Versatile Spellcaster & Magical Training

[Tibbaerrohwen]

I'm currently looking for a conclusive end to this age old debate. I've looked over threads about beguilers and rainbow servants, and everything else.

To sum up: Magical Training gives you a spellbook with three cantrips; you learn & prepare spells as a wizard (PGtF p. 41). Versatile Spellcaster lets you use two lower-level spell slots to cast any spell you "know" (RotD p. 101).

Some say that you can record new spells, that are not on your list, in the spellbook and you then know them. Because of this, you can cast the spells using versatile spellcaster. Others say preparing spells as a wizard does not permit you to "know" spells and, even if it did, it would not allow you to cast them with anything but wizard slots.

I want your thoughts. I'm working on a character and thinking of using this to supplement a handful of wizard spells (Earthen Grasp, Command Undead, Desert Burial, Animate Dead) and would like to know how viable this tactic really is.

Thanks.

[Darth_Versity]

As I argued in another thread recently, the feat does not provide you with the ability to write new spells into the spellbook. I know that it is ridiculous as you have a spellbook you can cast from, but by RAW you cannot add more spells to it without taking a level in wizard first.

[Thurbane]

Doesn't Versatile Spellcaster only work with spontaneous casting?

[Tibbaerrohwen]

As I argued in another thread recently, the feat does not provide you with the ability to write new spells into the spellbook. I know that it is ridiculous as you have a spellbook you can cast from, but by RAW you cannot add more spells to it without taking a level in wizard first.

To play devil's advocate, could you not pay another Wizard to scribe those spells in your book?


Doesn't Versatile Spellcaster only work with spontaneous casting?

It requires spontaneous spellcasting as a pre-req and normally it's spontaneous slots that are used. It's more that you have spells in your book, so you know them. You do not have wizard slots to cast them, but you use versatile spellcaster to cast the spells you "know" by sacrificing spontaneous spell slots.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Wizards do indeed learn spells, thus those are spells he knows:

Adding Spells to a Wizard’s Spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#arcaneMagicalWritings)
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 Copied from Another’s Spellbook or a Scroll
A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from her specialty school. She cannot, however, learn any spells from her prohibited schools. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, below). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.

If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. She cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until she gains another rank in Spellcraft. A spell that was being copied from a scroll does not vanish from the scroll.

In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp.



Doesn't Versatile Spellcaster only work with spontaneous casting?

You have to spend spontaneous spell slots, but you can still use it to cast spells you know from a prepared class's spell list.


As I argued in another thread recently, the feat does not provide you with the ability to write new spells into the spellbook. I know that it is ridiculous as you have a spellbook you can cast from, but by RAW you cannot add more spells to it without taking a level in wizard first.

RAW you have a spellbook into which you have already scribed three spells. RAW you are not prohibited from doing so again. Furthermore, you prepare and cast your spells as a Wizard, with everything in their Spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard) section, including the following two sentences:
"To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level."
"Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells."
I see no RAW prohibition on learning new spells apart from a minimum Int score.

[Darth_Versity]

To play devil's advocate, could you not pay another Wizard to scribe those spells in your book?

Technically you could, but you would need to make a spellcraft check to understand as its not 'your' style of arcane writing. And at that point you dont need magical training, you could just get a wizards spellbook.

[Tibbaerrohwen]

I tend to agree with Biffonicus_Furiou.


Technically you could, but you would need to make a spellcraft check to understand as its not 'your' style of arcane writing. And at that point you dont need magical training, you could just get a wizards spellbook.

No, because having a spellbook does not give you the ability to learn or know spells in that spellbook. Magical Training has a section in it that states you learn/prepare spells like a wizard does.

[Darth_Versity]

RAW you have a spellbook into which you have already scribed three spells. RAW you are not prohibited from doing so again. Furthermore, you prepare and cast your spells as a Wizard, with everything in their Spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#wizard) section, including the following two sentences:
"To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level."
"Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells."
I see no RAW prohibition on learning new spells apart from a minimum Int score.

RAW you have a spellbook with 3 spells, but it does not say that you put those spells in the book. I know its ridiculous, but the feat doesn't say you put the spells there.

