Question about the Beguiler-Style Casters

[Elric VIII]

It is often said that Beguiler and its ilk can use Versatile Spellcaster to cast spells of a higher level than indicated by the table. The reason given is the quote:

Essentially, your spell list is the same as your spells known list.

However, the Advanced Learning class feature says:

The spell must be a sorcerer/wizard spell of the enchantment or illusion school and of a level no higher than that of the highest-level spell you already know.

This seems to imply that they only know spells that they can cast as indicated by the table.


Now, my question is which interpretation is in the right?

Am I allowed to choose any level of spells for Advanced Learning (since at level 3, there aren't many good choices that you do not already have)?

[Fax Celestis]

The class knows all the spells on its list, and can cast them spontaneously. If you have a feature that lets you make slots higher than normal, you can cast them.

[Reluctance]

RAW, yes. RAI, most DMs will probably tell you to knock it off.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Right before the "Essentially" quote:
When you gain access to a new level of spells, you automatically know all the spells for that level on the beguiler’s spell list.So (1) without other cheese you know a spell level above you at most, and (2) it depends on what "gain access to" means. If versatile spellcaster's higher level spell slot counts as access to that level of spells, then you know that level's entire list and can select advanced learnings of a level higher than normal. If it doesn't, then you're SOL.

[Elric VIII]

The class knows all the spells on its list, and can cast them spontaneously. If you have a feature that lets you make slots higher than normal, you can cast them.

So is that a "yes" to being able to choose higher level spells for Advanced Learning?


Right before the "Essentially" quote:So (1) without other cheese you know a spell level above you at most, and (2) it depends on what "gain access to" means. If versatile spellcaster's higher level spell slot counts as access to that level of spells, then you know that level's entire list and can select advanced learnings of a level higher than normal. If it doesn't, then you're SOL.

The thing is, there is actually no conflicting language between your quote and mine. Saying that you "automatically know" the spells does not disqualify you from having knowledge of spells you cannot cast. That's from where my confusion stems.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The thing is, there is actually no conflicting language between your quote and mine. Saying that you "automatically know" the spells does not disqualify you from having knowledge of spells you cannot cast. That's from where my confusion stems.First, while I suppose gaining a subset of your entire list as spells known and gaining the whole list isn't technically mutually exclusive, it's still a contradiction. For instance, if the table of Rainbow Servant says you gain +1 level of arcane spellcasting at levels 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9, and the text says you gain +1 level of arcane spellcasting every level, these are not technically mutually exclusive. They do, however, contradict. Gaining +1 spellcasting at levels 2, 3, et cetera implies that you don't gain spellcasting at levels 1, 4, 7 and 10. The same goes for our quotes. Gaining spells known of levels you have access to implies you don't gain spells known of levels you don't have access to.

The question, then, is if there's a contradiction, which rule do we take? They're both text, so text trumps table doesn't matter. I believe we go to the language used in both rulings. Note that "essentially" is a qualifier (I read it as "basically"), which implies that it's only vaguely correct. If we are to choose between an explicit sentence, "You gain X when Y," and a vague sentence, "Essentially you gain X when Z," I choose the more explicit sentence.

[Coidzor]

Will it break the game? No.

So... meh. *shrug*

[Elric VIII]

The question, then, is if there's a contradiction, which rule do we take? They're both text, so text trumps table doesn't matter. I believe we go to the language used in both rulings. Note that "essentially" is a qualifier (I read it as "basically"), which implies that it's only vaguely correct. If we are to choose between an explicit sentence, "You gain X when Y," and a vague sentence, "Essentially you gain X when Z," I choose the more explicit sentence.

Exactly my point. I'm not actually making a build or anything, I just noticed that this calls into question something that seems relatively accepted as RAW.


Will it break the game? No.

So... meh. *shrug*

This is a good point, too.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

"When you gain access to a new level of spells, you automatically know all the spells for that level on the beguiler's spell list."

If you have 2nd level spell slots, you know your 2nd level spells, same goes for each subsequent spell level. It gets a bit tricky when combined with Versatile Spellcaster, though:

"You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher."

Some will say that this does not grant knowledge of the next higher level of spells, since you do not 'gain access to' that level of spells until you first know a spell of that level, as per the feat's usage. However, a similar ruling could be made for gaining spell slots of the next higher level; you cannot use those spell slots to cast spells of that level until you first know that level of spells, thus just by leveling up in the class as intended you would not gain automatic knowledge of the next higher level of spells after all.

