Magical Training and Eternal Wands

[Darth_Versity]

The Magical Training feat from PGtF gives 3, 0 level spell slots. With those spells can the character now use Eternal Wands which only require the ability to cast Arcane spells?

[Ernir]

Yes, that is sufficient.

[Darth_Versity]

Yes, that is sufficient.

So my plan of a Warblade using an Eternal Wand of Wraithstrike with Power Attack and Time Stands Still can come true. Brilliant.

[deuxhero]

Do wands suffer ACF?

[Ernir]

Do wands suffer ACF?

No, they don't. Wands use the Spell Trigger activation method, which doesn't rely on gestures.

[gkathellar]

In general, the answer to "can Magical Training help me do X ridiculous thing?" is "yes!"

[deuxhero]

Can Magical Training help me see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch?

[Dusk Eclipse]

So my plan of a Warblade using an Eternal Wand of Wraithstrike with Power Attack and Time Stands Still can come true. Brilliant.

Remember to add a wand chamber to your weapon; but in this case I think a normal wand is better, as eternal wands can be only used twice a day; but a wand has 50 charges and costs around 1500 GP IIRC.

[Jeraa]

A regular wand would require the user to have the spell on his spell list, so it won't work unless the warblade has ranks in UMD. Eternal wands just require you be able to cast arcane spells, which the Magical Training feat can give to anyone (in the form of 3 0-level spells).

[OracleofWuffing]

Can Magical Training help me see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch?
Well, if Cinnamon Toast Crunch's magical flavor detects under Detect Magic, then yes!

E: Or Detect Poison if you want to throw the players for a loop.

[Grinner]

Can Magical Training help me see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch?

You ask that like the answer isn't obvious. :smallwink:

[Hylas]

Can Magical Training help me see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch?
No, because it's the cinnamon and sugar swirls in every bite.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

On the subject of normal a Wand of Wraithstrike: If you get Magical Training (Wizard) you can actually add additional Wizard spells to your spellbook, so I'd say you can use wands as though you have access to the Wizard class spell list. After all, a Spellthief can use a 5th+ level Wizard spell from a staff as long as it's from one of the schools he has access to, even though he'll never be able to cast spells higher than 4th level.

[Darth_Versity]

On the subject of normal a Wand of Wraithstrike: If you get Magical Training (Wizard) you can actually add additional Wizard spells to your spellbook, so I'd say you can use wands as though you have access to the Wizard class spell list. After all, a Spellthief can use a 5th+ level Wizard spell from a staff as long as it's from one of the schools he has access to, even though he'll never be able to cast spells higher than 4th level.

How do you work that? The feat says that you get a spellbook with 3 spells, it doesn't give you the ability to add more spells to it or give you access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list

[gkathellar]

How do you work that? The feat says that you get a spellbook with 3 spells, it doesn't give you the ability to add more spells to it or give you access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list

Having a personal spellbook is having a personal spellbook. If you have a personal spellbook, you can prepare from it, scribe into it, and know all spells in it.

[Darth_Versity]

Having a personal spellbook is having a personal spellbook. If you have a personal spellbook, you can prepare from it, scribe into it, and know all spells in it.

But a spellbook is an item in the DMG. By that understanding anyone can buy a spellbook at lvl 1 and claim the ability to now know and cast spells.

The feat only allows you to cast 3 0 lvl spells as either a sorcerer or wizard, with 3 known spells if you choose wizard. You may prepare these spells, from a spellbook, just as a wizard does. It does not however mention that you can add additional spells, or cast anyother spells you may learn, or use spell completion items as a wizard.

Your using the method of, 'if it doesn't say I dont get that ability then I must have it'. With that understanding, fighters must be able to cast every spell known at-will, because the PHB doesn't say they can't.

[sonofzeal]

No, because it's the cinnamon and sugar swirls in every bite.
But if the cinnamon and sugar swirls are obscured by darkness, Magical Training for "Light" does help you see it!