The latest rules printing for Preparing Spells is actually in the Rules Compendium, which makes no mention of adding spells to the spellbook. It actually has a special section for preparing arcane spells, including rest needed, time required to memorise and leaving slots open. You only get the ability to Prepare spells as a wizard, you do not get the wizards spellbook class feature.

[Tibbaerrohwen]

RAW you have a spellbook with 3 spells, but it does not say that you put those spells in the book. I know its ridiculous, but the feat doesn't say you put the spells there.

The latest rules printing for Preparing Spells is actually in the Rules Compendium, which makes no mention of adding spells to the spellbook. It actually has a special section for preparing arcane spells, including rest needed, time required to memorise and leaving slots open. You only get the ability to Prepare spells as a wizard, you do not get the wizards spellbook class feature.

A good point. I haven't had a chance to go over the Rules Compendium.

Does anyone have a rebuttal?

[Tibbaerrohwen]

Having now read p. 128-130 & 160 of the rules compendium, I do have some issues with your assessment.

Firstly, the spellbook is a class feature for the wizard, but only so far as the class gains a free spellbook. All the rules pertaining to how spells can be added, removed, prepared, etc. from the spellbook are in other rule sets.

For the purpose of the feat, you are a wizard and it is your spellbook. Though that is not stated outright, because doing so would be insulting to the intelligence of players; you prepare spells as a wizard, you record them in your book as a wizard, you do everything relating to spells and spellbooks as a wizard.

No where does it state you did not put the spells in the spell book. You choose which three spells they are. More so, it does not state that you must treat the spells as borrowed; if it were not your own spellbook you'd need to make spellcraft checks to cast the spells, which players, I assume you'd agree, should be outright warned about before taking the feat.

The rules compendium has a section on adding spells to spellbooks (p. 160 under magical writing). There is states:

a) Borrowed spellbooks require a DC 15+SL spellcraft check to prepare them

b) Casters can only copy spells from their class list into a spellbook

c) Regardless of a source, a DC 15+SL spellcraft check is necessary to understand a spell and copy it.

d) Any spellcaster can research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. Only the creator of this spell can prepare it, unless they share it with others.

D makes it clear that you could learn these spells and cast them without any feat trick, if your DM is accommodating.

Otherwise, I see nothing that states you could not hire a wizard to copy spells into your spellbook (the spells copied are then from the copier's spell list).

You would still need to understand the spell, requiring the DC 15+SL check and/or the original DC 20+SL to decipher the magical writing. You wouldn't have to worry about preparing the spell, because you're casting it spontaneously using Versatile Spellcaster. Nothing in the Rules compendium has changed the essence of the wizard/spellbook relationship, as far as I see.

[gkathellar]

You have to spend spontaneous spell slots, but you can still use it to cast spells you know from a prepared class's spell list.

Actually, you only have to spend spell slots, not specifically spontaneous ones. That means if you choose to leave some slots open while preparing spells, you can use those slots to power Versatile Spellcaster. This is why dextercorvia's Versatile Generalist works.

Note that to qualify for VS, you still need spontaneous spellcasting.

[Grim Reader]

Every DM I've ever had, has drawn a very strong line between spells learned and spells known. You can definitly interpret the rules both ways, but giving Wizards all spells learned as spells known moves deeply into TO rules interpretation territory.

I'm not entirely sure why it matters though. If you can qualify for Versatile Spellcaster and have Magical Training, you can take Heighten Spell, and get first level spells perfectly legally and confirmed by WoTC.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

RAW you have a spellbook with 3 spells, but it does not say that you put those spells in the book. I know its ridiculous, but the feat doesn't say you put the spells there.

You prepare spells as a Wizard does, yes. A Wizard who prepares spells that he scribed into his spellbook does so normally, if he prepares spells someone else scribed he has to make a check to do so. Magical Training makes no mention of having to make a check to prepare those spells because someone else scribed them, the only conclusion that can be drawn then is that you scribed those spells yourself.

[gkathellar]

Every DM I've ever had, has drawn a very strong line between spells learned and spells known. You can definitly interpret the rules both ways, but giving Wizards all spells learned as spells known moves deeply into TO rules interpretation territory.

... what? No, they're clearly the same thing. The point is that normally, it's a non-issue - under most circumstances, the fact that a wizard counts his spellbook as his list of known spells doesn't matter. Versatile Spellcaster is the only time it comes up.

