Wait, Wizards don't get what?

[Tael]

I was reading the PF srd today, and I saw this below the casting prestige classes:


FAQ

Does a wizard (or other character that uses a spellbook), receive bonus spells to add to his spellbook when he gains a level in a prestige class that grants an increase to spellcasting?

No. The increase to his spellcasting level does not grant any other benefits, except for spells per day, spells known (for spontaneous casters), and an increase to his overall caster level. He must spend time and gold to add new spells to his spellbook.

–Jason Bulmahn (11/24/10)

Was this true in 3.5?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Was this true in 3.5?
It was ambiguous.

Most folks considered the spells in a spellbook as being part of a wizard’s spells known and covered by the advancement of spells known clause of spellcasting advancement.

Others took a stricter reading, with advancing spells known as applying only to those with a Spells Known class feature (and table). That’s obviously where Jason Bulmahn is making his ruling from.

I don’t know of any official word on the matter from WotC for D&D 3.5.

[Aharon]

RAW, yes it was true. But nobody I know of actually implemented this rule. Most groups seem to interprtet the (and spells known, if appropriate) to include wizards, while it technically doesn't.

[JonestheSpy]

RAW, yes it was true. But nobody I know of actually implemented this rule. Most groups seem to interprtet the (and spells known, if appropriate) to include wizards, while it technically doesn't.

Yeah, can't have people applying rules that might actually weaken the uberclass a wee bit.

[imperialspectre]

It's a negligible expense, if you know what you're doing.

[Deastorm]

It's a negligible expense, if you know what you're doing.

But if you don't, your world may end in despair and heartache, and you'll wish you were as brilliant.

That was the point of that message, right?

[gbprime]

We've always interpreted it as the new spells coming with each new caster level. It keeps the DM from having to worry about stocking the bad guys with scrolls and spellbooks to be looted. Instead, he can just be stingy on those things and let the player fill his own books as desired.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

It's a negligible expense, if you know what you're doing.
And if the DM plays along. I’ve seen campaigns with a dearth of opportunity to find other wizard’s spellbooks or obtain scrolls. Sometimes those two spells per level are all you have to go on.

[Tael]

Hmm, now that I look at it, it seems that no PrC's let you cast higher level spells by RAW, they only give bonus spells per day...

[Escheton]

Not having teleportation magic yet, and being stuck in the middle of nowhere with no decent magicshops around could really hurt a low/mid lvl prestiged wizard then.

[Godskook]

Yeah, can't have people applying rules that might actually weaken the uberclass a wee bit.

:smallconfused:

I'm all for taking wizards down a peg(and moreso, boosting melee up a few), but this seems like the most gawdawful way of doing it.

[Defiant]

This was not true in 3.5.

Read the Master Specialist's (Prestige Class - Complete Mage page 70) Expanded Spellbook class feature. I'm not going to quote it verbatim, since it's not OGL, but it states that the extra spell is in addition to the spells you gain when you increase your level.

This strongly implies that wizards continue to gain their free spells per spell level (whether it be 2, or 4 with that feat).

[grimbold]

IMO its just kind of stating something that you could houserule either way in 3.5
in PF its fine to houserule either way too

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Hmm, now that I look at it, it seems that no PrC's let you cast higher level spells by RAW, they only give bonus spells per day...
Wait, what?

Higher level spells are part of increasing spells per day.

Previous Level: “My 4th level spells per day are —; I can’t cast 4th level spells.”

New Level: “My 4th level spells per day are now 1. Yay!”

[Tael]

Wait, what?

Higher level spells are part of increasing spells per day.

Previous Level: “My 4th level spells per day are —; I can’t cast 4th level spells.”

New Level: “My 4th level spells per day are now 1. Yay!”

But if that were true, wouldn't you have 4th level spells at level one by virtue of a high ability score?

[Fouredged Sword]

That is particular is called out as not happening. You don't gert bonus spells due to ability scores until you have at least a 0 on your spellcasting table.

[Godskook]

But if that were true, wouldn't you have 4th level spells at level one by virtue of a high ability score?

No. You can only benefit from bonus spells when you're capable of casting spells of that level. Paladin is a great class to illustrate with. At level 4, they gain "0" 1st level spells. If they have a high ability score, they can cast bonus spells starting at level 4, but not before, since at level 3, their 1st level spells were "-". Bard also works, in that he can learn 2nd level spells at level 4, but only if his ability score is high enough to grant a bonus spell.

[Aharon]

@Defiant
Technically, you can add things to zero...

But I agree that
1) the rule saw so little use that the designers themselves obviously abandoned it by the time Complete Mage came out (mind you, 3.5 was about 3 years old by that time).
2) it is clear that at that time, it was intended for wizards to be allowed to add spells to their spell books via the (and spells known, if appropriate).

Don't you agree that without the rule you provided, the distinction between "spells known" and "spells added to spellbook" is a lot sharper?

[Tael]

No. You can only benefit from bonus spells when you're capable of casting spells of that level. Paladin is a great class to illustrate with. At level 4, they gain "0" 1st level spells. If they have a high ability score, they can cast bonus spells starting at level 4, but not before, since at level 3, their 1st level spells were "-". Bard also works, in that he can learn 2nd level spells at level 4, but only if his ability score is high enough to grant a bonus spell.

Eh, it was worth a try to cover up stupid comment. :smalltongue:

[Duke of URL]

In stock 3.5, this becomes a matter of interpretation, which boils down to the question: are the free spells at each level a function of the wizard's spellcasting per se, or is a class feature of the wizard class?

In the former case, prestige classes that are +1 arcane spellcasting would continue to get the free spells. In the latter case, they would not, as PrCs generally explicitly state that they do not gain any other feature of the class.

Also, as noted upthread, there is a lot of inconsistency in the wording of "+1 spellcasting" features in PrCs; the way some of them are written, a strict RAW reading would say that they don't get new spell levels, although they would increase spells per day and caster level.

[Defiant]

@Defiant
Technically, you can add things to zero...

I still feel there's a strong implication. Why would you say "in addition to the spells you normally receive on level up" if the spells you normally receive on level up is 0, and must be 0 since you're taking the Prestige Class itself.


But I agree that
1) the rule saw so little use that the designers themselves obviously abandoned it by the time Complete Mage came out (mind you, 3.5 was about 3 years old by that time).
2) it is clear that at that time, it was intended for wizards to be allowed to add spells to their spell books via the (and spells known, if appropriate).

Don't you agree that without the rule you provided, the distinction between "spells known" and "spells added to spellbook" is a lot sharper?

I feel it's sharp either way.

[Diarmuid]

If we're specifically talking RAW here, the Master Spec's ability simply says "in additition to the normal spells gained when increasing your level."

1+0 is still 1. If you normally added 0 spells for increasing your level, you would get 1. That line in no way directly means that all "+1 spellcasting class" means wizards do get extra spells added to their spellbooks.

Now, I'm in the group that houserules that spellcasting PrC's do add them to a wizard's book, but by RAW I agree they do not and Master Spec does not change that.

[Tael]

If we're specifically talking RAW here, the Master Spec's ability simply says "in additition to the normal spells gained when increasing your level."

1+0 is still 1. If you normally added 0 spells for increasing your level, you would get 1. That line in no way directly means that all "+1 spellcasting class" means wizards do get extra spells added to their spellbooks.

Now, I'm in the group that houserules that spellcasting PrC's do add them to a wizard's book, but by RAW I agree they do not and Master Spec does not change that.

Do you think that the number 0 qualifies for making a world plural?


it is in addition
to the normal spells gained when increasing your level.

That line says that wizards gain more than 1 spell per level.

[Diarmuid]

Tell me if this sentance is grammatically correct...

Zero is the number of spells added to a wizard's spellbook when a prestige class adds a level of spellcasting ability.

[Tael]

Tell me if this sentance is grammatically correct...

Zero is the number of spells added to a wizard's spellbook when a prestige class adds a level of spellcasting ability.

...Dammit...
Well you still have to agree that the "in addition" line very strongly implies they get at least 1 spell per level.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Do you think that the number 0 qualifies for making a world plural?
Actually, yeah. Most people use the plural form when they talk about Zero.

People say, “I have zero spells,” not “I have zero spell.”

That said, you also have to be aware of inclusive writing. The rule has to include people who get 0 spells on level up, 1 spell on level up, or even 20 spells on level up. And in such cases where the number is unknown, the plural form is generally used. After all, you only use singular if the value is one. For everything else, you use plural. So that fits in the vast majority of cases.

[Diarmuid]

Well said Shhalahr. I didnt feel like typing that part out.

