"unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study."

[Thanatosia]

One of the rules regaurding spells a Sorcer is able to learn is: "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."

Now, I've always just interpreted this rule as a permission for Sorcerors to learn custom crafted or Campaign specific Arcane spells intended for Wizard/Sorceror usage even if they don't appear on the normal published Sorceror/Wizard Spell lists. For example, if Say Wizard Heironius designs a custom arcane spell "Heironius's Magnificent Hound", and a Sorceror finds a spellbook or scroll with said arcane spell, he'd have the ability to learn it (understand by study) and take it as one of his sorceror spells even tho "heironius's Magnificent Hound" is not on any existing Sorceror/Wizard spell list.

But in another thread, I've found that multiple players seem to interpret that rule as sort of a blank-check to learn any spell from any spell list that the Sorceror spends time studying, including Divine spells.

That can't really be the intent behind the rule is it? Do you allow sorcerors to learn Cross Class List spells in this way? Or learn Divine spells? Is that really a common valid interpretation?

[Deophaun]

I really don't see the problem with it. The main limitation Sorcerers have is on the number of spells known, not the quality of their spells. In fact, they have access to the best spell list in the entire game. So giving them access to all spell lists provided they can find the opportunity to learn the spell doesn't really affect their power level.

[amalcon]

Forewarning: This is likely devolve into argument about the RAIITAYCPIWN[1]. You're not going to get real closure on this issue.

That said, I'm pretty sure RAI here is that Sorcerers are able to develop new spells just like Wizards can, not that they can learn literally any spell in the game.

[1]- Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah. See Caelic's Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization.

[Jack_Simth]

That can't really be the intent behind the rule is it? Do you allow sorcerors to learn Cross Class List spells in this way? Or learn Divine spells? Is that really a common valid interpretation?
The intent is largely unknowable. You'd have to ask the designers, and they pretty much aren't available. I've got a couple of notes about it:

1) The Sorcerer is the only one of the core casters that includes the "primarily from" clause when specifying it's spells.
2) Independant Research clauses elsewhere in the core books do not reference the sorcerer (however, the independent research clauses also make note that a spell researched by one character can be learned by another of the same class that runs across a copy).
3) The Sorcerer gets another mention of unusual spells in the PHB page 179 (although this one also includes bards).
4) There are not, however, any actual rules for the clause anywhere.

Basically, it's a hole in the rules. It is very clearly supposed to mean something, but exactly what is left undefined. It means exactly what the people at a given gaming table come to a consensus on what it means... for that gaming table.

However, at least compared to the Druid, Wizard, and Cleric, the Sorcerer can use the boost in flexibility.

[Juntao112]

Basically, it's a hole in the rules. It is very clearly supposed to mean something, but exactly what is left undefined. It means exactly what the people at a given gaming table come to a consensus on what it means... for that gaming table.

After the publication of sorcerer-only spells, it can be interpreted to mean sorcerer-only spells, though whether that was the original intent is debatable.

[Anlashok]

After the publication of sorcerer-only spells, it can be interpreted to mean sorcerer-only spells, though whether that was the original intent is debatable.

Doubtful, the spells are already flagged as sorcerer spells. Otherwise with that interpretation Clerics wouldn't be able to learn cleric spells not in the PHB because they're not on the cleric spell list outlined in the class' description.

That's the problem I have with the "for custom-crafted spells" argument. No other class has such a clause and yet I've heard no one argue that any other class has a problem gaining access to custom crafted spells or spells in new books.

[Vhaidara]

So one side says custom spells only, and the other says spells from any spell list?. I have a compromise.

I am a Sorcerer. I am going to make a custom spell called Heal Light Wounds. It is a first level Conjuration(Healing) spell that goes on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. It is a touch range spell that takes a standard action to cast and heals the target for 1d8 + 1 per caster level (max +5). It is harmless and allows a Will save for half. It uses positive energy, so undead are harmed instead of healed.

There, a custom spell is added to my spell list. No matter that I could have just said "I want to know Cure Light Wounds".

[icefractal]

Personally, I don't even use the "study" part. Why would a Sorcerer be studying spells anyway? They use magic intuitively, not by training.

So - IMC, Sorcerers can learn any spell when they get new spells known. That means not just any list, but any source, homebrew, whatever. If a Wizard would be allowed to research it as a custom spell, a Sorcerer can pick it. Of course, it's subject to the same review for approval as other homebrew material.

I don't find it overpowering at all. A lot of the more powerful spells are already at the borderline where they may or may not be approved if they were homebrew, so it's not overall an increase. And versatility wise, it just somewhat (but not even completely) compensates for not being able to prepare different spells for downtime or strategic reasons.

[Jack_Simth]

After the publication of sorcerer-only spells, it can be interpreted to mean sorcerer-only spells, though whether that was the original intent is debatable.That's definitely one possible interpretation, yes. It's not the only reasonable one, however.

[Thanatosia]

That's the problem I have with the "for custom-crafted spells" argument. No other class has such a clause and yet I've heard no one argue that any other class has a problem gaining access to custom crafted spells or spells in new books.
Well, I considered the rule neccisary for Sorcerors and not other classes because Divine casters already 'know' all their spells without any learning mechanics neccisary, and Wizards already have specific rules for scribing a newly discovered spell into their spellbooks.

