slope. It's taking the rule effects, and applying them in a proper and reasonable fashion.

Charges have to be in a straight line. Your argument makes as much sense as saying that everyone can make 90 degree turns when they charge because one person has the feat that allows it. No. You get the benefit of your feats. That's all. You don't get the benefit of feats that other people have.


I'm of the camp that it doesn't work, because there's a difference between "The Sorcerer/Wizard spell list" and "your spell list." Arcane Disciple doesn't turn a spell into a Sorcerer or Wizard spell... if it did, every other Sorcerer or Wizard out there could suddenly gain use of the spell, as it's now a Sorcerer or Wizard spell. It instead adds the spells to your spell list.


Spells: A wizard casts arcane spells (the
same type of spells available to sorcerers and bards), which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192). A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).
Premise 1: "Your Spell list" = "the sorceror/wizard spell list"
Support:

For a spell to qualify as a wizard spell, it must meet both of the qualifications below:
1) It must be an arcane spell
2) It must be drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list.

Logical Conclusion: Abilities which add spells to "your spell list" for you and you only, add spells to "the sorceror/wizard spell list" for you and you only.

Reasoning? If it's not on the sorceror/wizard spell list for you, then you cannot cast it, per the PHB text on wizard casting.

olentu
2010-05-10, 02:05 AM
I am still waiting on that selection of text that actually says what a sorcerer or wizard spell is.

senrath
2010-05-10, 02:19 AM
I am still waiting on that selection of text that actually says what a sorcerer or wizard spell is.

Keep waiting, then. There isn't one.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-10, 02:23 AM
I am still waiting on that selection of text that actually says what a sorcerer or wizard spell is.

There is no definition for it. There is absolutely nothing to suggest any of the following:

1) "your spell list" is not "the spell list granted by virtue of your class"

2) "sorceror/wizard spell" is anything other than "spells cast from spell slots given you by the sorceror or wizard spellcasting class feature

Both of the above need to have support for the argument that SCM cannot use spells added to your sorceror or wizard spell list by feats or class abilities to hold any weight.

Because if your spell list IS the spell list granted by virtue of your class, and feats explicitly add to it, then they've expanded upon your class features. No more, no less.

olentu
2010-05-10, 02:31 AM
There is no definition for it. There is absolutely nothing to suggest any of the following:

1) "your spell list" is not "the spell list granted by virtue of your class"

2) "sorceror/wizard spell" is anything other than "spells cast from spell slots given you by the sorceror or wizard spellcasting class feature"

Both of the above need to have support for the argument that SCM cannot use spells added to your sorceror or wizard spell list by feats or class abilities to hold any weight.

If it is not defined then it is wrong to say that any position that is based upon such a thing having a specific definition is correct.

Please note that in this thread I do not support either position being said to be correct since both positions depend on making up a definition.

Aharon
2010-05-10, 03:52 AM
A question for the supporters of SCM miracle:
I haven't really understood why you would argue there are spells that aren't on the sor/wiz list. Some poster mentioned this would be a slippery slope, but if adding a spell to you list makes it a sor/wiz spell for purpose of shadow illusion, why isn't it a sor/wiz spell for all shadowcraft mages. It appears on the sor/wiz spell list of some random person, so it is a sor/wiz spell. I don't see how this argument is wrong if you assume arcane disciple adds to the sor/wiz list in the first place.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-10, 04:10 AM
If it is not defined then it is wrong to say that any position that is based upon such a thing having a specific definition is correct.

Please note that in this thread I do not support either position being said to be correct since both positions depend on making up a definition.

Not true. It is wrong to say that any position is INCORRECT, when it depends upon interpretation.

If it is possible for RAW to legally interpret to validate a view, then it is a valid interpretation. It may or may not be the ONLY valid interpretation, true.

But this whole thing started from someone saying "shadowcraft mage does not and cannot work that way, according to the rules". That is the point I'm disputing, Olentu.

It's a matter of interpretation. As such, saying that it is unconditionally incorrect (which was stated) is the equivalent of stating that RAW directly contradicts this and renders it unable to function.

And that position has nothing to support it.

I'm not saying that the other camp is wrong. I'm stating that it depends upon unsupported interpretations, and as such, cannot invalidate other interpretations. It cannot be seen as the one and only correct way.

Koury
2010-05-10, 04:12 AM
A question for the supporters of SCM miracle:
I haven't really understood why you would argue there are spells that aren't on the sor/wiz list. Some poster mentioned this would be a slippery slope, but if adding a spell to you list makes it a sor/wiz spell for purpose of shadow illusion, why isn't it a sor/wiz spell for all shadowcraft mages. It appears on the sor/wiz spell list of some random person, so it is a sor/wiz spell. I don't see how this argument is wrong if you assume arcane disciple adds to the sor/wiz list in the first place.