"In addition" only means more than you normally get, assumingt that means you already get at least one is interpretation and would be RaI as opposed to the RaW that we are discussing.

[Defiant]

If we're specifically talking RAW here, the Master Spec's ability simply says "in additition to the normal spells gained when increasing your level."

1+0 is still 1. If you normally added 0 spells for increasing your level, you would get 1. That line in no way directly means that all "+1 spellcasting class" means wizards do get extra spells added to their spellbooks.

Now, I'm in the group that houserules that spellcasting PrC's do add them to a wizard's book, but by RAW I agree they do not and Master Spec does not change that.

If that is true, then why are these lines not included in the following prestige classes:

Archmage:
"This high arcana is in addition to the high arcanas gained when increasing your level"

Loremaster:
"This secret is in addition to the secrets gained when increasing your level"

And so on...

[Diarmuid]

Can we stick with Apples / Apples as opposed to Apples / Oranges?


High Arcana says nothing along the lines of "gaining additional high arcana".


High Arcana: An archmage gains the opportunity to select a special ability from among those described below by permanently eliminating one existing spell slot (she cannot eliminate a spell slot of higher level than the highest-level spell she can cast). Each special ability has a minimum required spell slot level, as specified in its description.

An archmage may choose to eliminate a spell slot of a higher level than that required to gain a type of high arcana.

If you're looking to argue simply for the sake of arguing, I'm going to pass.

[Defiant]

High Arcana says nothing along the lines of "gaining additional high arcana".

Exactly.

Never has WoTC included a statement to the effect of "in addition to X you gain normally" when you don't gain X normally (especially if you can't gain X by virtue of the class that you're in, making this statement).

Therefore, if there's a statement saying "in addition to X you gain", the implication is that X is greater than 0, and you still gain X. This isn't an "interpretation", this is a logical deduction based on the English used.



Basically, if you say "I have 3 additional apples", there's a strong implication that you already have apples; ergo it should be assumed that you already have apples unless you've clarified that you don't.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

If that is true, then why are these lines not included in the following prestige classes:

Archmage:
"This high arcana is in addition to the high arcanas gained when increasing your level"
Uh… ‘Cause it doesn’t advance high arcanas from any other source and only gives you the one per level.

Just maybe.


Loremaster:
"This secret is in addition to the secrets gained when increasing your level".
‘Cause it doesn’t advance secrets from any other source and only gives you the one per odd level.

Just maybe.

[Diarmuid]

Defiant..I'm not saying it's worded well and makes the most sense logically...I'm just speaking to the RaW implications of how the rules are written.

RaW discussions dont have to make sense, it's just going exactly by the letter of the law with no assumptions/interpretation.

[Defiant]

Uh… ‘Cause it doesn’t advance high arcanas from any other source and only gives you the one per level.

Just maybe.


‘Cause it doesn’t advance secrets from any other source and only gives you the one per odd level.

Just maybe.

It's not an advancement just like spells added to a spellbook is not an advancement. It is a purely given thing. "Spellcasting" is an advancement. You get 2 more spells into your spellbook isn't an "advancement". Similar, you get 1 more high arcana or 1 more secret isn't an "advancement".

So for Archmage, it doesn't advance high arcana from any other source, but what if it said "this high arcana is in addition to the high arcana you normally receive" - even though Archmage is the only source of high arcana ever. It wouldn't make sense.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Exactly.

Never has WoTC included a statement to the effect of "in addition to X you gain normally" when you don't gain X normally (especially if you can't gain X by virtue of the class that you're in, making this statement).
But if you have to cover people who have 2 per level, or 4 per level, or 3 per level as well as people that have 0 per level, you can still say “in addition two” without making such an induction.


It's not an advancement just like spells added to a spellbook is not an advancement. It is a purely given thing. "Spellcasting" is an advancement. You get 2 more spells into your spellbook isn't an "advancement". Similar, you get 1 more high arcana or 1 more secret isn't an "advancement".
The additional advancement says you “gain spells known”. Additional spells in the spellbook is spells known.

[ericgrau]

1 spell per level shortchanges you anyway. All it means is you have to spend a little more gold when shopping for spells.

[Defiant]

Defiant..I'm not saying it's worded well and makes the most sense logically...I'm just speaking to the RaW implications of how the rules are written.

RaW discussions dont have to make sense, it's just going exactly by the letter of the law with no assumptions/interpretation.

If I write "I have 3 additional apples", then does my statement, as written, mean that I have 0 apples to start with?

The way writing works in the English language is that my statement implies (and therefore means) that I have at least 1 apple to start with. The only way I could possibly have 0 apples is if I specify it.

This fits into RAW.

[gbprime]

1 spell per level shortchanges you anyway. All it means is you have to spend a little more gold when shopping for spells.

Assuming you can shop for spells. If you're away from anyplace where you can jaunt down to MageMart or the local Wizards Guild, you're SOL. Better to just assume they always get their 2 per level.

[Defiant]

But if you have to cover people who have 2 per level, or 4 per level, or 3 per level as well as people that have 0 per level, you can still say “in addition two” without making such an induction.

Are there any spellcasting classes or races that grant a number of free spells into your spellbook that persists? Is there anything out there that says "you will always get this many spells into your spellbook each level, no matter what class or prestige class you take?

No.

Similarly, there are no other sources of high arcana other than Archmage. Shouldn't Archmage therefore include "in addition to the High Arcana you are normally granted"?

Since it doesn't, this means that the original Master Specialist statement proves that wizards continue to get free spells per level-up.

[Defiant]

If you're looking to argue simply for the sake of arguing, I'm going to pass.

And no, I genuinely believe my point.

I decree that if you say "I have 3 additional apples", then by "as written law", this means that I couldn't have had 0 apples to start with.

[Diarmuid]

Your logic is wrong.

All you have said is "I have X+3 apples". You have not done anything in any way, shape or form ro define what X is. Any values you apply to X are nothing but assumption and interpretation...neither of which have ANY place in a RAW discussion.

"I have three additional apples" does not automatically assume you had zero apples in the first place just like it doesnt automatically assume you had 1.

The issue is not with the MS verbiage, but more with how the "advances a level of spellcasting" prestige class features are written.



When a new archmage level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he added the prestige class level. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he became an archmage, he must decide to which class he adds each level of archmage for the purpose of determining spells per day.


As written, the wizard has no "spells known" value and by RaW this advancement does nothing for a wizard but move him down on the "spells per day".

Hell..as that's written one could argue that your caster level does not actually go up either.

[Kylarra]

Are there any spellcasting classes or races that grant a number of free spells into your spellbook that persists? Elven Generalist seems to fit this criteria. Not that it necessarily detracts from the logical conclusion that "in addition" generally implies starting with a positive value to begin with.

[Defiant]

Your logic is wrong.

All you have said is "I have X+3 apples". You have not done anything in any way, shape or form ro define what X is. Any values you apply to X are nothing but assumption and interpretation...neither of which have ANY place in a RAW discussion.

I'm talking about the way the English language work. In the English language, if you have written "I have 3 additional apples", you cannot have started with 0 apples.

The way the English language works is nothing BUT the primal force in a RAW discussion.

[gbprime]

I decree that if you say "I have 3 additional apples", then by "as written law", this means that I couldn't have had 0 apples to start with.

Logically, no. You could have started with 0 apples. Grammatically you might say it differently if you had 0 apples to start with, but logically it's possible. For example, you could have had an apple, eaten it, and then gotten 3 additional apples. You had zero right before you got more.

And really... can you use the descriptive text under Master Specialist when you have no levels in that class, or does it apply only to Master Specialist?

[Reynard]

Wait, what?

As Written, and going by the Text, not just the Table, spellcasting PrCs DO grant new spells known when they level (Or at the appropriate rate, for non-full-casting PrCs).

This is true of every single Spellcasting PrC in CompArcane and CompMage, the only books I've looked at so far.

[Defiant]

Logically, no. You could have started with 0 apples. Grammatically you might say it differently if you had 0 apples to start with, but logically it's possible.

This is what I mean. Technically you could have 0 apples. But the way the English language works is you would never say it if you have 0 apples.

Starting out with 0 apples is a grammatically incorrect interpretation.

[DragonOfLies]

And no, I genuinely believe my point.

I decree that if you say "I have 3 additional apples", then by "as written law", this means that I couldn't have had 0 apples to start with.

"Means" doesn't mean the same thing as "implies". "Implies" allows for the possibility that something else could be the case, such as having 0 additional spells per level. Assuming that the implied possibility is the correct one is RAI. RAW doesn't explicitly state that you can't gain 0 additional spells per level, even if that is an odd way of phrasing it.