In the absense of this rule, I could see DMs not permiting Sorceror's to learn spells outside of the basic Wizard/Sorceror spell lists... custom crafted spells are hardly not in their blood as most Sorceror magic comes from. The rule doesn't need to be spelled out for Wizards because the rule to scribe spells to their spellbook is already there.

[Talya]

I posted this in the thread this discussion started in:


There is a subtle but important distinction between the sorcerer's spell selection flexibility and the wizard's rigid list. There is an even bigger difference between this and a house rule.

"A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." This is important. Primarily. A sorcerer's spells known should be almost entirely from the sorcerer spell list. The sorcerer does not get to cherry-pick alternate spell lists at will. However, it does leave the option open for the occasional spell -- ANY spell -- not on the sorcerer list: "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."

You have to remember that D&D is not a solo game. It is not meant to be played without a DM. A DM is required for adjudication. This does not make it a house rule, nor is it rule 0. This is a clear case of it being "a judgement call." The game rules clearly recommend giving the sorcerer a certain flexibility here, but not carte blanche.


This is not referring to custom-crafted spells at all, btw. This is because custom crafted spells appear on a spell list. When you, as a wizard/sorcerer craft a spell, it becomes a spell on the list of your class. If a bard who has enough spellcraft/knowledge (arcana) does the same, it becomes a spell on the bard list.

This is specifically referring to spells on other class's lists. However, they do not have a "blank check." This is the exception to the sorcerer's spell choices. They don't get to go splatbook diving in complete divine every time they level up.

[Thanatosia]

"A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." This is important. Primarily. A sorcerer's spells known should be almost entirely from the sorcerer spell list.
I don't think the 'unusual spells' rule that we are mainly discussing is there to justify the existance of Sorceror-only spells, but the existant of spells outside the scope of 'Primarily' in THIS rule I do think is specifically a reference to the existance of Sorceror-only spells like Wings of Flurry.

[Thanatosia]

This is specifically referring to spells on other class's lists. However, they do not have a "blank check." This is the exception to the sorcerer's spell choices. They don't get to go splatbook diving in complete divine every time they level up.
I really don't see how allowing them to 'study' other classes spells is much different then said Blank Check. It's trivially easy to gain access to a scroll or someone who can cast any spell you want to learn, and then claim you are studying it.

[Talya]

I really don't see how allowing them to 'study' other classes spells is much different then said Blank Check. It's trivially easy to gain access to a scroll or someone who can cast any spell you want to learn, and then claim you are studying it.

Because they don't get that "blank check," regardless of how they study.

Their spells known must be primarily drawn from the sorcerer spell list. As I said, the vast majority of their spells known need to be on that list. We aren't given a specific number, it's for the DM and the player to work out, but common sense and a feel for the specific character in question - as well as what opportunities and motivations and other appropriate rationale they have as to why they might get to learn a specific spell would all be taken into account.

All the study of druid spellcasting in the world doesn't matter...if the sorcerer is choosing a notable number of their spells off the druid list, they're doing it wrong, and the DM should explain it to them. With a bludgeoning DMG if necessary. However, it's completely reasonable for a "forest witch" styled-sorceress to have Plant Growth and Control Plants on their spells known list by level 17.

[HunterOfJello]

This is a rare case where I feel like I have absolutely no clue what the RAI is supposed to be. I would really like to sit down and ask whoever wrote the sorcerer section what they actually meant by it.

[Thanatosia]

Their spells known must be primarily drawn from the sorcerer spell list. As I said, the vast majority of their spells known need to be on that list. We aren't given a specific number, it's for the DM and the player to work out, but common sense and a feel for the specific character in question - as well as what opportunities and motivations and other appropriate rationale they have as to why they might get to learn a specific spell would all be taken into account.
My issue with this is that there is already so much overt overlap between spell lists that what difference is left is kind of special. You don't need to take half your spells off the other spell list to pretty much make the Divine Soul class even more of a pointless joke. Why bother playing it when you can get all the best Divine Gems as a Sorceror, and again, you can do this with the majority of your spells still sorcery spells, it only takes a Restoration here and a Heal there and maybe a raise dead a few levels later to get most of the milage out of divine magic.

[Talya]

That's why you've got a DM...if the sorcerer seems to be making another class redundant (which is probably a bad idea for the sorcerer, too...the sorcerer has very few spells known and no other class spell list is as powerful or versatile as their own), they're going to deny it.

As a personal example in play, I ran a sorceress/heartwarder for many years, over 18 levels. I was given the opportunity to choose some divine spells - mostly related to things a Sunite cleric would cast, as Heartwarder is a divine high priest type class - that is nonspecific about the types of spellcasting it advances. However, with a cleric, paladin, and ranger in the party, the DM didn't want me taking any cure spells, and disallowed them. Now, a cure spell is probably a bad idea for a sorcerer anyway, but I understood his reasoning. In another situation, it might be perfectly acceptable to allow it. (Also note that there are arcane versions of Cure spells, thanks bardies.)