I am a Wizard. I independantly research a new Wizard spell. I can cast this spell now, it is on my spell list and is a Wizard spell. Can someone else, someone capable of casting every Wizard spell, now cast this spell?

No. Not unless I share it with them, or they research it themselves1.

Could a Shadowcraft Mage cast this spell via Shadow Illusion? If they were the one who researched it, and it otherwise qualifies2, yes. It is added to their spell list (and only theirs).

So, Arcane Disciple, which adds the domain spells to the characters list3 (and only that character, as they are the one with the feat), allows a Shadowcraft Mage to cast those domain spells via Shadow Illusion, assuming they otherwise qualify.

Got Miracle added to your class list of spells? Is it a Summoning, Creation or Evocation spell? Well then, it is possible to cast it via Shadow Illusion.

1
Only the creator of such a spell can
prepare and cast it, unless he decides to share it with others.
2 Meaning "conjuration (summoning), conjuration (creation), or evocation spell at least one level lower than the illusion spell." Races of Stone, pg 122.
3

Benefit: Add the chosen domain's spells to your class list of arcane spells.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-10, 04:13 AM
A question for the supporters of SCM miracle:
I haven't really understood why you would argue there are spells that aren't on the sor/wiz list. Some poster mentioned this would be a slippery slope, but if adding a spell to you list makes it a sor/wiz spell for purpose of shadow illusion, why isn't it a sor/wiz spell for all shadowcraft mages. It appears on the sor/wiz spell list of some random person, so it is a sor/wiz spell. I don't see how this argument is wrong if you assume arcane disciple adds to the sor/wiz list in the first place.

Because it's a sorceror/wizard spell for YOU. Arcane Disciple, Rainbow Servant, and the like give a character extra options, not all characters extra options.

The interpretation you use is like saying all fighters can subtract from their bonus to hit and add to their damage just because one fighter has Power Attack.

If you don't have the feats/classes/rules text making it a spell on your class list, it's not a class spell for you. Extra options apply only to the possessors of those options.

In other words? The "Sorceror/Wizard spell list" is not a universal lexicon of all spells ever altered or created for Sorcerors and wizards. It's an individual list for each caster, comprised of all the base printed spells, plus additional options that he possesses and created spells.

You're referring to "the sorceror/wizard spell list" like Player's handbooks exist in the game world. Nothing states that it's a static, universal list. In fact, the wording of the sorceror's casting ability suggests that a sorceror's spell list can be unique to a sorceror, comprised of spells not on the standard sorceror/wizard spell list. This points to a personalized, dynamic spell list, rather than a universal one. And in that case, what is a sorceror/wizard spell for one caster is not necessarily a sorceror/wizard spell for all casters.

olentu
2010-05-10, 04:21 AM
Not true. It is wrong to say that any position is INCORRECT, when it depends upon interpretation.

If it is possible for RAW to legally interpret to validate a view, then it is a valid interpretation. It may or may not be the ONLY valid interpretation, true.

But this whole thing started from someone saying "shadowcraft mage does not and cannot work that way, according to the rules". That is the point I'm disputing, Olentu.

It's a matter of interpretation. As such, saying that it is unconditionally incorrect (which was stated) is the equivalent of stating that RAW directly contradicts this and renders it unable to function.

And that position has nothing to support it.

I'm not saying that the other camp is wrong. I'm stating that it depends upon unsupported interpretations, and as such, cannot invalidate other interpretations. It cannot be seen as the one and only correct way.

It is in this case wrong to say that any position is correct. I am taking the position that it does not work to be a statement that it is correct that it does not work. I only used correct since both sides seem to be saying that their position is correct.

It is fine that you are debating the point that it can not work as proposed in the opening post however I take exception to the way in which it seemed to me that you were doing so. It seemed to me that you are also presenting your argument that it works in the way you say as correct and that I find just as bad as the argument that you are trying to counter.

However since you are as you say not actually arguing that the trick works or does not work but that it does not necessarily not work then I do find that much more acceptable. However I did not get that position at all. It really seemed to me that you were putting forth a position as correct.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-10, 04:31 AM
It is in this case wrong to say that any position is correct. I am taking the position that it does not work to be a statement that it is correct that it does not work. I only used correct since both sides seem to be saying that their position is correct.

It is fine that you are debating the point that it can not work as proposed in the opening post however I take exception to the way in which it seemed to me that you were doing so. It seemed to me that you are also presenting your argument that it works in the way you say as correct and that I find just as bad as the argument that you are trying to counter.