Edit: Also, it's not "gramatically incorrect", it's just gramatically odd. Logically, it works just fine even if you wouldn't say it like that.

[Godskook]

I'm talking about the way the English language work. In the English language, if you have written "I have 3 additional apples", you cannot have started with 0 apples.

The way the English language works is nothing BUT the primal force in a RAW discussion.

Actually, you can have started with 0 apples, and jokes are being made these days about the humor of saying things of this nature that are technically true but misleading when common sense is applied.

[Defiant]

For example, you could have had an apple, eaten it, and then gotten 3 additional apples. You had zero right before you got more.

Semantics - you at least had one. You can't "eat" a spell, and I feel my point still stands.


And really... can you use the descriptive text under Master Specialist when you have no levels in that class, or does it apply only to Master Specialist?

Having it only apply to Master Specialist wouldn't make sense. The text says that you gain the additional spells while in a prestige class (by the implications I have outlined in previous posts), not just Master Specialist.

[Diarmuid]

Wait, what?

As Written, and going by the Text, not just the Table, spellcasting PrCs DO grant new spells known when they level (Or at the appropriate rate, for non-full-casting PrCs).

This is true of every single Spellcasting PrC in CompArcane and CompMage, the only books I've looked at so far.

Wizards do not have a "spells known" value like a Sorcerer.

[Diarmuid]

Semantics - you at least had one. You can't "eat" a spell, and I feel my point still stands.



Having it only apply to Master Specialist wouldn't make sense. The text says that you gain the additional spells while in a prestige class (by the implications I have outlined in previous posts), not just Master Specialist.


Semantics is exactly what RaW is all about. This is why most people dont bother with RaW and instead use the much more generally accepted RaI. I myself admitted that my group adds spells to books on PrC caster levels....but I would never say we are playing exactly by the book either.

The "spells known" part of the "spellcasting" section of PrC all mention "if applicable" meaning that it only applies when there is a "spells known" value.

[Defiant]

"Means" doesn't mean the same thing as "implies". "Implies" allows for the possibility that something else could be the case, such as having 0 additional spells per level. Assuming that the implied possibility is the correct one is RAI. RAW doesn't explicitly state that you can't gain 0 additional spells per level, even if that is an odd way of phrasing it.

RAW doesn't explicitly state a lot of things. No matter.

When the only possible number is 0 to such a situation, WoTC does not include a statement with the "in addition" clause. I.e. see Archmage; it's the only source of High Arcana, and there's no "in addition" clause.

When the class feature replaces something, it is explicitly stated. "This replaces the yadda-yadda you normally gain".

Therefore, if a statement says "in addition", this means that the number 0 cannot be true. If it were true, WoTC wouldn't have included the statement. (just like it didn't include the statement in Archmage that you gain High Arcana in addition to the High Arcanas you normally gain).

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Are there any spellcasting classes or races that grant a number of free spells into your spellbook that persists? Is there anything out there that says "you will always get this many spells into your spellbook each level, no matter what class or prestige class you take?

No.
You’re putting the cart before the horse here. No class grants spells known no matter what other class you may take. in the future. But certain classes grant spells known from as per previous class.

Consider if there were another class that had a spellbook, like wizards do. Let’s call it the Magus. However, the Magus does not automatically add spells to their spellbook, even when taking levels in Magus. All new spells must be added the hard way.

Now, say a particular Magus takes a prestige class—open to Wizards as well as Magi—which explicitly allows you to add new spells to your spellbook as per your normal class. In this case, the Magus still gets 0 spells on each level up. So what happens if, on the 3rd level of this prestige class, there is an ability that says, “You gain 2 new spells for your spellbook in addition to the ones you get from leveling up?”


Similarly, there are no other sources of high arcana other than Archmage. Shouldn't Archmage therefore include "in addition to the High Arcana you are normally granted"?
No, because there is no more. Not because hour normal high arcana quantity is 0, but because you have no normal high arcana to quantify. It’s the same difference between — spells per day and 0 spells per day.


I decree that if you say "I have 3 additional apples", then by "as written law", this means that I couldn't have had 0 apples to start with.
Additional simply means added or more (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/additional). You can have more than or add to zero.

Just because a word is most often used in one context doesn’t mean that’s the only available context.

[Defiant]

Semantics is exactly what RaW is all about. This is why most people dont bother with RaW and instead use the much more generally accepted RaI. I myself admitted that my group adds spells to books on PrC caster levels....but I would never say we are playing exactly by the book either.

The "spells known" part of the "spellcasting" section of PrC all mention "if applicable" meaning that it only applies when there is a "spells known" value.

My semantics statement was meant simply to disregard the example given. You would need to suppose that apples, like spells, cannot be eaten or lost in any way.

[Diarmuid]

Therefore, if a statement says "in addition", this means that the number 0 cannot be true. If it were true, WoTC wouldn't have included the statement. (just like it didn't include the statement in Archmage that you gain High Arcana in addition to the High Arcanas you normally gain).


I'm sorry, but the bolded statement is simply wrong logically. "In addition" simply means more than you had before and does nothing to define what the previous value was. You are interpreting and there is simply no room for that when discussing RaW.

I cant speak to why they worded High Arcana or Secrets the way they did, but they are different and thus have absolutely no bearing on the the wordings written elsewhere. Rules as Written is not Rules as they should have been written.

You just dont like what the semantics of Rules as Written are...I get that, in a lot of examples RaW is simply stupid and bears being ignored completely...but that doesnt make them "wrong".

[Defiant]

You’re putting the cart before the horse here. No class grants spells known no matter what other class you may take. in the future. But certain classes grant spells known from as per previous class.

Consider if there were another class that had a spellbook, like wizards do. Let’s call it the Magus. However, the Magus does not automatically add spells to their spellbook, even when taking levels in Magus. All new spells must be added the hard way.

Now, say a particular Magus takes a prestige class—open to Wizards as well as Magi—which explicitly allows you to add new spells to your spellbook as per your normal class. In this case, the Magus still gets 0 spells on each level up. So what happens if, on the 3rd level of this prestige class, there is an ability that says, “You gain 2 new spells for your spellbook in addition to the ones you get from leveling up?”

The Magus would have no free spells, since by its class it gets no spells (for free). The Wizard does, and this addition would make sense. The Magus gets none from leveling up, the wizard does - therefore the prestige class grants the base class's free spells.


Additional simply means added or more (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/additional). You can have more than or add to zero.

Just because a word is most often used in one context doesn’t mean that’s the only available context.

That would be grammatically incorrect, however.

[Defiant]

I'm sorry, but the bolded statement is simply wrong logically.

There's your problem. "Logically". Grammatically, my statement is correct. The WoTC rules are written in the English language, not a "logic language" (such as a programming language, say).

[Diarmuid]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but am completely lost as to what your last post is supposed to mean.

Grammatically simply means following the laws of grammar. I think you mean
"mostly socially acceptable". I could say things that are grammatically correct but are very much outside the normal way to say things, but you would still understand the meaning.

Your part about the magus doesnt jive either. "you gain 2 plus what you normally get" for someone who normally gets zero would mean they would get 2, not zero. Not getting any normally does not preclude you from getting the "additional 2".

[Defiant]

I'm not trying to be difficult, but am completely lost as to what your last post is supposed to mean.

Grammatically simply means following the laws of grammar. I think you mean
"mostly socially acceptable". I could say things that are grammatically correct but are very much outside the normal way to say things, but you would still understand the meaning.

Perhaps "grammatically" is the wrong word. Let's just say "by the English language". By the English language, if you say you have in addition, then it means you have started with at least 1.

Logically and mathematically, "in addition" means you could have 0. But in written English language, you couldn't.


Your part about the magus doesnt jive either. "you gain 2 plus what you normally get" for someone who normally gets zero would mean they would get 2, not zero. Not getting any normally does not preclude you from getting the "additional 2".

Yes - the Magus would get 2. But the wizard would still get 4.

[Diarmuid]

The wiz would get 4 in that specific scenario...but only because it specifically says they get their other value.

Just because you dont think someone would say it does mean it could not be said.

[Defiant]

The wiz would get 4 in that specific scenario...but only because it specifically says they get their other value.

Just because you dont think someone would say it does mean it could not be said.

Ah, good point (so then that would mean only MS gives 2, all other PrCs give 0). I'll have to think about this some other time though, as I have to leave now.

[ericgrau]

Assuming you can shop for spells. If you're away from anyplace where you can jaunt down to MageMart or the local Wizards Guild, you're SOL. Better to just assume they always get their 2 per level.

At the very least the treasure tables include a lot of scrolls. If you really get absolutely nothing except those from levels then it's time throw a fit and roll up a sorcerer anyway.