[Wings of Peace]

Actually, you only have to spend spell slots, not specifically spontaneous ones. That means if you choose to leave some slots open while preparing spells, you can use those slots to power Versatile Spellcaster. This is why dextercorvia's Versatile Generalist works.

Note that to qualify for VS, you still need spontaneous spellcasting.

Why do I need to leave the slots open? It just says I need to expend the slots.

[gkathellar]

Why do I need to leave the slots open? It just says I need to expend the slots.

IIRC 'cause prepared spells and spell slots aren't the same thing.

You may actually be right and it works even with filled slots, which ... really wouldn't make it any crazier than it is already.

[Wings of Peace]

IIRC 'cause prepared spells and spell slots aren't the same thing.

You may actually be right and it works even with filled slots, which ... really wouldn't make it any crazier than it is already.

If I am wrong then we have no way of getting the slots back because Wizards prepare spells in their slots if iirc but do not "recover" slots. So either versatile spellcaster is a form of self crippling or it rocks.

[gkathellar]

If I am wrong then we have no way of getting the slots back because Wizards prepare spells in their slots if iirc but do not "recover" slots. So either versatile spellcaster is a form of self crippling or it rocks.

I think we may both be too far into IIRC territory at this point. But yeah, even if pure wizards can't use it, Versatile Spellcaster remains up there with IoM, Persistent Spell and Craft Contingent Spell in terms of pure stupidity.

[Darth_Versity]

You prepare spells as a Wizard does, yes. A Wizard who prepares spells that he scribed into his spellbook does so normally, if he prepares spells someone else scribed he has to make a check to do so. Magical Training makes no mention of having to make a check to prepare those spells because someone else scribed them, the only conclusion that can be drawn then is that you scribed those spells yourself.

Ok, lets assume for a moment that as it is the best interpretation you have scribed those spells, and (even though I don't think you can by RAW) you can add more spells to the spellbook.

You are still missing one vital component, you have no access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list. you can only cast the 3 spells you know, beyond that you cannot treat wizard spells as a spell list you can cast from. You are treated as a wizard for preparing spells, you are not a wizard. So without taking levels in an arcane class, or getting access to a spell list some other way, you have no spells to add to the book even if you could (which I still believe you cannot)

The fact remains that you are reading the feat from a common sense point of view, which is not a RAW reading. I know it makes more sense that you are basically now a wizard in everything but class levels and I would allow it to be that way in any game i ran, but that would have to be a houserule.

[olentu]

Actually I think the pertinent question is how many spells are in the starting spellbook of a wizard with 9 int.

[Tibbaerrohwen]

Ok, lets assume for a moment that as it is the best interpretation you have scribed those spells, and (even though I don't think you can by RAW) you can add more spells to the spellbook.

You are still missing one vital component, you have no access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list. you can only cast the 3 spells you know, beyond that you cannot treat wizard spells as a spell list you can cast from. You are treated as a wizard for preparing spells, you are not a wizard. So without taking levels in an arcane class, or getting access to a spell list some other way, you have no spells to add to the book even if you could (which I still believe you cannot)

The fact remains that you are reading the feat from a common sense point of view, which is not a RAW reading. I know it makes more sense that you are basically now a wizard in everything but class levels and I would allow it to be that way in any game i ran, but that would have to be a houserule.

I agree and disagree you.

I agree that you are not a wizard simply because you take the feat. You only gain access to 3 level 0 spells and only know these three spells. Beyond this, you cannot treat wizard/sorcerer spells as derived from your spell list.

I disagree that spells cannot be added to the book. IT is a spellbook, like any other spellbook. As long as pages remain, spells can be added, and they need not be added by you. Because you do not have access to a spell list, you cannot add spells to the book, but another caster can. If level 0 spells are added, you can prepare these; if spells of a higher level are added, you can prepare them once you have available spells slots, so long as the proper checks are made to understand the spells.

There is nothing in RAW that states you cannot add spells to the book. As noted previously, both the PHB and RC are clear that you can add spells to a spellbook in a multitude of forms. With these in mind, it would be up to the feat to declare that it cannot be done, which it does not.

[Darth_Versity]

I agree and disagree you.

I agree that you are not a wizard simply because you take the feat. You only gain access to 3 level 0 spells and only know these three spells. Beyond this, you cannot treat wizard/sorcerer spells as derived from your spell list.