However since you are as you say not actually arguing that the trick works or does not work but that it does not necessarily not work then I do find that much more acceptable. However I did not get that position at all. It really seemed to me that you were putting forth a position as correct.

Wrong. I am saying that the trick works. I am also saying that it does not work. Both are true, and saying that one or the other is not valid RAW is what's invalid.

One or the other will be true, for all games with a consistent DM. It depends on the game and the DM in question. It is not houserule to allow or disallow it. It's a matter of interpretation. A DM can say it works by the rules, or it does not work by the rules, and either way, he's correct, because he's the interpreter, and he's free to choose between valid interpretations.

It's wrong to say "no matter what game you're in, it's wrong if you say it works".

It's not wrong to say that it works. Because it does work for certain interpretations.

It's wrong to say that it must work, and that any other interpretation is Rule 0. Because it is not.

It's wrong to exclude valid options when there are multiple valid interpretations. It's not wrong to include them.

If you take exception to that, well, sorry for you. It won't change the view, and there's no need to try to explain my view (incorrectly) back to me.

Why? Because I WAS putting forth a view as correct. I did not, at any time, exclude another view as incorrect. In RAW land, it is akin to Schroedinger's Rule. Until you open the game to see what's inside, both answers are correct, and any attempt to say that one is flat out incorrect is the only wrong answer.

olentu
2010-05-10, 05:14 AM
Wrong. I am saying that the trick works. I am also saying that it does not work. Both are true, and saying that one or the other is not valid RAW is what's invalid.

One or the other will be true, for all games with a consistent DM. It depends on the game and the DM in question. It is not houserule to allow or disallow it. It's a matter of interpretation. A DM can say it works by the rules, or it does not work by the rules, and either way, he's correct, because he's the interpreter, and he's free to choose between valid interpretations.

It's wrong to say "no matter what game you're in, it's wrong if you say it works".

It's not wrong to say that it works. Because it does work for certain interpretations.

It's wrong to say that it must work, and that any other interpretation is Rule 0. Because it is not.

It's wrong to exclude valid options when there are multiple valid interpretations. It's not wrong to include them.

If you take exception to that, well, sorry for you. It won't change the view, and there's no need to try to explain my view (incorrectly) back to me.

Ok so you are actually saying both.

In fact it is possible that the workings are undefined in a campaign.

Well I suppose I would be saying that saying anything definite about it's viability is not correct except when taking into account DM fiat. But then again DM fiat is not to be considered in a discussion about the RAW.

However if you wish to know what it is that I took exception to consider this.


What is a sorceror or wizard spell? Well, if it's added to your sorceror/wizard spell list and it's cast from your sorceror/wizard spell slots? It's a sorceror/wizard spell when you cast it.

On a side note: Rainbow Servant doesn't have a spell list. It explicitly adds "all cleric spells" to "your class list". If "your class list" is "sorceror" or "wizard", then "all cleric spells" are "sorceror/wizard" spells, when you cast them.

A definite statement on how the interaction works.


To show the difference? You can't use a Divine miracle scroll. In order to use a scroll of miracle, it must be arcane.

Same with Arcane Disciple. They are Arcane spells, cast from sorceror/wizard spell slots, using all level-dependent variables from your sorceror/wizard class, and on your sorceror/wizard spell list.

What more do you need? What does it take to qualify? "printed in a WotC published sourcebook as a class spell for X class" doesn't cut it. "printed in a WotC source" doesn't exist in a game world.

This is better taken by itself but in light of the previous position it does imply you support the definite position that it works.



Except when a cleric spell is added to a wizard's wizard spell list, by feat or class feature that explicitly states that it does this. Every spell isn't a sorceror/wizard spell. What some guy somewhere else can do is irrelevant. When you're referencing what is a sorceror/wizard spell for effects that you cast and you generate, you determine that by what is castable BY YOU as a sorceror/wizard spell.

It's not a slippery slope. It's taking the rule effects, and applying them in a proper and reasonable fashion.

Charges have to be in a straight line. Your argument makes as much sense as saying that everyone can make 90 degree turns when they charge because one person has the feat that allows it. No. You get the benefit of your feats. That's all. You don't get the benefit of feats that other people have.

This is addressing a different point and so does not apply.





Premise 1: "Your Spell list" = "the sorceror/wizard spell list"
Support:

For a spell to qualify as a wizard spell, it must meet both of the qualifications below:
1) It must be an arcane spell
2) It must be drawn from the sorceror/wizard spell list.

Logical Conclusion: Abilities which add spells to "your spell list" for you and you only, add spells to "the sorceror/wizard spell list" for you and you only.