But my example above about the forest-witch themed sorcerer with plant growth and control plants? Does that really step on the druid/ranger/Plant Domain Cleric's toes that much? The sorcerer's never going to look like any of those classes with a couple thematic spells from their list.

[Segev]

While obviously the RAW refrain from giving a fixed number, I might posit that a safe number could be 1 spell of each level known, learned no sooner than a sorcerer level AFTER he gains the ability to cast spells of that level.

But in truth, I think what that's there for is when a sorcerer who is unusually close to nature might get permission to learn Summon Nature's Ally instead of Summon Monster, or one who is drawing his power from a divine heritage (or perhaps was raised by priests in order to curb a potentially dangerous fiendish heritage) might be able to cast the odd Cure or Vigor spell.

Or even a sorcerer who is big into performance and the like picking up a bard spell or two.

It's meant to allow sorcerers to play the "theme caster" and pick up spells that fit the theme and would be holes therein if left out. I think, anyway. It avoids being a "blank check" because it's not supposed to make up so much of his spell list that he looks like a patchwork of spell access.

[Talya]

While obviously the RAW refrain from giving a fixed number, I might posit that a safe number could be 1 spell of each level known, learned no sooner than a sorcerer level AFTER he gains the ability to cast spells of that level.

I'd be more restrictive, if I were setting a concrete number. (Like - "If at any time, by selecting a spell not on your spell list, either of the following statements becomes true -- (1) You have more than 1 spell of a single spell level from a spell list not your own, or (2) 50% or more of the spell levels you can cast include a spell known that is not on your spell list -- then you cannot select the spell." (Note that this limits you to no more than 4 spells known not on your own list over 20 levels...but again, I'm rather a fan of the unspecific rules.)



But in truth, I think what that's there for is when a sorcerer who is unusually close to nature might get permission to learn Summon Nature's Ally instead of Summon Monster, or one who is drawing his power from a divine heritage (or perhaps was raised by priests in order to curb a potentially dangerous fiendish heritage) might be able to cast the odd Cure or Vigor spell.

Or even a sorcerer who is big into performance and the like picking up a bard spell or two.

It's meant to allow sorcerers to play the "theme caster" and pick up spells that fit the theme and would be holes therein if left out. I think, anyway. It avoids being a "blank check" because it's not supposed to make up so much of his spell list that he looks like a patchwork of spell access.

This is exactly what I had in mind.

[Telonius]

I think the justification for "carte blanche" is found in this line in the Dragon monster entry:

Some dragons can also cast spells from the cleric list or cleric domain lists as arcane spells.

Sorcerers are (at least in one tradition) supposed to have draconic blood. Several individual types of Dragon (Blue, Red, Gold, etc) are specifically called out as being able to cast Cleric or Domain spells as Arcane spells. By that view, it would make sense that Sorcerers (as descended from Dragons) would be able to cast pretty much any Cleric spell.

Personally I'd be very, very hesitant to allow it, unless there was a really good in-character reason for the Sorcerer to know that particular Divine spell.

[tyckspoon]

This is a rare case where I feel like I have absolutely no clue what the RAI is supposed to be. I would really like to sit down and ask whoever wrote the sorcerer section what they actually meant by it.

I would be willing to bet money the answer would be "What are you bothering me about it for? Ask your DM, it's you guys' game."

[Ziegander]

Their spells known must be primarily drawn from the sorcerer spell list.

Unfortunately you made that part up. What the rules say is that the Sorcerer casts spells primarily drawn from the Sorc/Wiz list, not that their list of spells known must be drawn primarily from that list.

Most of the time, the spells a Sorcerer casts are going to come from the Sorc/Wiz list, that's what the text is saying, in a nutshell. Sometimes, the text implies, they cast a different spell.

What the implication means is not set in stone, but it definitely in no one implies that a Sorcerer must know more Sorc/Wiz spells than... different spells, or that the DM is obligated in any way to tell the Sorcerer that he can't learn a certain spell because he's met his quota of "unusual spells" per character level. The DM is certainly the person that must determine what the implication means for his game, but beyond that the rules don't say anything more on the matter.

[Captnq]

One of the rules regaurding spells a Sorcer is able to learn is: "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."


Rather then answer your question, I will teach you to answer it yourself.

1. When figuring out RAW, you start with the rule in question.
2. We check to see if this rule is reprinted anywhere. If so, only the latest rule by chronological printing is acceptable.
3. We see if there are any words that are defined in any book, like the glossary of the PHB. There is sorcerer, and spells, and sorcerer/wizard spell list. Nothing unusual. So we go with how it's written.
4. The sticking point is "or they can be unusual spells". What does this mean?Work out every possible permutation.

4a) Could mean any researched custom spell.
4b) It could mean any spell that is unusual for a sorcerer.
4c) It could mean that its any spell that is spelled funny.

Our sticking point is unusual. Now, to examine our possibilities in more detail.

It could mean any UNUSUAL spells. Well, all printed spells are techincially "usual" spells. They are on someone's spell list somewhere. Therefore, no printed spell could possibly be UNUSUAL. It must mean only custom spells.

It could mean anything on someone else's spell list. So that means any arcane spell. Or any divine spell.