[Reynard]

I'd like to take this moment to say "Shut up about Grammar, geeze", but that would be Vigilante Modding.

Also, Diarmuid, you're right, the two spells per level the Wizard gets are part of their Spellbooks feature. Odd. Though it's not a stretch at all to say it applies as Wizards do get additional spells known per level, just not under a feature called Spells Known. Also, this is all assuming that the writers of the PrCs wouldn't miss a small difference in terms like this. When, frankly, they've made other, much bigger slips in pretty much every book.

[Marnath]

From the wizard class description on the SRD:

Spellbooks
A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory.

A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from her prohibited school or schools, if any; see School Specialization, below) plus three 1st-level spells of your choice. For each point of Intelligence bonus the wizard has, the spellbook holds one additional 1st-level spell of your choice. At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards’ spellbooks to her own.

It is a class feature that wizard's receive two spells known a level.

The entry for Archmage:

Spells per Day/Spells Known
When a new archmage level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he added the prestige class level. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he became an archmage, he must decide to which class he adds each level of archmage for the purpose of determining spells per day.

A level in wizard provides two spells known. Ergo, a level of Archmage provides two spells known if you were a wizard before that. Seems pretty clear cut to me.:smallconfused:

[AyeGill]

From the wizard class description on the SRD:


It is a class feature that wizard's receive two spells known a level.

The entry for Archmage:


A level in wizard provides two spells known. Ergo, a level of Archmage provides two spells known if you were a wizard before that. Seems pretty clear cut to me.:smallconfused:

I agree with you.

However, you could argue, if you were very nitpicky, that spell in the spellbook is not the same as spells known.

[Mystic Muse]

However, you could argue, if you were very nitpicky, that spell in the spellbook is not the same as spells known.

:smallsigh: That is about the most nitpicky argument I've ever seen.

I'm not intending to address you here, I'm just saying that that level of nitpicking is just obscene.

[Marnath]

I agree with you.

However, you could argue, if you were very nitpicky, that spell in the spellbook is not the same as spells known.

That's really kind of silly, since ALL of a wizard's spells are in the spellbook. If it's not in his BOOK, he doesn't KNOW it. :smallamused:

[ericgrau]

I have found it a bit odd that wizards no longer "know" their spells once they lose their spellbook.

[Mystic Muse]

That's really kind of silly, since ALL of a wizard's spells are in the spellbook. If it's not in his BOOK, he doesn't KNOW it. :smallamused:

Well, there's a feat called spell mastery or something that allows him to know an amount of spells equal to his intelligence modifier without having a spellbook.

[Diarmuid]

I think most of you simply dont understand the definition of RaW (Rules as Written). RaW means you are limited to the exact wording of the abilities, so there is no "extra nitpicky" as looking at things by RaW itself implies you are being as nitpicky as possible.

Wizards do not have a "Spells Known" value and thus it cannot be advanced by adding a PrC that advances spellcasting.

I have multiple times aquiesced that I agree this rule is stupid and admitted that I dont play by it myself...that does not however make the rule any different.

You are free to interpret the rule in any way you like...but you have then moved away from RaW and into RaI, a completely viable, but completely different conversation.

[AyeGill]

:smallsigh: That is about the most nitpicky argument I've ever seen.

I'm not intending to address you here, I'm just saying that that level of nitpicking is just obscene.


I know how nitpicky that was. that's why i said i agree with him, because this is right up there with "The rules doesn't say i cant move and cast spells when i'm dead" on the list of obscenely nitpicky RAW arguments.

[Mystic Muse]

I'm sorry but I don't see how PRCs giving wizards extra spells known is RaI instead of RaW. I'm looking at the same thing you're looking at and I can't seem to read it the way you're reading it.

[Marnath]

You are free to interpret the rule in any way you like...but you have then moved away from RaW and into RaI, a completely viable, but completely different conversation.

No. What I posted is completely RAW. There's no "interpretation" involved. It clearly states wizards receive two spells a level. I'd go further to say that your version is the RAI.

[Godskook]

I agree with you.

However, you could argue, if you were very nitpicky, that spell in the spellbook is not the same as spells known.

Actually, you are gaining a level of "known" with those spells, since if another wizard wrote a spell you aren't familiar with into your spellbook, it wouldn't be 'known' for you just cause of placement, while the ones gained from level-up are, and in fact, if you burn your spellbook, having 'known' them gives you some minor amount of benefit when you repopulate those spells into a new spellbook versus learning new spells from scrolls or spellbooks of others.

[Mystic Muse]

No. What I posted is completely RAW. There's no "interpretation" involved. It clearly states wizards receive two spells a level. I'd go further to say that your version is the RAI.

No no, RAI is rules as intended and this ruling doesn't seem to be the intention at all.

[Marnath]

No no, RAI is rules as intended and this ruling doesn't seem to be the intention at all.

Oh, it stands for intended? My bad. Diarmuid's stance counts as a houserule, then.

[Diarmuid]

Wizards...

Do...

Not...

Have...

A.....

"Spells Known"...

Value.


Without a "Spells Known" value, it cannot be advanced. Please note, in the Spells per Day/Spells Known section of PrC's the (spells known, if applicable) text.

Advancing Spells Known is not applicable to Wizards.

[Mystic Muse]

Oh, it stands for intended? My bad. Diarmuid's stance counts as a houserule, then.

Well, that's what I always thought. I guess it could stand for interpreted but I haven't seen it used that way before now.

[Marnath]

Wizards...

Do...

Not...

Have...

A.....

"Spells Known"...

Value.


Without a "Spells Known" value, it cannot be advanced. Please note, in the Spells per Day/Spells Known section of PrC's the (spells known, if applicable) text.

Advancing Spells Known is not applicable to Wizards.

We've already explained, in pretty exacting detail, how that argument is flawed. Repeating yourself doesn't make it any less true.


Spells
A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).

To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a wizard’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the wizard’s Intelligence modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score.

Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells. She must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting a good night’s sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard decides which spells to prepare.

Spells in the spellbook are "known." End of story.

[Zeful]

From the wizard class description on the SRD:


It is a class feature that wizard's receive two spells known a level.

The entry for Archmage:


A level in wizard provides two spells known. Ergo, a level of Archmage provides two spells known if you were a wizard before that. Seems pretty clear cut to me.:smallconfused:

Because the rules of grammar make the "and spells known if applicable" an parenthetical extension that can be removed from the text without any impact on it's parent sentance. This makes the "spells known if applicable" part a reference, so it only applies to instances of "Spells Known". Wizards do not possess that instance anywhere in their class information. If it said "They gained spells per day and spells known as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class[...]" then your argument would have some weight in grammar because the "Spells Known" part is in the body of the sentance, not a parenthetical addendum, and thus no longer a reference.

Further "Gain" is not equal to "Known"; they're not even synonymous.

[gbprime]

If it were true, WoTC wouldn't have included the statement.

Not like they ever make mistakes or leave gray areas, right? :smallbiggrin:

[Diarmuid]

I'm sorry, I fail to see how any of you have logically "proved" anything. You are all making assumptions on implied meanings rather than taking the written word exactly as it is written....the very definition of RaW.

You are all assuming that the spellbook class feature of the wizard applies to the "spells known" of the wizard when nowhere in that description is the word known used.

I know it's already been quoted, but I'm going to again for reference.



Spellbooks: A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory.

A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from her prohibited school or schools, if any; see School Specialization, below) plus three 1st-level spells of your choice. For each point of Intelligence bonus the wizard has, the spellbook holds one additional 1st-level spell of your choice. At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards’ spellbooks to her own.


Without having a Spells Known value, (see Sorceror) then it cannot be added to.

Edit - "Knowing a Spell" |= "Spells Known". Zeful has the right of it. You are assuming equality where equality is not implicitly stated.

[Marnath]

I'm sorry, I fail to see how any of you have logically "proved" anything. You are all making assumptions on implied meanings rather than taking the written word exactly as it is written....the very definition of RaW.

You are all assuming that the spellbook class feature of the wizard applies to the "spells known" of the wizard when nowhere in that description is the word known used.

I know it's already been quoted, but I'm going to again for reference.



Without having a Spells Known value, (see Sorceror) then it cannot be added to.

In case you missed my edit up above, it does explicitly state that a Wizard "knows" his spells.
*edit: Seriously? You're arguing that knowing spells does not make them spells known? That's not how english works. :smallconfused:

[DementedFellow]

I would just like to take a moment and say I love you guys. This thread has caused more unintentional hilarity than I've seen in a while, and the best part is, I can see how both sides could be right, since both have been pretty well explained.