Reasoning? If it's not on the sorceror/wizard spell list for you, then you cannot cast it, per the PHB text on wizard casting.

And an argument that attempts to show that a definition is correct.

So I interpret this post as you saying a position is correct and because I can not in good faith say that I could interpret it differently that I where I could only conclude that you were advocating that one position is correct.

Then due to the fact that if this position is correct then the position that the trick does not work can not also be correct to believe you are also advocating that the other position is correct would require that I assume that you were making an inconsistent argument. I generally choose to make the base assumption that people are not making inconsistent arguments unless they actually show evidence that they are doing so.


But I suppose if you are saying that whenever you do, have, or will ever make a statement about the rules you also are giving equal weight of truth to the contradictory statement at the same time then I can now understand why you might wonder what my problem was.

However I would ask you to understand how I could be confused due to my base assumption of consistency in arguments.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-10, 05:43 AM
Ok so you are actually saying both.Correct. I'm saying that neither view is incorrect, and that any view that states one or the other is? Is incorrect.

In fact it is possible that the workings are undefined in a campaign.I refer to this subset of games as "irrelevant to the discussion". If the issue does not come up, then the issue is not dealt with.

I would also humbly request in the future that [/splithairs] be used early in your post.


Well I suppose I would be saying that saying anything definite about it's viability is not correct except when taking into account DM fiat. But then again DM fiat is not to be considered in a discussion about the RAW.
I would say that is incorrect. If you replaced "definite" with "universal", I would agree.


However if you wish to know what it is that I took exception to consider this.

A definite statement on how the interaction works.A definite statement on an interpretation of the interaction, yes.

This is better taken by itself but in light of the previous position it does imply you support the definite position that it works.No, it implies that I support the position as a valid interpretation, and under that interpretation, it works. I do not support, and did not say, that it was the ONLY valid interpretation, and that all other interpretations were incorrect. There is no text implying the exclusion of other possible interpretations.

And an argument that attempts to show that a definition is correct.Which is absolutely fine, considering I support the view as a valid interpretation.

You misunderstood my argument. It was not "I am right and all others must therefore be wrong". It was "the OP comment that it does not work is not necessarily true, and is necessarily false when applied universally to all games which follow a valid interpretation of the rules on the subject."

It's fine to misunderstand me. But when you attempt to correct me based on that misunderstanding, don't be surprised when I correct your interpretation of my statements.


So I interpret this post as you saying a position is correct and because I can not in good faith say that I could interpret it differently that I where I could only conclude that you were advocating that one position is correct.I was advocating that one position was correct. That is true.


Then due to the fact that if this position is correct then the position that the trick does not work can not also be correct to believe you are also advocating that the other position is correct would require that I assume that you were making an inconsistent argument.
And here's where your logic breaks. My argument wasn't that "X is universally correct".

It was "in order to disprove the OP, I must present a valid interpretation which contradicts his statement".

I never stated that my interpretation was the only valid one, or that it should universally apply to all games.


I generally choose to make the base assumption that people are not making inconsistent arguments unless they actually show evidence that they are doing so.And my argument is not inconsistent. Yours is merely based on a flawed understanding of it.


But I suppose if you are saying that whenever you do, have, or will ever make a statement about the rules you also are giving equal weight of truth to the contradictory statement at the same time then I can now understand why you might wonder what my problem was.Once again with the putting of the words in my mouth. The only statement I have opposed at any point in this conversation was "I don't see why people cling to this interpretation because it does not work this way and they are wrong". I have attempted to disprove that. It must necessarily follow that I posit arguments that disprove it. If I do not also state "this is only one valid interpretation, and other interpretations are also valid", then is that to mean that I must automatically believe it false?

No. You assume. Absence of a statement is not a statement of absence. You make that assumption. It is incorrect.


However I would ask you to understand how I could be confused due to my base assumption of consistency in arguments.I do understand how you could draw false conclusions based on false assumptions. Now that it's been clarified twice, can we please move on now?

olentu
2010-05-10, 05:50 AM
Correct. I'm saying that neither view is incorrect, and that any view that states one or the other is? Is incorrect.
I refer to this subset of games as "irrelevant to the discussion". If the issue does not come up, then the issue is not dealt with.

I would also humbly request in the future that [/splithairs] be used early in your post.

I would say that is incorrect. If you replaced "definite" with "universal", I would agree.

A definite statement on an interpretation of the interaction, yes.
No, it implies that I support the position as a valid interpretation, and under that interpretation, it works. I do not support, and did not say, that it was the ONLY valid interpretation, and that all other interpretations were incorrect. There is no text implying the exclusion of other possible interpretations.
Which is absolutely fine, considering I support the view as a valid interpretation.