Combining Versatile Spellcaster with any other ability that lets you cast a spell as though it were one level higher (using it to cast a Heightened spell one level higher than your highest spell slots, or using Sanctum Spell, or gaining knowledge of a higher level spell via a Bloodline feat, etc.) gets rid of any grey area and allows you ironclad-RAW early access to the next higher level of spells on your class list. Your access to a given level of spells is one level sooner than a prepared caster, rather than one level later, but you're still drawing from an extremely limited spell list and you also must sacrifice far more daily resources to do so. Definitely not game breaking, it serves to make these Tier 3 classes a bit more viable compared to the Tier 1 casters.

Note that a Bloodline feat from Dragon Compendium grants you a spell known of every spell level from 1st through 9th, so just one feat will allow you to pick Advanced Learning spells of any level you want.

Edit: I forgot to mention, you can get the feat Magical Training (PGtF) to get a spellbook and the ability to learn and scribe spells into it just as a Wizard does. Thus for one 1st level feat you can learn any Wizard spell that you can make the Spellcraft check to understand, and even use Versatile Spellcaster to spend your Beguiler spell slots two at a time to cast them.

[Grim Reader]

A slight digression: Versatile Spellcaster does not give you a higher level spell slot. Ever. If consumes two lower-level slots instead of one at the same level to produce a spell, but never produces a slot.

[Psyren]

"When you gain access to a new level of spells, you automatically know all the spells for that level on the beguiler's spell list."

Yet immediately after that quote:

"Essentially, your spell list is the same as your spells known list."

This statement means you know the whole thing, and it doesn't even contradict your own quote. What it does NOT say is "you don't know a spell level until you gain access to it" like your first set of hypothetical detractors would try to imply.

[Elric VIII]

Edit: I forgot to mention, you can get the feat Magical Training (PGtF) to get a spellbook and the ability to learn and scribe spells into it just as a Wizard does. Thus for one 1st level feat you can learn any Wizard spell that you can make the Spellcraft check to understand, and even use Versatile Spellcaster to spend your Beguiler spell slots two at a time to cast them.

That seems like an amazing feat. It's like Loredrake-light on a Beguiler.

[Elric VIII]

So I looked at Magical Training and I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that you can scribe level 1-9 spells into the spellbook granted by this feat and cast them using beguiler slots or that the count as spells known and can cast them using versatile spellcaster?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

So I looked at Magical Training and I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that you can scribe level 1-9 spells into the spellbook granted by this feat and cast them using beguiler slots or that the count as spells known and can cast them using versatile spellcaster?

They count as spells known, thus they can be cast via Versatile Spellcaster.

[Grim Reader]

They count as spells known, thus they can be cast via Versatile Spellcaster.

Is that in the feat? Wizards normally have a hard time getting spells known, as opposed to learned.

[Bloodgruve]

They count as spells known, thus they can be cast via Versatile Spellcaster.

This is very interesting. If this works is it safe to assume that any class that gives you a spellbook would allow you to input spells into the book and use Versatile Spellcaster to cast them?

*It seems that the SRD uses both 'learned' and 'know' to describe spells in their spellbook.

TY
Blood~

[dextercorvia]

Is that in the feat? Wizards normally have a hard time getting spells known, as opposed to learned.

Wizards have no such difficulty. That is a common misconception.

They know any spell they have passed the spellcraft check for and added to their spellbook. Dig around in either the PHB or the SRD for a minute, and you will find it.

[Bloodgruve]

Here is a question.

Per Beguiler p7 PHBII, "You can cast any spell you know without preparing it. Essentially, your spell list is the same as your spells known list."

If adding a spell to your spellbook makes you know the spell do you even need Versatile Spellcaster to cast the spells you know in your book?

Blood~

[dextercorvia]

Here is a question.

Per Beguiler p7 PHBII, "You can cast any spell you know without preparing it. Essentially, your spell list is the same as your spells known list."

If adding a spell to your spellbook makes you know the spell do you even need Versatile Spellcaster to cast the spells you know in your book?

Blood~

Yeah, because class abilities are assumed to pertain to that class unless otherwise stated. However, Versatile Spellcaster gives you the ability to use any spell slots to cast any spell you know. As a feat, it doesn't have the other restriction.

[Bloodgruve]

Yeah, because class abilities are assumed to pertain to that class unless otherwise stated. However, Versatile Spellcaster gives you the ability to use any spell slots to cast any spell you know. As a feat, it doesn't have the other restriction.

That makes sense. This opens up a lot of options for Beguiler, add in some Spellthief and it gets really fun ;)

TY
Blood~

[Tyndmyr]

Will it break the game? No.

So... meh. *shrug*

Yeah. RAW...it seems legit. Pop on Sanctum Spell or what have you*, and your Eclectic Learning becomes a bit more flexible.

And also not likely to break the game. So, if one of your players finds this...let him squeal in delight and feel clever.

*For the extremely pedantic, a wand of Mnemonic Enhancer will give you access to a higher level spell slot.