I do think it is a stretch to say that Wizards know spells since they put it in a book and they have to study the book each morning and magically forget it when it gets cast. I could write a passage in a journal, study it for a bit and recite some later, but I'd probably forget it tomorrow. Wizards simply have two additional spells available to them at each level. Are they in their spell book? Logic would say yes, but very seldom does logic enter D&D without causing a fantastic uproar.

[AyeGill]

[snip]

Which was my point exactly when i posted my extreme nitpickTM

The spellcasting clause of most PrCs advance spells known. Sorcerers have spells known, wizards have a spellbook, which they can prepare spells from. I'm pretty sure thats the RaW

[Godskook]

Wizards...

Do...

Not...

Have...

A.....

"Spells Known"...

Value.

They most certainly do. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#wizardSpellsandBorrowedSpellbooks )

[DementedFellow]

They most certainly do. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#wizardSpellsandBorrowedSpellbooks )

Perhaps I'm missing something but that just says a spell they already know, but it doesn't mention a value. Can you quote the text?

[Elric VIII]

This argument has made me realize something. Spell Mastery doesn't work since Wizards don't know any spells.




Spell Mastery [Special]
Prerequisite
Wizard level 1st.

Benefit
Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.

Normal
Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to prepare all your spells, except read magic.

[Kylarra]

Wizards know all the spells that they've recorded in their spellbooks, they simply can't prepare them without the aid of the spellbook or similar mastery feats.

[Diarmuid]

I'll reiterate "Knowing a spell" is different from "Spells Known".

"Spells per day" is a class feature
"BAB" is a class feature
"Bonus Feat" is a class feature
"Spells Known" is a class feature

[Marnath]

I'll reiterate "Knowing a spell" is different from "Spells Known".

"Spells per day" is a class feature
"BAB" is a class feature
"Bonus Feat" is a class feature
"Spells Known" is a class feature

I was just wondering, are you going to get around to proving that any time soon? I don't see anything that says Spells Known is a class feature. Oh, and BAB? Is something EVERYONE HAS.

[Godskook]

Perhaps I'm missing something but that just says a spell they already know, but it doesn't mention a value. Can you quote the text?

"A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured."

In other words, a "spell known". A table is not required, and is in point of fact, a 'secondary' source to text that states contrary. (This is why Rainbow Servant, by RAW, gets full casting)

[absolmorph]

They most certainly do. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#wizardSpellsandBorrowedSpellbooks )
You missed the important part of that: value.

Additionally, the text for the spellbook clearly states that the two additional spells the wizard gets are a function of WIZARD levels. It's not in their spellcasting section, so it's not a function of their spellcasting.
"At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook."
Each new wizard level. A wizard taking a level in any other class does not, by RAW, get those two spells. This is separate from their spellcasting.

It's stupid, I definitely wouldn't follow it and it's definitely not RAI, but it's how the rules are set up.

[DementedFellow]

"A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured."

In other words, a "spell known". A table is not required, and is in point of fact, a 'secondary' source to text that states contrary. (This is why Rainbow Servant, by RAW, gets full casting)

You can't say "in other words" because it is precisely the wording we are looking for.

[Marnath]

You missed the important part of that: value.

Additionally, the text for the spellbook clearly states that the two additional spells the wizard gets are a function of WIZARD levels. It's not in their spellcasting section, so it's not a function of their spellcasting.
"At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook."
Each new wizard level. A wizard taking a level in any other class does not, by RAW, get those two spells. This is separate from their spellcasting.

It's stupid, I definitely wouldn't follow it and it's definitely not RAI, but it's how the rules are set up.

I guess you missed the paragraph from Archmage that specifies you gain spells as if you had gained a level in your prior class?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I know RAW discussions are hilariously fun and all, but sometimes strict RAW readings fail us - not because the RAW can be stupid (which we all recognize), but because the language is vague, leading to multiple potentially valid and conflicting "literal" interpretations of the same set of text.

Sometimes, even the most RAW-abiding DM has to make a judgement call, and *shudder* we have to speculate as to what that hypothetical DM's local ruling might be! I know, I know, this seems impossible, but I believe we can endeavor to make a first approximation. By show of internet hands, has anyone reading this thread ever been in a mostly-RAW game where the DM ruled that prestige classes that otherwise advance spellcasting do not advance spellbook additions?

[Diarmuid]

He didnt miss that, he actually saw it and read it and took it at absolute face value as it is written. They gain Spells per day (and spells known if applicable).

He did not gain a level of wizard and thusly was not able to add 2 spells to his spellbook.

The wizard ability says you add two spells to your spellbook, not you add 2 spells known. Yes, you "know" all the spells in your spellbook...but you cannot "know" the spell without first adding it your book. Adding it your book is the class feature of the wizard that is not advanced when adding a level of Archmage.

[DementedFellow]

I love this ruling. Suddenly Sorcerers get the respect they deserve.

[Marnath]

He didnt miss that, he actually saw it and read it and took it at absolute face value as it is written. They gain Spells per day (and spells known if applicable).

He did not gain a level of wizard and thusly was not able to add 2 spells to his spellbook.

The wizard ability says you add two spells to your spellbook, not you add 2 spells known. Yes, you "know" all the spells in your spellbook...but you cannot "know" the spell without first adding it your book. Adding it your book is the class feature of the wizard that is not advanced when adding a level of Archmage.

Known is a past participle of know. You know a spell, it is known to you. You know how to bake a cake, the method of baking a cake is known to you.

You're ignoring how the two words correlate in order to grasp at straws.

[Elric VIII]

I'll reiterate "Knowing a spell" is different from "Spells Known".

"Spells per day" is a class feature
"BAB" is a class feature
"Bonus Feat" is a class feature
"Spells Known" is a class feature

But "Spells Known" isn't a class feature, it is addressed under the entry titled "Spells." The same is true for "Spells per Day."



"Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, she gains two spells of her choice to add to her spellbook."

The Wizard gains spells known via research by virtue of being a Wizard. The spellbook feature is simply a place that the Wizard stores his spells.



"At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook."

This is basically the same idea as the Sorcerer's mind being the vessle in which spells are stored.



"To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Cha 10 for 0-level spells, Cha 11 for 1st-level spells, and so forth)."

Sorcerer's are in fact learning the spells each level, they can even learn spells from scrolls.



"For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book) could select that spell as one of his new spells for attaining a new level, provided that it is of the right spell level."

It seems that, reading it as written, that "Spells Known" is not a value to be increased, but that spells known is simply an extention of the arcane spellcasting feature. A feature that is advanced by PrCs.

[absolmorph]

I guess you missed the paragraph from Archmage that specifies you gain spells as if you had gained a level in your prior class?
Spells per day and spells known.
Wizards do not get spells known by leveling up.
Wizards get spells in their spellbook by leveling up. As a wizard.
The fact that the two are otherwise functionally identical (since a spell being in their spellbook makes it a spell known) doesn't mean archmage grants the two new spells, RAW.


He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/archmage.htm)
The spells in the spellbook, as I said, are explicitly a function of wizard levels, not a part of their spellcasting.

[Diarmuid]

Wizard gains a level, adds 2 new spells to spellbook.
By virtue spells being in the spellbook, wizard now knows those 2 new spells.

Archmage gains a level, advancing wizard casting.
Archmage does not account for wizard to add new spells to spellbook, thusly no new spells become known.

Spells Known |= Knowing a spell just like Silver Sword |= silver sword. One bypasses DR of a lycanthrope, one is a +5 vorpal greatsword capable of severing silver cords*

*actual stats of githyanky silver sword may vary, do not have access to actual stats atm.

Edit - The relevant part is in the spellbook section. "At each new wizard level" not "when wizard spellcasting is advanced"

And I've already admitted the rule is dumb and shouldnt be used, that's not the argument. The argument is the RaW application of the rules. Whether to use them or not is a different story entirely.

[Marnath]

Spells per day and spells known.
Wizards do not get spells known by leveling up.
Wizards get spells in their spellbook by leveling up. As a wizard.
The fact that the two are otherwise functionally identical (since a spell being in their spellbook makes it a spell known) doesn't mean archmage grants the two new spells, RAW.


Yes, it does. They are not "functionally" identical, they are identical. A known spell is a spell known, and no amount of nitpicking or pendantry changes the fact that that's how know and known interact in our language. I'm done arguing this.

[Diarmuid]

{{scrubbed}}

[DementedFellow]

Since this argument seems settled, what do you think the implications in terms of CharOp would be if this should catch on?

[Marnath]

Since this argument seems settled, what do you think the implications in terms of CharOp would be if this should catch on?