You misunderstood my argument. It was not "I am right and all others must therefore be wrong". It was "the OP comment that it does not work is not necessarily true, and is necessarily false when applied universally to all games which follow a valid interpretation of the rules on the subject."

It's fine to misunderstand me. But when you attempt to correct me based on that misunderstanding, don't be surprised when I correct your interpretation of my statements.

I was advocating that one position was correct. That is true.

And here's where your logic breaks. My argument wasn't that "X is universally correct".

It was "in order to disprove the OP, I must present a valid interpretation which contradicts his statement".

I never stated that my interpretation was the only valid one, or that it should universally apply to all games.

And my argument is not inconsistent. Yours is merely based on a flawed understanding of it.

Once again with the putting of the words in my mouth. The only statement I have opposed at any point in this conversation was "I don't see why people cling to this interpretation because it does not work this way and they are wrong". I have attempted to disprove that. It must necessarily follow that I posit arguments that disprove it. If I do not also state "this is only one valid interpretation, and other interpretations are also valid", then is that to mean that I must automatically believe it false?

No. You assume. Absence of a statement is not a statement of absence. You make that assumption. It is incorrect.
I do understand how you could draw false conclusions based on false assumptions. Now that it's been clarified twice, can we please move on now?

Is not a set of beliefs where in all of them can not be true at the same time inconsistent. You said that "I am saying that the trick works. I am also saying that it does not work." and both of these can not be true because one precludes the other.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-10, 06:18 AM
Is not a set of beliefs where in all of them can not be true at the same time inconsistent. You said that "I am saying that the trick works. I am also saying that it does not work." and both of these can not be true because one precludes the other.
Wrong.

Two games.
In one game, it works (uses the interpretation I presented for how it can work).
In another game, it does not work (uses the belief structure posed by JaronK).

Both are true, depending on what game you look at.

Now imagine thousands of games, some of which support shadow miracles, and some of which oppose it. And any of them based on either interpretation is a correct interpretation of the rules.

For more information, please visit this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger%27s_cat).

When the truth or falsehood depends on two equally applicable likelihood, and an unknown variable, the logical assumption is that both are equally true, until such time as the variable is observed, and proves one false.

It's a logical line of reasoning used often in classic logic puzzles, such as Sudoku, wherein the goal is to determine all the unknown variables, and define the truth of the puzzle.

My statement is that Both are true, yes. Even though they are mutually exclusive. Why?

Because if two different DMs in two different games come together, and one says "it works, for reason x" and another states "it doesn't work, for reason y", both are correct. They are merely using a different determining variable.

Both are true; both are false. Neither are universally so.

EDIT: Take the formula X=Y.
I can say Y=7, and I'm right... provided X=7 also.
I can say Y=6, and I'm right... provided X=6 also.

The wrong answer would be to state that Y cannot equal 7. Because it can.

Take Y=(X*X)
I can say that Y = 4. And it's true, when X=2.
I can say that Y=9. and it's true, when X=3.

What is wrong is when I say that Y cannot be a specific number. I speak of possibilities, and you assumed I spoke of certainties.

There is consistency in reasoning. That you didn't grasp that doesn't change the fact.

Now... Please... PLEASE... can we get back to something that is actually RELEVANT?

marjan
2010-05-10, 12:13 PM
Let's mix logic with the rules:

1. Arcane Disciple says it adds spells to Your class spell list.
2. If you are wizard then your class = Wizard.
3. 1 & 2 => (Your class spell list <=> Wizard spell list)
4. So Arcane Disciple adds spells to Wizard spell list
5. Wizard spell list <=> List of wizard spells
6. This means that any spell that appears on Wizard spell list is wizard spell
7. Shadow Illusion lets you mimic any wizard evocation spell.

Conclusion: Miracle is evocation spell that is treated as wizard spell due to Arcane Disciple(Luck) and is valid spell for mimicking through shadow illusion.

The only thing here that is not RAW here is number 5. Maybe someone with better knowledge of English language can prove no5 to be wrong, but I don't see that to be case.

Frosty
2010-05-10, 12:34 PM
Let me ask a simpler but similar question.

Assume that gnome wizard X researched and develops a new arcane spell called X's YZ thru independent research. He prepares and casts said spell in his wizard spell slots. After he has finished leveling in Shadowcraft Mage, can he uses his illusions to mimic X's YZ?

X' YZ can be taught to any other wizard with sufficient spellcraft, should other wizards obtain a copy of the scroll.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-10, 12:36 PM
Let me ask a simpler but similar question.

Assume that gnome wizard X researched and develops a new arcane spell called X's YZ thru independent research. He prepares and casts said spell in his wizard spell slots. After he has finished leveling in Shadowcraft Mage, can he uses his illusions to mimic X's YZ?