I disagree that spells cannot be added to the book. IT is a spellbook, like any other spellbook. As long as pages remain, spells can be added, and they need not be added by you. Because you do not have access to a spell list, you cannot add spells to the book, but another caster can. If level 0 spells are added, you can prepare these; if spells of a higher level are added, you can prepare them once you have available spells slots, so long as the proper checks are made to understand the spells.

There is nothing in RAW that states you cannot add spells to the book. As noted previously, both the PHB and RC are clear that you can add spells to a spellbook in a multitude of forms. With these in mind, it would be up to the feat to declare that it cannot be done, which it does not.

Ah, then I agree entirely. Another person can add spells, and then you can use those spells if you wish, I am of the understanding though that you cannot add the spells, no different to the fact that a Fighter could not. It would take the effort of someone who could already add spells to a book to do it for you.

Once again, that is how I read the RAW, in practice I would not use it that way and would allow someone to add spells themselves once they have the feat.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Ok, lets assume for a moment that as it is the best interpretation you have scribed those spells, and (even though I don't think you can by RAW) you can add more spells to the spellbook.

You are still missing one vital component, you have no access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list. you can only cast the 3 spells you know, beyond that you cannot treat wizard spells as a spell list you can cast from. You are treated as a wizard for preparing spells, you are not a wizard. So without taking levels in an arcane class, or getting access to a spell list some other way, you have no spells to add to the book even if you could (which I still believe you cannot)

The fact remains that you are reading the feat from a common sense point of view, which is not a RAW reading. I know it makes more sense that you are basically now a wizard in everything but class levels and I would allow it to be that way in any game i ran, but that would have to be a houserule.

There is absolutely no restriction on what spells a Wizard can scribe into his spellbook. He can only cast spells from the Wizard class spell list using his Wizard spell slots, but he can study, learn, and scribe any spell he finds into his spellbook. It usually won't do him any good, but there's absolutely nothing stopping him from doing so. Just the same, a character with Magical Training could scribe any spell he finds into his spellbook regardless of what class spell lists he doesn't have access to cast from. No spell list restriction is even implied on learning/scribing spells, only on what spells can be cast from your class spell slots.

[Darth_Versity]

There is absolutely no restriction on what spells a Wizard can scribe into his spellbook. He can only cast spells from the Wizard class spell list using his Wizard spell slots, but he can study, learn, and scribe any spell he finds into his spellbook. It usually won't do him any good, but there's absolutely nothing stopping him from doing so. Just the same, a character with Magical Training could scribe any spell he finds into his spellbook regardless of what class spell lists he doesn't have access to cast from. No spell list restriction is even implied on learning/scribing spells, only on what spells can be cast from your class spell slots.

Well if that is your take on it (im AFB ATM but I believe you are wrong) then the whole combo fails anyway as you cannot use beguiler spells to cast a spell that is not on your list.

Edit:
Spellcasters who use spellbooks can add a spell to their book whenever they find one on a scroll or in another caster’s spellbook. The spell to be copied must be on the copier’s class spell list.

You cannot copy a spell that is not on your class list.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Well if that is your take on it (im AFB ATM but I believe you are wrong) then the whole combo fails anyway as you cannot use beguiler spells to cast a spell that is not on your list.

Edit:

You cannot copy a spell that is not on your class list.

The Beguiler wouldn't normally be able to cast spells not on his class list, but Versatile Spellcaster gets around that.

I'll give you that Rules Compendium quote, considering this game went over four years with no such ruling as nothing of the sort appears in any of the core rules.

However, the whole "prepares and casts spells as a wizard" does encompass the "from the wizard class spell list" of that section. You do cast (0-level) spells from the wizard class spell list, thus that class spell list is yours. It's just the same as a Spellthief using a staff of a Wizard spell that's too high level for him to ever have the spell slots to cast. His access to that spell list is not limited to the levels he can cast, so he gains all the benefits of having access to every spell level of that class spell list. Gaining the ability to cast even a single level of the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is still access to the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.

[Darth_Versity]

The Beguiler wouldn't normally be able to cast spells not on his class list, but Versatile Spellcaster gets around that.

I'll give you that Rules Compendium quote, considering this game went over four years with no such ruling as nothing of the sort appears in any of the core rules.