It could mean Only rare spells as defined by what the DM thinks. For example, Nobody ever advanced past third level. Fireball would be unusual.

Well, I think we can ditch the last one. That leaves the first two choices. What do we do?

5. Check FAQ. People may hate it, but FAQ is technically correct. Then check WotC on line, but that almost never has data. In this case, no such luck.

6. Look for examples, for or against. I have never found a single class NPC sorcerer with divine spells. I cannot find an example of a sorcerer allowed to take the second interperation. I find plently of examples of NPCs with custom made spells from Dragon magazine, but the custom made spells are all of the same class as the creator. (In this case, Dragon #247, the dragon who made the custom spell is a sorcerer.)

7. Having anctdotal evidence, I examine the two possibilites and say to myself, "Which version makes sense and which version makes me want to murder someone?" Well, I just have to lean towards the first choice.

Is it a slam dunk? No. But what you do it this:

Editor: Chances are that this only is for custom spells. If you really read it EXACTLY as written and twist the meaning, it could mean you can learn any spell, but I cannot find a single case to support that view point. I have cases to support the opposing viewpoint. Therefore, I have to lean towards it's only for custom spells. Check with your DM first and ask him what he thinks.

Remember the rules lawyer Axiom:

First time is a fluke, the second a coincidence, a third time is a pattern, But fourth is RAW.

[UrbanizedKnave]

Rather then answer your question, I will teach you to answer it yourself. [snip]

Bookmarking this post. Personally, I think it should be stickied somewhere on the Google front page.

[SinsI]

I'd interpret it as "any arcane spell can be learned by sorcerer".
This means things like Cure light Wounds are out, unless you have some arcane variant of them.

[TuggyNE]

I'd interpret it as "any arcane spell can be learned by sorcerer".
This means things like Cure light Wounds are out, unless you have some arcane variant of them.

You mean like the Bard's?

[Telonius]

You mean like the Bard's?

Or, anything on the Cleric list, plus a bunch of Domain spells (per the True Dragon entry).

[Talya]

Unfortunately you made that part up. What the rules say is that the Sorcerer casts spells primarily drawn from the Sorc/Wiz list, not that their list of spells known must be drawn primarily from that list.


"No! You made that up! It said you are wet! It didn't say you're covered in water!"

Same thing, man. Exactly the same thing. Their spells known must be primarily drawn from the sorcerer/wizard list, by RAW.

Minor point:


but FAQ is technically correct

This is not true. The FAQ has no more official validity than our fiat declarations. It is NOT part of the rules as written, at all. It may draw answers from RAW, but if it is not printed by WotC in an actual book or errata (and then still susceptible to primary source rules), it is not a rule.

[Psyren]

I think it's possible to have a sorcerer that, say, knows healing magic. This rule is a good way to make your BBEG special. After all, the first sorcerers descended from dragons, and dragons can learn arcane versions of divine magic too.

Having said that, this rule shouldn't be taken as carte-blanche to customize your spell list. Because "gaining understanding through study" is an undefined criterion, it's up to the DM to decide when you've gained that necessary understanding. Furthermore, the spells are "unusual" which means this sort of thing must be a rarity at best - otherwise, it would be usual, the opposite. Put those together and it has "DM approval" written all over it, and "few at most" besides.

[Millennium]

My typical handling of this is that they can indeed try to create unusual arcane variants of other spells, including divine spells. However, because arcane magic is ultimately a different source for these spells, and ultimately less-suited to them, there are costs: among them, the spell requires a higher-level slot.

Your sorcerer wants to learn cure light wounds? Sure: I'll let you have it as an "unusual" Level 2 spell. My arguments for this higher level are as follows: It's one level higher than repair light damage, the construct-only version of the spell, which arcane casters can learn natively.
It's one higher level than the bard, the only arcane class to learn it natively, does so. But the bard has a different class list from sorcerers and wizards, with some spells at lower level and some spells higher, indicating that its suitability for certain tasks is different.
It's the same level that the Ranger learns it natively, and the Ranger isn't even an arcane caster: clearly the people who made the rules are comfortable with assigning this a higher-level slot in "ill-suited" cases.

Bottom line: I can draw quite a few arguments from existing precedent to call this fair. So if you really want your Sorcerer to be using 2nd-level spell slots for cure light wounds, sure; I'll let you do it. Though I've got to be honest: I think there are much better choices.

[Talya]

My typical handling of this is that they can indeed try to create unusual arcane variants of other spells, including divine spells. However, because arcane magic is ultimately a different source for these spells, and ultimately less-suited to them, there are costs: among them, the spell requires a higher-level slot.

Your sorcerer wants to learn cure light wounds? Sure: I'll let you have it as an "unusual" Level 2 spell. My arguments for this higher level are as follows: It's one level higher than repair light damage, the construct-only version of the spell, which arcane casters can learn natively.
It's one higher level than the bard, the only arcane class to learn it natively, does so. But the bard has a different class list from sorcerers and wizards, with some spells at lower level and some spells higher, indicating that its suitability for certain tasks is different.
It's the same level that the Ranger learns it natively, and the Ranger isn't even an arcane caster: clearly the people who made the rules are comfortable with assigning this a higher-level slot in "ill-suited" cases.