[gkathellar]

But a spellbook is an item in the DMG. By that understanding anyone can buy a spellbook at lvl 1 and claim the ability to now know and cast spells.

No. Absent Wizard 1 or Magical Training, you can buy a spellbook and scribe spells in it, but that doesn't actually let you do anything, because since you don't prepare spells the way a wizard does, they're not actually spells known. Just buying a spellbook doesn't provide a personal spellbook which you explicitly know and prepare spells out of. Magical Training does.

See the common RAW argument against SotAO - that without access to a personal spellbook, you have to succeed at a spellcraft check to prepare wizard spells from a spellbook, even though SotAO explicitly allows you to prepare wizard spells. And, of course, Magical Training is a solution to this problem, because it provides a personalized spellbook that you can explicitly prepare spells out of, as the wizard does.

Now, note, that you only gain three 0-level spell slots through Magical Training, so it's normally a non-issue. What it does enable is Versatile Spellcaster abuse, item usage, and SotAO actually working.


Your using the method of, 'if it doesn't say I dont get that ability then I must have it'.

No, I'm using the method of "this is what the ability to prepare and cast spells out a spellbook the way a wizard does means."

[Darth_Versity]

No. Absent Wizard 1 or Magical Training, you can buy a spellbook and scribe spells in it


But you cant scribe spells into it. The feat gives you a spellbook with 3 spells and lets you prepare and cast those spells as a wizard. It doesn't give you the ability to scribe new spells into the book.

The feat states exactly when you are treated as a Wizard

"Thereafter, you have an arcane spell failure chance if you wear armor and are treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st) for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast."

"If you choose to cast spells as a wizard, the DC for saves against your spells is 10 + your Int modifi er. You have a spellbook with three 0-level spells of your choice from the sorcerer/wizard list. You prepare your spells exactly as a wizard does."

You are only treated as 1st level Wizard for level based variables and you can prepare spells the same way a wizard does. This does give you the ability to add spells to the spellbook as a wizard can.

[Wings of Peace]

Alternatively be a Warforged, embed a Warforged Component in yourself that works as a container, and take Leadership for a Jermlaine companion with levels in Warweaver so that it can hide inside your chest and buff you.

[Bloodgruve]

A first level wizard can scribe a 9th level spell into his spellbook with a high enough spellcraft check, he is only lacking the ability to prepare and cast it. I guess the way I see it is if you cast and prepare spells as a wizard you can read and understand the arcane writing. How was the book gained? Did you create it and scribe the 0 lvl spells or was it given to you. If it was given, or technically borrowed, then you would need to make a spellcraft check of DC15 each time you tried to prepare the 0lvl spell. Since this is not required in the feat I would argue that you recorded the spells as you took the feat. Therefore you should be able to record spells as a wizard does also.

Blood~

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Magical Training doesn't just give you a spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellbookWizardsBlank) as the item, it gives you a spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#spellbooks) from which you prepare spells, just like a Wizard gets.

[Darth_Versity]

Magical Training doesn't just give you a spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellbookWizardsBlank) as the item, it gives you a spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#spellbooks) from which you prepare spells, just like a Wizard gets.

No it doesn't. If it gave you a spellbook as in the wizard class feature then it would say so with something along the lines of "You gain a spellbook just as a wizard does, see page 57 of the PHB." just like anything else that gives you a class feature from the PHB does.

I don't really mind if the whole board disagrees, and I agree that not being able to scribe spells in the book is stupid, but the feat does not grant the ability to scribe new spells and it certainly doesn't give access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list, thus cannot be used on spell completion items. It only gives access to 3, 0 lvl spells, chosen when you take the feat.

[olentu]

Just so you guys know the wizard class feature is called spellbooks not spellbook if I read the PHB correctly.

[Tyndmyr]

Can Magical Training help me see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch?

Why yes. See, it can give you prestidigitation, which will allow you to flavor ANYTHING to be like cinnamon toast crunch.