If I had to guess, fewer wizards would PrC, and Collegiate Wizard might become a more common feat.

[Kylarra]

Since this argument seems settled, what do you think the implications in terms of CharOp would be if this should catch on?Negligible. Scrolls and other spellbooks still exist.

[Elric VIII]

And I've already admitted the rule is dumb and shouldnt be used, that's not the argument. The argument is the RaW application of the rules. Whether to use them or not is a different story entirely.

Definately, I agree with this. I think the main problem arising here is that a given series of words can have two equally valid meanings and both would be the equivalent of RAW. Hence the existance of the double entendre.

[Zeful]

Definately, I agree with this. I think the main problem arising here is that a given series of words can have two equally valid meanings and both would be the equivalent of RAW. Hence the existance of the double entendre.

To bad 3.5 axed the Innuendo skill. We'll never know what they meant!

[Marnath]

{{scrubbed}}

Neither does "uh-huh!" "nuh-uh!" which is basically what we've been doing, we both ran out of fresh things to say a while ago. Neither of us is going to be persuaded, so it's not like there's more to be gained by further discussion. If you want me to, I guess I could say "you're wrong!" a few more times but I don't see that being necessary. :smallconfused:

[Orzel]

Wizard have a spell known valu, infinite. A wizard can place any spell from his list in his slots. He just needs to learn the spell from somewhere to place it in a spell slot. The wizard's spellbook feature adds spells to his spellbook, it does not increase the number of spells known.

Therefore, by RAW, prcs do not add spells to the wizard's. Spellbook each level because a wizard's spell known does not increase per level.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Outside of what the RAW says, which is clearly not settled due to the vague language involved, I don't think this is a good nerf for wizards. Instead of targeting the real problem, high-op wizards, it targets mid-op wizards who don't break the game and are often already resource and/or time constrained. On top of that, this only promotes higher optimization regarding said resources, through more and more dubious methods, until the game of my-reading-of-the-RAW shenanigans and oneupsmanship ends in a DMG to the head. Practically speaking it's much better to alter or ban particular spells, or have a gentleman's agreement.

[absolmorph]

Yes, it does. They are not "functionally" identical, they are identical. A known spell is a spell known, and no amount of nitpicking or pendantry changes the fact that that's how know and known interact in our language. I'm done arguing this.
Otherwise was the key word there.


To bad 3.5 axed the Innuendo skill. We'll never know what they meant!
Nooooooooooooooo! (http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/)

[Diarmuid]

Getting to the question of impact on CharOp, one would have to take a look at how many spell levels are involved in various builds and multiply that by 150 for learning from another's book and scribing it into their book.

If we assume that a PrC is taken at 6th level and nothing but spellcasting advancing PrC levels are taken thru 20th you'd previously assume that wizard added the following spells to his/her book through PrC advancement:

2 3rd
4 4th
4 5th
4 6th
4 7th
4 8th
8 9th (assuming 9th lvl spells are also learned at lvls 18/19/20)

That's a total of 198 spell levels that would cost that wizard 29,700 gp of his 20th lvl WBL. Any other spells in the spellbook would have have already needed to be taken out of WBL so there's no worry there. Of the 760k allotted to a 20th lvl characters, that's not quite 4% of his WBL.

It would have much a little higher impact at lower levels, especially at levels where a new spell level is acqured, but the biggest issue I would see would then needing to take the time to find someone with the specific spells you want and then needing the 24 hours per spell to add them to your book every time you level. Again, not a big deal when making a 20th lvl character, but having to work that into your game could be a major pita.

[Marnath]

Yeah, not having time to scribe scrolls or not having availability of good scrolls would be problematic, but at a more basic level than the PrC. I dare say even with the ruling that you get the two a level through your PrC, you are still getting hosed by not having scrolls, just not quite as badly as without that ruling.

[dextercorvia]

Edit: There was a page of replies saying basically the same thing I hadn't read yet.

[absolmorph]

In an actual game it might not be as bad, Diarmuid. It depends a lot on the the type of game, but in a game where you have down time between adventures, it wouldn't be too hard to take the time to write spells into your spellbook.
Finding the spells might be more difficult, but could actually provide opportunities for smaller quests.

Of course, if it's a game where things are moving fast or you don't have access to civilization, you'll kind of be screwed unless your DM is willing to give you plenty of scrolls (up to a total of 34, as shown) and the time to scribe those spells.

In CharOp, though, keeping the same number of spells (and picking the highest spell level) means they have 730,300 gp left to spend on their equipment and extra spells. Not an insurmountable barrier, but noticeable.

[Orzel]

A wizards spells known are:

Read Magic
Any spell from a spellbook or scroll on hand that she can study and cast
Any spell mastered by Spell Mastery

A wizards spell known list changes a lot.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, lets break this down.

RAI: Wizards get spells. No argument here. Meh, lets move onto the interesting bits.

Does it balance wizards? Not really. Even straight wizard 20 with minimum spells known > melee people. So, while it makes PrCing slightly less attractive, it's not likely to be a significant balancing force.

RAW: Ok, here we get into the goodies. Lets break this down into the sub arguments.

Argument #1: Wizards don't get spells known.


Spells
A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).

To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a wizard’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the wizard’s Intelligence modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score.

Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells. She must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting a good night’s sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard decides which spells to prepare.

Wizards do clearly have spells known, which is a subset of the "spells" class feature.


Argument #2: PrCs do not advance spells known.

Lets first state that not all PrCs have the same rules. Therefore, by RAW, the answer will vary on a per PrC basis. However, for the sake of example, I will continue using Archmage, the class argued about already.



Spells per Day/Spells Known
When a new archmage level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he added the prestige class level. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he became an archmage, he must decide to which class he adds each level of archmage for the purpose of determining spells per day.

His previous arcane class is Wizard, therefore, if applicable, he will gain spells known as if he were a Wizard. Applicability is established by the aforementioned point, that Wizards have spells known.

Argument #3: "spells a wizard knows" /= "spells known"

By the rules of English, these statements are interchangeable. Note that there need be no Spells Known class feature, as capital letters are not used, nor is it referred to as a class feature.

It can easily be accepted that a spell and an item of the same name are not interchangeable, but this is because these options are of different, and explicit, types. The only types of spells known used are by class. For instance, an Ultimate Magus will have a Sorcerer list of spells known, and a wizard list of spells known, and they will generally not be interchangeable. However, since Archmage uses wording that is generic to any class, they apply to any such class(and indeed, even multiple classes).

Anything else we need to go over?

[Orzel]

Argument #4: Wizards don't get addional spell known per level. They get addional spells knownvia access to spellbooks and feats.

[Tyndmyr]

Argument #4: Wizards don't get addional spell known per level. They get addional spells knownvia access to spellbooks and feats.

Oh, that's an interesting one.

The relevant clause from the SRD is, of course:

At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook.

They clearly appear in her spellbook as a result of leveling up. What we need to do is show the equivalence of spells in spellbook to spells known.

We can establish that all spellbooks are not equal, as the rules specify specifically her spellbook is where the spells appear. This brings up interesting possibilities regarding a player with multiple spellbooks, or a spellbook on the other side of the world, by RAW, but we'll skip those for now. Whichever spellbook is hers is the one in which they appear.

Now, we can prove equivalency in two ways. Either demonstrating equivalency directly, or by deduction, via eliminating all other possibilities.

For the deductively inclined, we can go over the possible sources for a wizards spells. Any wizard starts out with spells in a spellbook, as well as the ability to prepare spells. In addition, they will have bonus spells and spell slots(I am aware that the difference between spell slots and prepared spells is fairly pedantic. Feh, it's a RAW discussion).

Spells known cannot possibly be the spells prepared, since the first are always without limit, while the spells prepared are subject to limits. The same is true of bonus spells and spell slots. The only source available by default to wizards is spells in spellbook(s), therefore, we can deductively show that spells known must be referring to spells in the casters spellbook(since the spellbooks of others are not granted by the class).

For those who prefer to avoid deduction, we'll take the alternative route.

From "Arcane Spells":


Adding Spells to a Wizard’s Spellbook
Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods. If a wizard has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, she can learn spells only from schools whose spells she can cast.

Spells Gained at a New Level
Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, she gains two spells of her choice to add to her spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels she can cast. If she has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from her specialty school.


This explicitly says that a wizard gains two spells per level to add to her spellbook.



Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizardmay know any number of spells (see
Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook,page 179).