X' YZ can be taught to any other wizard with sufficient spellcraft, should other wizards obtain a copy of the scroll.

Absolutely. It's a spell added to a wizard's existing repertoire by legal and valid rule effects.

Frosty
2010-05-10, 12:40 PM
Absolutely. It's a spell added to a wizard's existing repertoire by legal and valid rule effects.

Now the question is, can any other Shadowcraft mage, without prior knowledge of the spell, use illusions to mimic X's YZ?

And, would it be reasonable for a DM to say that before a SCM can replicate the effects of a spell, the SCM must at least have a decent understanding of the magical theories or a very detailed understandings of the effects behind a spell? So that if SCM Bob has never ever heard of X's YZ or perhaps only heard it in passing and doesn't really know what it does, he can't imitate it with illusions?

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-10, 12:56 PM
Now the question is, can any other Shadowcraft mage, without prior knowledge of the spell, use illusions to mimic X's YZ?

And, would it be reasonable for a DM to say that before a SCM can replicate the effects of a spell, the SCM must at least have a decent understanding of the magical theories or a very detailed understandings of the effects behind a spell? So that if SCM Bob has never ever heard of X's YZ or perhaps only heard it in passing and doesn't really know what it does, he can't imitate it with illusions?

In this instance, yes. Because the spell was also added to the sorceror/wizard class list when it was developed. The only thing the caster must know is the spell to be duplicated, or what its effects are.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-05-10, 01:32 PM
I'm of the camp that it doesn't work, because there's a difference between "The Sorcerer/Wizard spell list" and "your spell list."

Except that the feat Arcane Disciple
"Add the chosen domain's spells to your class list of arcane spells" its specifically says its added to the class list. So for whom ever takes the feat they become part of the class list. The spells themselves are not added to your spell list, your simply eligible to learn them, either by writing them into your book or by using one of your spells known.

Aharon here's the deal, shadow spells have no xp or material components.
A shadowed miracle would thus cost NO xp. That is the real issue.

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-10, 01:34 PM
Except that the feat Arcane Disciple
"Add the chosen domain's spells to your class list of arcane spells" its specifically says its added to the class list. So for whom ever takes the feat they become part of the class list. The spells themselves are not added to your spell list, your simply eligible to learn them, either by writing them into your book or by using one of your spells known.

Aharon here's the deal, shadow spells have no xp or material components.
A shadowed miracle would thus cost NO xp. That is the real issue.

Miracle doesn't cost XP anyway, unless you try to go beyond the bounds of the spell.

JaronK
2010-05-10, 01:45 PM
Except that the feat Arcane Disciple
"Add the chosen domain's spells to your class list of arcane spells" its specifically says its added to the class list.

Your class list is the list of spells you can use. It does not add to the general Wizard/Sorcerer list, because if it did then every Wizard and Sorcerer in the world would have access immediately (remember, all Wizards and Sorcerers can pick any spell off the Wizard/Sorcerer list). Likewise, researching spells doesn't add them to the general list either. Just your list. But your list is now not the general Wizard/Sorcerer list. It's your special list, unique to you, and no other Wizard/Sorcerers get to use it.


Aharon here's the deal, shadow spells have no xp or material components.
A shadowed miracle would thus cost NO xp. That is the real issue.

Yes, I know. That part is RAW and straight forward. There are plenty of nasty spells out there you can shadow (Genesis and True Creation probably being the nastiest, though Major Creation gets a nod since you can instant kill any enemy who's not immune to poison). I'm not considering balance right now... DMs can nerf whatever they see fit, after all. I'm considering what the rules seem to say.

But what Aharon is saying (and I agree with him) is that if you claim Arcane Disciple makes a spell actually a Wizard/Sorcerer spell, then that means every other Wizard/Sorcerer gets it and all SCMs can cast it, even if they don't have the feat (because someone else does).

JaronK

Lord Vukodlak
2010-05-10, 01:46 PM
But its those xp effects that are really damaging, the three examples it gives are quite potent.

Miracle could be used to grant an inherent bonus onto someones stats. It is after all a used by divine casters to make say a manual of gainful exercise or any other stat boosting tome.
So its reasonable the spell alone could do it.

Granting an inherent bonus certainly sounds less powerful then Protecting a city from an earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, or other major natural disaster.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-10, 01:49 PM
Except that the feat Arcane Disciple
"Add the chosen domain's spells to your class list of arcane spells" its specifically says its added to the class list. So for whom ever takes the feat they become part of the class list. The spells themselves are not added to your spell list, your simply eligible to learn them, either by writing them into your book or by using one of your spells known.