Bottom line: I can draw quite a few arguments from existing precedent to call this fair. So if you really want your Sorcerer to be using 2nd-level spell slots for cure light wounds, sure; I'll let you do it. Though I've got to be honest: I think there are much better choices.

That's probably fair. I wouldn't make it a hard-and-fast rule, though. For one, the sorcerer shouldn't be taking very many spells off its own spell list even if they are allowed at +1 spell level. Secondly, sometimes I'd have no issues putting a spell at the same level for a sorcerer as it is for some other caster...it depends on the sorcerer and their background and their theme. Thirdly - sometimes you make a spell MORE appealling by boosting its spell level, due to its DC increase, and the possibility that the sorcerer has fewer spells they want at the higher level. As a DM, any sorcerer's wish to learn a spell that isn't on their spell list is handled on a case-by-case basis. Which isn't to say it'd be hard to get something past me, either. What it boils down to, is "as a DM, do I like the theme? Is this player actually building a character, or a set of numbers and strategies?" If i like it, I'm going to allow it in some fashion. If I like it but see a balance issue, I'll work with the player to address the balance issue.

[Talothorn]

If the sorcerer takes cure light wounds as a 2nd level spell, and scribes it onto a scroll, could a wizard learn it from that?

Could a cleric cast it from the scroll? (a bard can cast a clw scroll a cleric prepares, right?)

How about a factotum? Could a factotum use arcane mastery to cast the sorcerer's now arcane clw?

[Millennium]

That's probably fair. I wouldn't make it a hard-and-fast rule, though. For one, the sorcerer shouldn't be taking very many spells off its own spell list even if they are allowed at +1 spell level. Secondly, sometimes I'd have no issues putting a spell at the same level for a sorcerer as it is for some other caster...it depends on the sorcerer and their background and their theme. Thirdly - sometimes you make a spell MORE appealling by boosting its spell level, due to its DC increase, and the possibility that the sorcerer has fewer spells they want at the higher level. As a DM, any sorcerer's wish to learn a spell that isn't on their spell list is handled on a case-by-case basis.
I agree. The above arguments work well for a really common case -the cure wounds family- but there are a lot of divine spells where they don't apply. When they don't, you've got to use other arguments, and if you can't find any, then maybe the spell shouldn't be a higher level after all. I didn't intend to imply that my "+1 level" is a hard rule; it's just a shorthand for how my reasoning in that case works out.

[Orick]

So one side says custom spells only, and the other says spells from any spell list?. I have a compromise.

I am a Sorcerer. I am going to make a custom spell called Heal Light Wounds. It is a first level Conjuration(Healing) spell that goes on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. It is a touch range spell that takes a standard action to cast and heals the target for 1d8 + 1 per caster level (max +5). It is harmless and allows a Will save for half. It uses positive energy, so undead are harmed instead of healed.

There, a custom spell is added to my spell list. No matter that I could have just said "I want to know Cure Light Wounds".

Isn't their a clause in custom spells that says that Arcane casters shouldn't be able to create healing spells?

[Millennium]

If the sorcerer takes cure light wounds as a 2nd level spell, and scribes it onto a scroll, could a wizard learn it from that?
Not immediately, because it is not on his class list. You added it to your personal class list by researching it, but because the spell is non-standard, that doesn't put it onto the standard class list. This latter might eventually happen, if the spell becomes popular enough, but that is unlikely to happen in your lifetime (unless you become a lich or something).

However, nothing prevents him from adding the spell to his class list the same way you did: re-researching the spell. If he does that, then your scroll will make his research a little easier than yours was, because he's essentially got your notes. But it will result in exactly the same spell, with the same effects and limitations, and it will still take the same amount of resources and time.

If the spell boils down to just converting a spell from a different class list, then he might be able to use other methods to get it onto his own class list: for example, the Wyrm Wizard prestige class from Dragon Magic. Doing it this way might result in something that works differently from the spell you researched: the Wyrm Wizard's method doesn't alter the spell's level, so CLW would be level 1 for someone who did it that way. But once he's got it on his class list as an arcane spell, an arcane scroll of it will work for him. Of course, he also already knows the spell, so learning it from a scroll is a moot point.

Bottom line: you get to enjoy your monopoly on the spell for at least a little while. But if you really want to keep it out of the hands of copycats, the onus is on you to keep it secret.

Could a cleric cast it from the scroll? (a bard can cast a clw scroll a cleric prepares, right?)
No. Even though they're on the same spell list, the divine/arcane divide still applies. A bard can't cast a CLW scroll prepared by a cleric either.

How about a factotum? Could a factotum use arcane mastery to cast the sorcerer's now arcane clw?
As with the wizard, he would have to somehow get the skill onto his class list. Unlike the wizard, the factotum can't do research, but if some other effect can get the spell onto his class list, that would work.

[SinsI]

Isn't their a clause in custom spells that says that Arcane casters shouldn't be able to create healing spells?
They can create healing spells, but they end up with much higher spell level.
(i.e. Wish can emulate any 5th level spell)

I remember reading an article that said arcane Cure Light Wounds would be a level 5 spell.