Phb is the primary source for Wizard and spellcasting. Therefore, you can see that writing new spells into a spellbook is how you know a spell. Note that the quote above from the SRD is found at the referenced page. Therefore, spells added to your spellbook = spells you know.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Argument #4: Wizards don't get addional spell known per level. They get addional spells knownvia access to spellbooks and feats.I re-iterate that the lack of some explicit sentence that flatly states "spells written in a wizard's spellbook count as spells known" creates a point of vagueness in the RAW which must be interpreted. The burden of airtight literal RAW interpretation doesn't lie on one side or the other; it just necessitates the dreaded DM judgement call. The good news is that the judgement call is glaringly obvious, since all you have to do is link "spells a wizard knows" to "spells known" in your head. Doing otherwise in an actual game is just a stealth houserule.

[Tyndmyr]

I re-iterate that the lack of some explicit sentence that flatly states "spells written in a wizard's spellbook count as spells known" creates a point of vagueness in the RAW which must be interpreted. The burden of airtight literal RAW interpretation doesn't lie on one side or the other; it just necessitates the dreaded DM judgement call. The good news is that the judgement call is glaringly obvious, since all you have to do is link "spells a wizard knows" to "spells known" in your head. Doing otherwise in an actual game is just a stealth houserule.

I don't think Orzel was challenging that. Spells a wizard knows = spells known is just basic english.

I believe he was looking at the much less intuitive "spells in a spellbook" = "spells known". You'll note that to show this in the non-deductive format, I had to refer to the Phb, since the SRD lacks the clarifying reference for spells known. Using the SRD only, there's no link....and a lot of people, myself included, use the SRD as our main reference, since it's perfectly good for answering 99+% of questions. So, his question is pretty legitimate, and doesn't need to be answered by a judgement call.

[Cerlis]

Isnt the section saying how wizards get new spells under the spellcasting section and thus benefits from "+1 Arcane Spellcasting".

gaining spells through research and putting them into your spellbook is a part of how wizards gain spells, thus when their spellcasting increases, so does this.

Else PrCs would just look like master of the Unseen hand and have "Your caster level is your caster level +PRC level" and the ability "extra spell" every level or two

[absolmorph]

This explicitly says that a wizard gains two spells per level to add to her spellbook.
The PHB and SRD both say "at each new wizard level". It's unrelated to caster level, spells slots or anything but wizard levels.

[Orzel]

My point is a naked wizard without Spell Mastery only knows one spell. Her known spell known are whatever spell she can currently prepare. If she doesn't have the spellbook at hand, she doesn't know it anymore.

The wizard class feature just adds two spells to any spellbook he owns. A Prc increases spells known per level. A wizard doesn't gain spell known per level, they add spells to a spellbook for free per level.

[bondpirate]

Wizards get 2 additional spells added to their spell books on increasing a Wizard level. Any spell in their books is considered known, not Known. Known spells is solely in the purview of sorcerers and bards and other classes which pick up spells this way.

They are the ones who get screwed PrCing by RAW. Read and consider the following as per the SRD (which align with the DMG for what they mean):

1) Thaumaturgist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/thaumaturgist.htm) -
Spells per Day

When a new thaumaturgist level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in whatever spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. This essentially means that he adds the level of thaumaturgist to the level of whatever other spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day and caster level accordingly.

If a character had more than one spellcasting class before he became a thaumaturgist, he must decide to which class he adds each level of thaumaturgist for the purpose of determining spells per day.

2) Dragon Disciple (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/dragonDisciple.htm) -
Bonus Spells

Dragon disciples gain bonus spells as they gain levels in this prestige class, as if from having a high ability score, as given on Table: The Dragon Disciple. A bonus spell can be added to any level of spells the disciple already has the ability to cast.

If a character has more than one spellcasting class, he must decide to which class he adds each bonus spell as it is gained. Once a bonus spell has been applied, it cannot be shifted.

3) Loremaster (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/loremaster.htm) -
Spells per Day/Spells Known

When a new loremaster level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if she had also gained a level in a spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class. She does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. This essentially means that she adds the level of loremaster to the level of some other spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly.

I know this was the case that most PrCs didn't grant either additional spells or Spells Known in 3.0 (I'm looking at you Neverwinter Nights 1), so it really sucked to do anything beyond vanilla classes on full casters. Raw is pretty clear that unless they spell it out, your technically not supposed to get additional bonus spells except on more Wizard levels.

The problem is the Master Specialist PrC in Complete Mage. This PrC only advances wizard casting, but it specifically advances spells known. There is no errata for the line.

There is quite a bit of commotion on the subject, and consensus will probably never be reached. My personal opinion is Wizards didn't make it explicit and most still allow it regardless (doesn't break the game unless it's a minimal resources campaign, though they should be chosen with DM approval). After Core was brought out, they adjusted future PrCs so it hurt spontaneous casters less, but the Wizard addendum on extra spells was pretty much left alone.

[Defiant]

This argument has made me realize something. Spell Mastery doesn't work since Wizards don't know any spells.


Spell Mastery [Special]
Prerequisite
Wizard level 1st.

Benefit
Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.

Normal
Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to prepare all your spells, except read magic.

I think this pretty much sealed the thread, outlining the utter ridiculousness of all the discussion. :smallsigh:

[olentu]

You know you guys could have used this bit



known spell: A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and
can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their
spellbooks.


I would say this very clearly states that a spell in the spellbook is a known spell for a wizard.

[Tyndmyr]

My point is a naked wizard without Spell Mastery only knows one spell. Her known spell known are whatever spell she can currently prepare. If she doesn't have the spellbook at hand, she doesn't know it anymore.

The wizard class feature just adds two spells to any spellbook he owns. A Prc increases spells known per level. A wizard doesn't gain spell known per level, they add spells to a spellbook for free per level.

Well no, that's not technically correct.

See, you can prepare spells off the spellbooks of others, but you don't know those spells. Therefore, spells you can prepare are not always equivalent to spells you know. Neither is there any reason to believe your spells known list changes if you're unable to prepare spells for some reason. If this were the case, then sorcerers would be absolutely worthless, as they do not prepare spells.

Absolmorph, you are correct. And therefore, the text of the PrC matters for this, if you're going by pure RAW. The archmage is wizard friendly, as the wording explicitly allows them to gain spells as per their original arcane casting class. Therefore, archmage results in the same 2/level learned. Not every class is so well laid out.


For the more fun RAW based questions, what happens to a wizard with multiple spellbooks? Do they all get the two spells listed in them? Obviously not RAI, but I see a possible RAW argument for it.

Bondpirate, why the difference between "known" and "Known"? The text is the wizard class does not capitalize known, and no differentiation is made. What justification do you have to demonstrate that they are of a different type?

Spell Mastery does provide additional evidence that spells in spellbook = spells known. When you have two possible interpretations of a given sentence in the rules, and one of them makes other things in the rules utterly fail to make sense, it's a good clue you're interpreting things wrong.

[Diarmuid]

You know you guys could have used this bit



I would say this very clearly states that a spell in the spellbook is a known spell for a wizard.

If you're going to quote something, please be sure to include the entire quote.


known spell: A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and
can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their
spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having
selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level
advancement.

Bolding mine for emphasis. The difference between knowing a spell and having spells known is akin to the relationship between squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares. All Known Spells are spells known, not all spells known are Known Spells.

@Cerlis - The section about wizards and spellbooks is not in the their spellcasting section. It is its own section completely.

The spellbook section explicitly states that on leveling up the wizard adds two spells to their spellbook. It says nothing about adding spells known, so the "spells known, if applicable" does not apply to them by RaW.

I continue to admint this rule doesnt make sense as written and it makes the most sense to rule that wizards get those spells still.

[Marnath]

If you're going to quote something, please be sure to include the entire quote.



Bolding mine for emphasis. The difference between knowing a spell and having spells known is akin to the relationship between squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares. All Known Spells are spells known, not all spells known are Known Spells.

@Cerlis - The section about wizards and spellbooks is not in the their spellcasting section. It is its own section completely.

The spellbook section explicitly states that on leveling up the wizard adds two spells to their spellbook. It says nothing about adding spells known, so the "spells known, if applicable" does not apply to them by RaW.

I continue to admint this rule doesnt make sense as written and it makes the most sense to rule that wizards get those spells still.

Wait.. not arguing per se, but I truly don't understand how the bolded is in favor of your arguement? It says "when aquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement" which A) is also true for wizards when they add to their book and B) is not the same as "When aquiring new spells through the Spells Known class feature." So I guess I don't see how that is not detrimental to your case?

[olentu]

If you're going to quote something, please be sure to include the entire quote.



Bolding mine for emphasis. The difference between knowing a spell and having spells known is akin to the relationship between squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares. All Known Spells are spells known, not all spells known are Known Spells.

@Cerlis - The section about wizards and spellbooks is not in the their spellcasting section. It is its own section completely.