Aharon here's the deal, shadow spells have no xp or material components.
A shadowed miracle would thus cost NO xp. That is the real issue.
Exactly! The real issue is that you believe it's unbalanced. You use that belief as your starting point, and then seek to justify that RAW does not allow that.

The problem is? What you just said has no basis in RAW. It's a justification, based on an admitted bias. How can we trust your impartiality when you went into the debate with a bias?

There is no RAW distinction between your class list and your spell list. That's a distinction you create to justify your point. Whereas, the view that a spell added to a wizard's spell list for their wizard class is a wizard spell for you? Is equally supported.

Both are correct, and saying that one cannot work is the only interpretation that's flawed.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-05-10, 02:02 PM
Your class list is the list of spells you can use. It does not add to the general Wizard/Sorcerer list, because if it did then every Wizard and Sorcerer in the world would have access immediately (remember, all Wizards and Sorcerers can pick any spell off the Wizard/Sorcerer list). Likewise, researching spells doesn't add them to the general list either. Just your list. But your list is now not the general Wizard/Sorcerer list. It's your special list, unique to you, and no other Wizard/Sorcerers get to use it.

But what Aharon is saying (and I agree with him) is that if you claim Arcane Disciple makes a spell actually a Wizard/Sorcerer spell, then that means every other Wizard/Sorcerer gets it and all SCMs can cast it, even if they don't have the feat (because someone else does).

JaronK

No it wouldn't because its only a sorcerer/wizard spell for the one possessing the feat. For a comparison

Incendiary Cloud is not a clerical spell. Normally a cleric using miracle can not duplicate it. Not without expending xp for a very powerful miracle anyway.(it being 8th level) However for a cleric with the fire domain it is a clerical spell and thus can be duplicated with miracle.

A wizard who researches an original spell should certainly be able to shadow evocation/conjuration his own creation. I don't think its reasonable to say that pre-printed wizard/sorcerer spells are on the list but original research is not. That just sounds ridiculous. Now its certainly reasonable that the shadowmage must be aware of the spell to duplicate it. Either researching it himself or seeing it in action and making a spellcraft check.

As wouldn't most spells have to have been researched at one point?

Adding to what PhoenixRivers has said. If from the beginning a shadow spell had an xp cost of the duplicated spell. This topic wouldn't exist. I believe that by RAW a shadowed miracle works, but as a DM I'd never allow it.

olentu
2010-05-10, 02:18 PM
Wrong.

Two games.
In one game, it works (uses the interpretation I presented for how it can work).
In another game, it does not work (uses the belief structure posed by JaronK).

Both are true, depending on what game you look at.

Now imagine thousands of games, some of which support shadow miracles, and some of which oppose it. And any of them based on either interpretation is a correct interpretation of the rules.

For more information, please visit this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger%27s_cat).

When the truth or falsehood depends on two equally applicable likelihood, and an unknown variable, the logical assumption is that both are equally true, until such time as the variable is observed, and proves one false.

It's a logical line of reasoning used often in classic logic puzzles, such as Sudoku, wherein the goal is to determine all the unknown variables, and define the truth of the puzzle.

My statement is that Both are true, yes. Even though they are mutually exclusive. Why?

Because if two different DMs in two different games come together, and one says "it works, for reason x" and another states "it doesn't work, for reason y", both are correct. They are merely using a different determining variable.

Both are true; both are false. Neither are universally so.

EDIT: Take the formula X=Y.
I can say Y=7, and I'm right... provided X=7 also.
I can say Y=6, and I'm right... provided X=6 also.

The wrong answer would be to state that Y cannot equal 7. Because it can.

Take Y=(X*X)
I can say that Y = 4. And it's true, when X=2.
I can say that Y=9. and it's true, when X=3.

What is wrong is when I say that Y cannot be a specific number. I speak of possibilities, and you assumed I spoke of certainties.

There is consistency in reasoning. That you didn't grasp that doesn't change the fact.

Now... Please... PLEASE... can we get back to something that is actually RELEVANT?

Since just when exactly has it become proper practice to always include DM fiat in discussions about the rules.

Koury
2010-05-10, 03:11 PM
I honestly don't understand why this is confusing anyone. It is possible to have Wizard spells on your class list that are not Wizard spells on someone elses class list. Independant Research is one way for this. Arcane Disciple is another.

It is not possible for someone else to use abilities of theirs based on your class list. See the Incendiary Cloud example above.

Both of these are true.

So, a Shadowcraft Mage with Arcane Disciple (Luck) has Miracle on their class spell list. It is an Evocation spell. It is therefore a legal target for the Shadow Illusion ability.

Again, why is this complicated?