[Orick]

They can create healing spells, but they end up with much higher spell level.
(i.e. Wish can emulate any 5th level spell)

I remember reading an article that said arcane Cure Light Wounds would be a level 5 spell.

Found it, this is from the DMG about creating new spells:


Wizards and sorcerers should not cast healing spells, but they should have the best offensive spells. If the spell is flashy or dramatic, it should probably be a wizard/sorcerer spell.

[Psyren]

I wish they had a better description than "dramatic" for arcane spells. I mean, I don't know about you, but I consider a flamestrike or blade barrier to be pretty dramatic, and don't even get me started on the druid list.

[SinsI]

Found it, this is from the DMG about creating new spells:
It is RAI, not RAW.
It was from a Wizards article about why arcane casters should not get those spells - that healing is much, much more complex than is implied by it being accessible to a 1st level cleric.
From the context of that article one can conclude that arcane casters can recreate any cleric spell, if they wish for it - but at an impractically high level.

[Talya]

Just to complicate the idea that sorcerers shouldn't heal, the sorc/wiz list already has at least a couple official healing spells.

Off the top of my head: Light of Venia (BoED) and Healing Touch (SpC)

[Windstorm]

Just to complicate the idea that sorcerers shouldn't heal, the sorc/wiz list already has at least a couple official healing spells.

Off the top of my head: Light of Venia (BoED) and Healing Touch (SpC)

the latter of which is necromancy, hilariously enough. (instead of the normal conjuration healing)

[Talya]

the latter of which is necromancy, hilariously enough. (instead of the normal conjuration healing)

since it's basically a vampiric touch in reverse, that sorta makes sense, though.

[malonkey1]

the latter of which is necromancy, hilariously enough. (instead of the normal conjuration healing)

IMO, healing spells should have been in the same school as necromancy, seeing as they're both manipulating life energy. (Not that that has much to do with the original meaning of necromancy, which was actually divination via speaking to the dead, as all things ending in -mancy are divination).

[Ziegander]

Same thing, man. Exactly the same thing. Their spells known must be primarily drawn from the sorcerer/wizard list, by RAW.

Erm. No. You're trying to say the text says something it doesn't. I'm pointing out that you're wrong.


A Sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list

Is absolutely not the same thing as:


Their spells known must be primarily drawn from the sorcerer/wizard list[...]

... even if it shares several of the same words. You're imagining that somewhere the text even implies some limit to the number of "unusual" spells a Sorcerer can add to his spells known at every character level, like the limit to how much essentia can be invested into soulmelds, where there isn't anything like that in the text (beyond the actual limit to total spells known a Sorcerer has). Much like there is no limit to the number of custom spells a Wizard can research and copy into her spellbook.

If the DM wants to impose such a limit, that is his/her right, but the text doesn't say or imply anywhere that the DM must enforce such a limit, which is, correct me if I'm wrong, what you are saying.

[Thanatosia]

6. Look for examples, for or against. I have never found a single class NPC sorcerer with divine spells. I cannot find an example of a sorcerer allowed to take the second interperation. I find plently of examples of NPCs with custom made spells from Dragon magazine, but the custom made spells are all of the same class as the creator. (In this case, Dragon #247, the dragon who made the custom spell is a sorcerer.)
I think this is a pretty good point, there are tons of Sorceror examples out there in official or semi-official content.... can anyone find a single example of a Sorceror who possesses a cross-spell list spell? If that was the intent behind the rule, I would think it would be found invoked somewhere.... unless someone can dig something up, well, it's not proof, but it's probably as close as we can expect to get.

[Agincourt]

You're imagining that somewhere the text even implies some limit to the number of "unusual" spells a Sorcerer can add to his spells known at every character level, like the limit to how much essentia can be invested into soulmelds, where there isn't anything like that in the text (beyond the actual limit to total spells known a Sorcerer has). Much like there is no limit to the number of custom spells a Wizard can research and copy into her spellbook.

If the DM wants to impose such a limit, that is his/her right, but the text doesn't say or imply anywhere that the DM must enforce such a limit, which is, correct me if I'm wrong, what you are saying.

The DM always has a right to impose limits. That goes without saying, and a DM never "must" do anything.

I won't try and speak for Talya, but from my perspective, I think she has the better interpretation.

Going back to the phrase "primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list," in order for this phrase to have any meaning, there has to be some expectation that sorcerers will take at least some of their spells from the sor/wiz list. Yes, a DM is always free to tell a player that they can be a "sorcerer" that happens to not have any spells from the sor/wiz list, but then they've clearly entered homebrew territory.

Once we agree that a sorcerer should take at least one spell from the sor/wiz list, we are only quibbling about where we draw the line. The word "primarily" suggests it should be a majority of the spells, a limit which a DM is always free to ignore just like any other rule.

[Deophaun]

If the sorcerer takes cure light wounds as a 2nd level spell, and scribes it onto a scroll, could a wizard learn it from that?
No. Technically, this would only be a sorcerer spell, not a sorcerer/wizard spell. Another sorcerer who has access to the scroll would, however, be able to add it as one of his spells known at level up without a problem.

Could a cleric cast it from the scroll? (a bard can cast a clw scroll a cleric prepares, right?)
No, and no. Without UMD, bards can only use arcane scrolls. From the SRD:

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells.