The spellbook section explicitly states that on leveling up the wizard adds two spells to their spellbook. It says nothing about adding spells known, so the "spells known, if applicable" does not apply to them by RaW.

I continue to admint this rule doesnt make sense as written and it makes the most sense to rule that wizards get those spells still.

Er I fail to see the difference. Perhaps if every instance of spells known had been capitalized I would agree but that is not the case since the term is used without capitalization a few times. Without capitalization or an explicit definition I can not agree that it is anything but the common use of the words.

Either that or you are incorrectly equating two things the capitalized term and the uncapitalized term. Meaning that yes while sorcerers may have spells known it is a houserule to say that they get more than zero each level. Or I suppose to say what number they get with zero presumably being the default number of spells known that every class gets when leveling.

[Diarmuid]

Wait.. not arguing per se, but I truly don't understand how the bolded is in favor of your arguement? It says "when aquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement" which A) is also true for wizards when they add to their book and B) is not the same as "When aquiring new spells through the Spells Known class feature." So I guess I don't see how that is not detrimental to your case?

Marn,

The bolded part is important because that sentence only applies to Bards and Sorcerors and specifically calls out learning new spells being a function of their level advancement.

[olentu]

Marn,

The bolded part is important because that sentence only applies to Bards and Sorcerors and specifically calls out learning new spells being a function of their level advancement.

This means nothing since it does not exclude wizards from having learning new spells as a part of their level advancement.

[Marnath]

Marn,

The bolded part is important because that sentence only applies to Bards and Sorcerors and specifically calls out learning new spells being a function of their level advancement.

Right, but it specifically calls it "aquiring new spells" here. Which according to the line before that is something wizards do too, since they add spells to their book.

[Diarmuid]

Yep, but "adding spells to a spellbook" is not something that is listed as being advanced in any PrC I've seen.

That's what I meant by the whole rectangle/square thing.

If a wizard adds a spell to his/her book he/she knows that spell. A wizard cannot know a spell without having first put it into his/her spellbook. Adding spells to a spellbook is not advanced by PrC.

[Marnath]

The PrC does use the lowercase version of spells known however. Which appears in that PHB paragraph. The one on the sorceror list is bolded. And I just noticed it's a table, rather than being in the text. I think that's probably significant. The actual text reads:


A sorcerer’s selection of spells is extremely limited. A sorcerer begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of your choice. At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known are fixed.) These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however.

It technically doesn't say he gains Spells Known, rather that he gains spells, in the amount listed on the table.

[olentu]

Yep, but "adding spells to a spellbook" is not something that is listed as being advanced in any PrC I've seen.

That's what I meant by the whole rectangle/square thing.

If a wizard adds a spell to his/her book he/she knows that spell. A wizard cannot know a spell without having first put it into his/her spellbook. Adding spells to a spellbook is not advanced by PrC.

Er that is again the additional spells known. Or are you still incorrectly equating the capitalized and uncapitalized terms.

[Chauncymancer]

a logical deduction based on the English used.


I hate to be that guy. But that is a definition of "interpretation".

[Fitz10019]

I don't think the "(and spells known, if applicable)" part has been given enough weight. If wizards should be considered a class with "spells known" then this phrase would not have been necessary (or included parenthetically) in arcane prestige class descriptions in the DMG.

[Diarmuid]

Playing devil's advocate, there are arcane casting classes that have a set list and cast from that list like clerics do, without having "spells known".

That being said, there werent any classes like that for the DMG PrC's to take into account.

I truly believe the disconnect here is in the understanding of the rigidity of RaW. There is absolutely no room for assumption, interpretation, inferring, etc. If it is not written out clearly and spelled out specifically, it simply is not so.

[Tyndmyr]

The PrC does use the lowercase version of spells known however. Which appears in that PHB paragraph. The one on the sorceror list is bolded. And I just noticed it's a table, rather than being in the text. I think that's probably significant. The actual text reads:



It technically doesn't say he gains Spells Known, rather that he gains spells, in the amount listed on the table.

Text trumps table. There is no real RAW justification for spells known being different from Spells Known, especially when ability descriptions use varying cases, as is a very common thing. Capitalization can be helpful in some cases for determining intent, especially in vague cases where two similar things of different types may be confused, but there is no rule in RAW stating that capitalization must invariably match.

Fitz, there are a great number of arcane classes. You could argue that not all of them progress spells known. For instance, warmage(with the exception of a specific class ability on a couple levels) does not progress spells known, as you know your class list entirely at the beginning. Therefore, the PrC clause is not applicable to them. This provides a perfect reason for the applicability clause existing, and implies nothing about it applying to wizards.

[Defiant]

I hate to be that guy. But that is a definition of "interpretation".

An interpretation is open to interpretation. A logical deduction is not.

[Fitz10019]

Fitz, there are a great number of arcane classes... For instance, warmage..
Not when the DMG was published. You missed half of my point.

These arguments should stand using PHB & DMG only, because the PHB defines the Wizard class, and the DMG started the practice of "(and spells known, if applicable)."

[olentu]

Er so what. Perhaps they were just cleaning up language from 3.0 considering that quite a number of 3.0 classes did not progress spells known along with per day as I recall. Perhaps they were showing foresight when making the new prestige class spell advancement thing.

Perhaps many things but in the end intent could go either way and so supports neither.

Edit: Looking around I have just noticed that if I am reading this correctly it seems the assassin does not gain new spells that they know when going from 8th level to 9th level which would fit the mold of new spells known is not applicable.

Edit: Thinking about it even more I believe that should a bard or assassin not have a high enough casting stat for a bonus spell slot on the levels where they get zero slots this is another example of when new spells known would not apply.

[dextercorvia]

Not when the DMG was published. You missed half of my point.

These arguments should stand using PHB & DMG only, because the PHB defines the Wizard class, and the DMG started the practice of "(and spells known, if applicable)."

Bard doesn't gain any spells known at 4 with a low enough casting stat. So, a Sorcerer14/Bard3/Archmage1 (advancing bard) does not gain any spells known.

Also, they could have foreseen an arcane spellcasting class with a slower spells known progression -- the Hexblade, for instance, will receive no new spells known at (4 or 5), 7, (8 or 9) depending on Cha. Hexblade doesn't predate the DMG, but CW was pretty early in the 3.5 cycle.

[Fitz10019]

Bard doesn't gain any spells known at 4 with a low enough casting stat. So, a Sorcerer14/Bard3/Archmage1 (advancing bard) does not gain any spells known.

It's amazing to me that you think that possibility is worth mentioning.

G'night, folks!

[absolmorph]

It's amazing to me that you think that possibility is worth mentioning.

G'night, folks!
What's especially amazing is that he's saying that a sorcerer wouldn't have a high enough Charisma for bonus spells :smallamused:

[dextercorvia]

It's amazing to me that you think that possibility is worth mentioning.

G'night, folks!

Of course it is worth mentioning. It completely negates your argument that Wizards can't have spells known, because there has to be a case where it isn't applicable. Here is a case where it isn't applicable. If it is the apparent lack of optimization that is concerning you, then fear not, this was written by the folks who brought us the monk. I can totally see them thinking a bard/sorcerer multiclass would be a good way to get some bard abilities with better spellcasting. Likewise, there is nothing that indicates they were only writing for players that make optimized choices (Hierophant, anyone).


What's especially amazing is that he's saying that a sorcerer wouldn't have a high enough Charisma for bonus spells :smallamused:

Bah, change it to Wizard13/Bard3/Archmage1... (I failed may saving throw against SAD control) It qualifies for archmage easier anyway. Or use Assassin as was otherwise mentioned.

[Marnath]

Text trumps table. There is no real RAW justification for spells known being different from Spells Known, especially when ability descriptions use varying cases, as is a very common thing. Capitalization can be helpful in some cases for determining intent, especially in vague cases where two similar things of different types may be confused, but there is no rule in RAW stating that capitalization must invariably match.


That's my point. :smallconfused: The text doesn't refer to the term spells known. It refers to the sorceror knowing spells, which is the same wording as when refering to how a wizard knows the spells in his spellbook. The only place aside from the tables that spells known appears is in the line that explains you can swap out a spell when you gain new spells known.

[olentu]

That's my point. :smallconfused: The text doesn't refer to the term spells known. It refers to the sorceror knowing spells, which is the same wording as when refering to how a wizard knows the spells in his spellbook. The only place aside from the tables that spells known appears is in the line that explains you can swap out a spell when you gain new spells known.

Which, in reference to new spells known, I believe has been noted could be zero in the case anyone was going to take the ability to swap as implication of anything.