However, the whole "prepares and casts spells as a wizard" does encompass the "from the wizard class spell list" of that section. You do cast (0-level) spells from the wizard class spell list, thus that class spell list is yours. It's just the same as a Spellthief using a staff of a Wizard spell that's too high level for him to ever have the spell slots to cast. His access to that spell list is not limited to the levels he can cast, so he gains all the benefits of having access to every spell level of that class spell list. Gaining the ability to cast even a single level of the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list is still access to the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.

Although he prepares as a wizard and has 3 spells from the wizards spell list, he does not have the wizards spell list. He can't even cast another 0 lvl spell than the ones taken with the feat. The spell preparation rules are seperate from the spell list rules. Preparing a spell covers putting the spells in your spellbook to memory, it has nothing to do with the class spell list.


A spellthief can learn any sorcerer/wizard spell from the following schools: abjuration, divination, enchantment, illusion, and transmutation. No other sorcerer/wizard spells are on the spellthief’s class spell list

The reason the spell thief can use spells that he'd never be able to cast is because they are still on his spell list.

[Jack_Simth]

You know, I think at this point Fair Use lets us post the full text of the feats in question, as we're quoting a portion of a work for a review or debate....


You come from a land where cantrips are taught to all who have the aptitude to learn magic. Every crafter and artisan, it seems, knows a minor spell or two.
Prerequisite: Int 10 or Cha 10, elf (Evereska or Evermeet) or human (Halruaa or Nimbral).
Benefit: You can cast three 0-level arcane spells per day as either a sorcerer or wizard (your choice, so long as you have a score of at least 10 in the ability that controls the spellcasting for that class). You must make this decision when you first take the feat. 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 sorcerer, the DC for saves against your spells is 10 + your Cha modifier. You know two 0-level spells of your choice from the sorcerer/wizard list.
If you choose to cast spells as a wizard, the DC for saves against your spells is 10 + your Int modifier. 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.
Special: If you already have levels in sorcerer or wizard, increase the number of 0-level spells you can cast per day by three. You may select this feat only as a 1st-level character. You may have only one regional feat.

You can use two lower-level spell slots to cast a spell one level higher.
Prerequisite: Ability to spontaneously cast spells.
Benefit: You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.

As for my own take on this:
The key, here, resolves around what it means to "cast spells as a wizard" and "prepare your spells exactly as a wizard does", and what it means to have a spellbook.

If you consider adding spells to a spellbook part of what it means to "cast spells as a wizard" and/or "prepare your spells exactly as a wizard does", then yes, the feat means you can add spells to your spellbook, and if you find some way to get a higher level spell slot, then yes, you can use that for other spells.

If you consider adding spells to a spellbook neither part of what it means to "cast spells as a wizard" nor "prepare your spells exactly as a wizard does", then no, the feat does not mean you can add spells to your spellbook, nor does the feat let you cast other spells out of it if you find some way to get a higher level spell slot.

The problem is, though, that things aren't dived up as neatly as we might like, so some people will say "obviously, it does", while others will say "obviously, it doesn't" ... and you're not going to get a final resolution.

[Bloodgruve]

This is the way my group plays Magical Training,

You were taught how to cast 3 lvl 0 wizard spells by learning how to scribe them to your spellbook. Therefore you know the method of recording spells.

If you're using a 'borrowed' spellbook you need to make a spellcraft check to prepare a spell, this feat does not require the check therefore I would argue that you recorded the spells yourself.

Since you cast spells as a wizard you can work with the wizards spell list.

With the right spellcraft check you can record 9th lvl spells from books or scrolls into your spellbook since you know the method and have done it previously with your existing lvl 0 spells. It is stated on the WoTC site somewhere that you 'know' a spell that you have recorded into your spellbook.

You can then use Versatile Spellcaster to drop your spontaneous spells for one in your spellbook.

This is working very well with my Beguiler ;)

It really all comes down to your DM and his take on it. But this is a strong argument towards the concept.

As I said in another thread I would allow my players to use this and I would argue for it as a player.

GL
Blood~

[Sir_Chivalry]

Well, as the DM, having read through this whole argument, it seems that it would work as Bloodgruve said, at least for my game. That being said, if it causes any major abuse, I'll veto it later.