Even children.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

No it doesn't. If it gave you a spellbook as in the wizard class feature then it would say so with something along the lines of "You gain a spellbook just as a wizard does, see page 57 of the PHB." just like anything else that gives you a class feature from the PHB does.

I don't really mind if the whole board disagrees, and I agree that not being able to scribe spells in the book is stupid, but the feat does not grant the ability to scribe new spells and it certainly doesn't give access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list, thus cannot be used on spell completion items. It only gives access to 3, 0 lvl spells, chosen when you take the feat.

From Magical Training: "You prepare your spells exactly as a wizard does."
From the Wizard's Spellbook class feature: "A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells...."

Furthermore, that feat gives you a spellbook containing three spells. If you just go buy a spellbook containing those spells, you would have to make a check every time you prepare them because you didn't put them into that book yourself. This is not the case, that is your spellbook into which you have already scribed three spells. It would stand to reason that your character is capable of scribing additional spells into it, especially considering that it contains 97 empty pages. It makes absolutely no sense that you could only have ever scribed three 0-level spells into your spellbook, and then forgotten how if you want to add more spells later.

[Hirax]

Sure you can interpret it that way, and you can also interpret reserves of strength as allowing people to break CL caps by more than 3. Those are the kinds of interpretations that shouldn't ever be seriously suggested in any sort of practical situation.

[olentu]

From Magical Training: "You prepare your spells exactly as a wizard does."
From the Wizard's Spellbook class feature: "A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells...."

Furthermore, that feat gives you a spellbook containing three spells. If you just go buy a spellbook containing those spells, you would have to make a check every time you prepare them because you didn't put them into that book yourself. This is not the case, that is your spellbook into which you have already scribed three spells. It would stand to reason that your character is capable of scribing additional spells into it, especially considering that it contains 97 empty pages. It makes absolutely no sense that you could only have ever scribed three 0-level spells into your spellbook, and then forgotten how if you want to add more spells later.

You do realize that preparing wizard spells is under a different section from adding spells to a wizard's spellbook.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

You do realize that preparing wizard spells is under a different section from adding spells to a wizard's spellbook.

You mean this:
"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)."

The only other spot that refers to how they prepare spells directly references their Spellbook class feature.

[olentu]

You mean this:
"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)."

The only other spot that refers to how they prepare spells directly references their Spellbook class feature.

Oh don't be silly unless it is a capitalized spellbooks it is not referencing the class feature because the class feature is named "Spellbooks" and even then it could depend on how the word is being used. So now that we have that out of the way like I said adding spells to a wizard's spellbook and preparing wizard spells are different sections. Access to one does not grant access to the other. But perhaps you would like to point out the use of the "Spellbooks" term that I have missed.

[Darth_Versity]

From Magical Training: "You prepare your spells exactly as a wizard does."
From the Wizard's Spellbook class feature: "A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells...."

Furthermore, that feat gives you a spellbook containing three spells. If you just go buy a spellbook containing those spells, you would have to make a check every time you prepare them because you didn't put them into that book yourself. This is not the case, that is your spellbook into which you have already scribed three spells. It would stand to reason that your character is capable of scribing additional spells into it, especially considering that it contains 97 empty pages. It makes absolutely no sense that you could only have ever scribed three 0-level spells into your spellbook, and then forgotten how if you want to add more spells later.

Page 128 of the Rules Compendium, which is the most up to date set of rules, actually covers the part on preparation. The whole section is about Arcane and Divine preparation. It descibes Rest and Caster limits, but at no point does it mention the ability to scribe spells into a spellbook, because that is a part of a different thing.

So with that it shows that you can Prepare spells like a Wizard into your spells slots, and you count as a 1st level Wizard for level based variables, but you are not a wizard and cannot scribe new spells in a spellbook.

I agree that it 'Stands to Reason' that you should be able to write into the book, but this isn't about reason, its about RAW, and by RAW you cannot scribe new spells into the book.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It does not state that you cannot later add spells to those 97 empty pages. It does strongly imply that you have already scribed three spells into that book.