The only argument offered to the contrary is that there is some difference between 'your class list' and 'the class list'.

Well, yes, there is. That is why the Incendiary Cloud example works. But it is also precedent showing that your abilities work off of your personal class list.

Also, where does this notion that adding a spell to your list via research makes it duplicatable for someone else come from? Unless they research it themselves, steal your spellbook or you teach it to them, they can not cast it, ever. Even if they ID it via Spellcraft and try to cast it via Miracle, they can not. Player's Handbook, pg 180.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-10, 04:03 PM
Since just when exactly has it become proper practice to always include DM fiat in discussions about the rules.

When it's not DM Fiat. More specifically, some effects MUST be dealt with by DM interpretation. When discussing spell creation, magic item creation, and the like, you must deal with DM arbitration, although it's very nebulous.

Incidentally, you seem to be quite fond in assuming I speak in absolutes. I think it's "definately" this way, because I don't say contrary. I point out required DM interpretation on the matter, and I "always" include DM fiat. Things aren't as absolute as you make them out to be. By doing so, the only thing you succeed in doing is beating the stuffing out of a servicable straw man.

Similarly, when there are two possible interpretations, both of which follow all published RAW, and only one of which is true, it is the DM's job choose. And BOTH views follow the rules, so he's right, whichever way he goes. In other words, before the DM takes his first step, he looks down two roads, and both are suitable for travel. Yes, Olentu, my view is made from the point of actually helping others make informed decisions, rather than to lock up an argument within the walls of hypothetical academia. I design my statement to be practically useful.

This was originally a discussion of "this cannot be done. It is an absolute violation of RAW." The correct answer is that there is no single interpretation that is correct to the point of rendering all other interpretations to be violations of RAW. As such, DM interpretation is a NECESSITY to answer the question.

So, including DM interpretation is proper practice for discussions about rules that require DM interpretation to function.

You are trying to say "there is no right view". This implies that all views are wrong, and that there is no way to use the class in a manner consistent with the rules. For people trying to make a measured decision on what to do? That statement, while correct from a certain point of view, is absolutely USELESS.

My statement is that both views are correct. Use either, and you're not violating RAW. That IS useful to a DM looking to take a balance stance on it and provide a valid interpretation that is consistent with RAW.

So now we have a decision. Two statements, one being correct from one point of view, another being correct from a different point of view.

One of which casts the prospective DM researching the subject to the wind, giving him no anchor, explanation, or reasoning for a stance, playing the "no" game, and saying it's all wrong, and that it can't be done...

The other, saying, that view 1 was presented earlier. View 2 is presented here. Either view is consistent with the rules. No matter which way you go, you're not breaking the rules. Make up your decision on what you feel is balanced, and use that justification for making the ruling. Now that is providing that DM with a useful tool.

So, among equally correct statements, which is preferable? Useless, or useful?

olentu
2010-05-10, 04:07 PM
When it's not DM Fiat. More specifically, some effects MUST be dealt with by DM interpretation. When discussing spell creation, magic item creation, and the like, you must deal with DM arbitration, although it's very nebulous.

Similarly, when there are two possible interpretations, both of which follow all published RAW, and only one of which is true, it is the DM's job to do that.

This was originally a discussion of "this cannot be done. It is an absolute violation of RAW." The correct answer is that there is no single interpretation that is correct to the point of rendering all other interpretations to be violations of RAW. As such, DM interpretation is a NECESSITY to answer the question.

So, including DM interpretation is proper practice for discussions about rules that require DM interpretation to function.

You are trying to say "there is no right view". This implies that all views are wrong, and that there is no way to use the class in a manner consistent with the rules. For people trying to make a measured decision on what to do? That statement, while correct from a certain point of view, is absolutely USELESS.

My statement is that both views are correct. Use either, and you're not violating RAW. That IS useful to a DM looking to take a balance stance on it and provide a valid interpretation that is consistent with RAW.

So now we have a decision. Two statements, one being correct from one point of view, another being correct from a different point of view.

One of which casts the prospective DM researching the subject to the wind, giving him no anchor, explanation, or reasoning for a stance, playing the "no" game, and saying it's all wrong, and that it can't be done...

The other, saying, that view 1 was presented earlier. View 2 is presented here. Either view is consistent with the rules. No matter which way you go, you're not breaking the rules. Make up your decision on what you feel is balanced, and use that justification for making the ruling. Now that is providing that DM with a useful tool.

So, among equally correct statements, which is preferable? Useless, or useful?

And still it is DM fiat, fiat being an authoritative decree. It is different to say that there is not enough information then it is to just bring DM fiat into the argument.

Edit: Make that not just bringing but doing so without notification.