How about a factotum? Could a factotum use arcane mastery to cast the sorcerer's now arcane clw?
Technically, no, as per your first question. The Factotum is limited to the sorcerer/wizard list, so sorcerer or wizard only spells would be out (like wings of cover).

Now, of course, you could interpret "sorcerer/wizard" to be more inclusive, in which case, sure, the Factotum could, if he knew the spell existed somehow. Fortunately, neither Spellcraft or Knowledge (arcana) have a "know if spell exists" function, so knowledge of unique spells is still strictly under DM control.

[Talya]

You're imagining that somewhere the text even implies some limit to the number of "unusual" spells a Sorcerer can add to his spells known at every character level.

That is explicitly and unequivocally what it says. You cast spells primarily drawn from the sorc/wiz list. You only cast spells you know. Ergo you know spells primarily drawn from the sorc/wiz list. There's no debate to be had here. You are completely wrong. There is no interpretation required. You're arguing directly against the text, not me. It is a directly stated limit, albeit a vague one.

[Ziegander]

That is explicitly and unequivocally what it says. You cast spells primarily drawn from the sorc/wiz list. You only cast spells you know. Ergo you know spells primarily drawn from the sorc/wiz list. There's no debate to be had here. You are completely wrong. There is no interpretation required. You're arguing directly against the text, not me. It is a directly stated limit, albeit a vague one.

Sure, you only cast spells you know, but no character has to cast all or even most of the spells they know. A Sorcerer could potentially know 90% "unusual spells," whatever that means, and still cast primarily spells drawn from the sorc/wiz list. Knowledge of spells =/= casting of spells and I don't understand why you keep saying it does.

Let's say I'm a 5th level Sorcerer. That entitles me to know six 0-level spells, four 1st-level spells, and two 2nd-level spells. I might know nine "unusual spells" and only three spells from the Sorc/Wiz list, but if the actual spells I cast are primarily those three then do I not satisfy the passage "A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list?"

Honestly, what I'm saying is that I don't think that passage means much of anything. But if you're saying that it must be there as a vague limit to the number of "unusual spells" a Sorcerer can know, then I would say that it's more likely (more literally, anyway) to be there as a vague limit to the number of "unusual spells" a Sorcerer can cast. To me, either is equally ludicrous, but at least the latter interprets the text without warping the meaning of "casts spells" into "knows spells."

[Talya]

To me, either is equally ludicrous

Your view of how "ludicrous" it is doesn't change that it's plainly stated. And for once, RAW is quite clear here on what this entire passage means. There's no other reasonable way to view it than literally, and a literal direct view of it is exactly my position, not yours.

"A sorcerer casts spells primarily drawn from the sorcerer/wizard list." You cannot ignore that line. It is not meaningless, not does it require some fancy reasoning or semantical hijinx. It may be intentionally vague and left to the DM's purview, but the majority of a sorcerer's spells clearly must be from their own spell list.

[HighWater]

A bit late to the party, but still within thread necro limits with something which I believe might be enlightening to this murky topic:

I want to say this up front: I don't think it's a balance issue to allow sorcerers to pick a couple non-sorcerer/wizard spells. I also enjoy sorcerer fluff much more than wizard fluff.
This threat concerns RAW and RAI though, I'll give you my argument, and then my position.

I looked up the clause in my PHB1 D&D 3.5, printed in August 2012, and it comes with an example. Within this example, the intent behind "unusual" is given:


"These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192), or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. 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. The sorcerer can't use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however." [bold emphasis mine]

The SRD omits both the (page 192) reference and the complete example and this is what clouds the meaning of "unusual". Unusual simply refers to non-PHB sorcerer/wizard spells. This passage was written in the early days of DnD, when non-core spells were still very much considered "unusual".

Very boring? Yes.
Redundant? Perhaps.
Poor sorcerer never getting a break that makes it superior to wizards? Very much so.

[Talya]

A druid spell in the SRD is "not on the wiz/sorc list in this book."

[Elkad]

We've always altered and/or created spells in my games (as a player or GM, doesn't matter).

Invisibility - Transmutation. You (and your equipment) become perfectly transparent to all forms of vision.
Invisibility - Enchantment. See Cloud Mind (Psionic)
Shield - Transmutation. Solidifies the air into a transparent animated mobile barrier. Unlike the Abjuration version, does not block Magic Missile, but can be used for cover.

Restore Body - Transmutation, personal, concentration, casting time 1 full round. You heal hitpoints as if you had rested for a night (see polymorph healing). A DC 15 heal check will double the amount healed, but must be made personally with no aid from others. I'd put this at L2 (same as alter self)

Learning a Divine spell might incur no penalty, a level penalty, or not be possible, depending on the spell. Barkskin as an Arcane Transmutation, probably fine as written. Lesser Vigor, probably a 1-level bump. Atonement? Nope, can't have it.

Any of that would count as "unusual". Consult with DM, pay the research cost, make your roll.