Stating definitively that you cannot add more spells is very strictly RAI.

[Darth_Versity]

It does not state that you cannot later add spells to those 97 empty pages. It does strongly imply that you have already scribed three spells into that book.

Stating definitively that you cannot add more spells is very strictly RAI.

"The rules don't say that I can't do this" is not a valid reason to believe that you can.

As I have said previously, the rules don't specifically say that a fighter cannot cast 9th lvl spells, does that mean that a fighter can?

The point remains that although being able to scribe more spells into the book makes sense and may even be RAI, the RAW is clear that you cannot add spells to the book.

The funny thing is that even if you don't add Read Magic to your book, you can still cast it from memory, thus getting you an extra spell known.


Arcanists also must have access to their spellbooks to study from and suffi cient light to read those books by. However, an arcane spellcaster can prepare a read magic spell without a spellbook.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

"The rules don't say that I can't do this" is not a valid reason to believe that you can.

As I have said previously, the rules don't specifically say that a fighter cannot cast 9th lvl spells, does that mean that a fighter can?

The point remains that although being able to scribe more spells into the book makes sense and may even be RAI, the RAW is clear that you cannot add spells to the book.

The funny thing is that even if you don't add Read Magic to your book, you can still cast it from memory, thus getting you an extra spell known.

If it states that a given Fighter has cast 9th level spells already then it would most certainly stand to reason that he can do so again. Similarly, if a character with Magical Training has already scribed three spells into his spellbook, then it makes sense that he is capable of adding more to it.

Stating that a character cannot do something when it is clear that the character has already done so in the past is neither RAW nor RAI, it is simply absurd.

[Darth_Versity]

...stand to reason...
...it makes sense...

sorry, but this made me LOL. This is a discussion of RAW, reason and sense have no place here.

If reason and sense had any basis in RAW then Pun-Pun would not work, Dragonwrought Kobolds would not be true Dragons and Earth Spell wouldn't give access to PrCs.

By your reasoning the feat also grants Concentration, Know(arcane), and Spellcraft as class skills as its reasonable that an arcane caster has those.

Now the feat states you have a spell book that has 3 spells. Any discussion of how they got there is merely speculation, which makes it invalid as an argument.

[Bloodgruve]

If I had magical training and was given a spell book and taught to cast spells as a wizard I would have to have recorded those spells into my spellbook. A wizard cannot cast a spell without a spellcraft check if he doesn't know the spell. To know a spell he has to record it into his spell book. Therefore by lacking any requirement to make a spellcraft check to prepare the spell required by the feat it is reasonable to assume that you, through your training, recorded the spells in your spellbook. Yes, I used the terms reasonable and assume but that is how I read it. I like RAW but whats this game without some imagination and abstract thinking?

I would allow my players to record spells using this feat. I would argue for it as a player also.

But it really comes down to DM allowance.

GL
Blood~

[Darth_Versity]

If I had magical training and was given a spell book and taught to cast spells as a wizard I would have to have recorded those spells into my spellbook. A wizard cannot cast a spell without a spellcraft check if he doesn't know the spell. To know a spell he has to record it into his spell book. Therefore by lacking any requirement to make a spellcraft check to prepare the spell required by the feat it is reasonable to assume that you, through your training, recorded the spells in your spellbook. Yes, I used the terms reasonable and assume but that is how I read it. I like RAW but whats this game without some imagination and abstract thinking?

I would allow my players to record spells using this feat. I would argue for it as a player also.

But it really comes down to DM allowance.

GL
Blood~

And that makes a very reasonable houserule, one that I wholeheartedly agree with. But it still remains a houserule as the RAW is different.

[Coidzor]

And that makes a very reasonable houserule, one that I wholeheartedly agree with. But it still remains a houserule as the RAW is different.

Well, yes, one generally has to houserule when the RAW is silent.