[Chronos]

My interpretation is that the spells in the PHB are common spells: Everyone at least knows of them, and wizards and sorcerers can freely choose them as spells known gained when they level up. Spells from other books might exist, but they're not commonly known: A wizard can gain them by finding them written somewhere and copying them (the spellbook of a defeated enemy, a special trip to the Great Library, etc.), but you can't just say "I found this spell in this splatbook; I'm going to learn it when I hit level 7". A sorcerer can also learn these spells, but only after having some exposure to them: Maybe finding them written in the same places that wizards do, or maybe just seeing them being cast.

[Shining Wrath]

Since RAW are vague, and perhaps deliberately so, what this means is that a sorcerer can add a non-standard spell to their list with DM permission.

Source? Other class spell lists, stuff the player made up, combinations of lower-level spells, taking an existing spell but refluffing it to, e.g., use acid instead of cold. Whatever.

The key point, though, is whatever it is, it must pass DM muster. And I think that is RAI - WotC kept it vague for a reason, and for once they got it right.

Edit:


Your view of how "ludicrous" it is doesn't change that it's plainly stated. And for once, RAW is quite clear here on what this entire passage means. There's no other reasonable way to view it than literally, and a literal direct view of it is exactly my position, not yours.

"A sorcerer casts spells primarily drawn from the sorcerer/wizard list." You cannot ignore that line. It is not meaningless, not does it require some fancy reasoning or semantical hijinx. It may be intentionally vague and left to the DM's purview, but the majority of a sorcerer's spells clearly must be from their own spell list.

"Primarily" modifies "drawn", not "casts". If you look at a sorcerer's spell list, primarily what you will see are spells from the S/W list. I have to disagree with the idea that *casting* is primarily from the S/W list; it's the spells known that are primarily S/W.

This is true even if at every level the sorcerer learns one "unusual" spell, because at higher levels the sorcerer is learning two or more spells per level.

[HighWater]

A druid spell in the SRD is "not on the wiz/sorc list in this book."

It's also not an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell. It's a druid spell. Why not only state "not on the sorcerer/wizard list" and drop the whole "in this book" part for being completely unwieldy and redundant? The clarification between parentheses explains the word unusual. Let's try this again with the bit of text up for discussion:


"an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book)"

Let's do some comprehensive reading, shall we?
The first bit, without the parentheses is the base text. The bit within the parentheses is a clarification of it (a rephrasing). It's like asking:
"But wait, what's an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell?", with the answer being: "one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book"
So this gives us:
"an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell" = "one not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book"

Now, what does the word "one" mean in the second sentence? It references part of the previous sentence, namely it replaces "a sorcerer/wizard spell".
This leaves us the actual analysis of this sentence:


"an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (a sorcerer/wizard spell not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list in this book)"

This would turn the entire sentence into:

"For example, a sorcerer with a scroll or spellbook detailing an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell (a sorcerer/wizard spell 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."

You can immediatly see why they chose to use the word "one" between parentheses instead. The new sentence looks absolutely awful and is a poor read due to needless word-repetition and you're never getting a writing job leaving a sentence like that. You're free to go against context and press home on the one bit in the paragraph where they didn't bother to repeat sorcerer/wizard spells, because it would clutter up the text too much, but you're going against writing conventions when you do. This is quite pointless since you can just ask the DM if you can design your own spell, based on spells of another class (or even copied, if he doesn't care)...


Also, why would the designers not state they wanted sorcerers to have access to every spell list, and instead give them their own "sorcerer/wizard list"? Could've just said "sorcerers predominantly cast from the wizard-list, but they can learn spells from any and every list provided that they have gained some understanding of these spells by study"...

Wanna know how easy it would've been to state that unequivocally, even with the used sentence?
I present:


"These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192), or they can be any other spells from any list that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study."

@Chronus: couldn't agree more. Of course, I then immediately houserule that the new spell doesn't need to be seen to be learned. A new spell can spontaneously crop up in a sorcerer. It only needs DM approval...

Final statement: I'll leave you all with this quote from the Exotic Personality Trait in PHB, p 142:

"If you are an arcane spellcaster, choose spells that a typical member of your class rarely employs (new spells out of this book would be a good start)."

Non-core spells are deemed unusual by WotC. That's what this particular clause refers to.

[Talya]

That's not really a valid interpretation. At the time the PHB was released, there were no spells in any other books. Non-Core did not exist.

Usually, the interpretation goes the other way. For example, from another current thread, "all enchantments are [Mind-affecting]." That only applies to the PHb, since there are several enchantments that are not [mind-affecting] outside of it.

[Curmudgeon]

That's not really a valid interpretation. At the time the PHB was released, there were no spells in any other books. Non-Core did not exist.
Actually, if we're referring to 3.5 D&D, that's not the case. Arcane spells from 3.0 splatbooks such as Tome and Blood, if not officially replaced (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110x), were still available to the Sorcerer (with possible DM adjustment).

[Talya]

Actually, if we're referring to 3.5 D&D, that's not the case. Arcane spells from 3.0 splatbooks such as Tome and Blood, if not officially replaced (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050110x), were still available to the Sorcerer (with possible DM adjustment).

Technically correct, except almost identical verbiage existed on the 3.0 sorcerer when it was initially published, and was just copied almost verbatim to 3.5. When the sorcerer class was first published for 3.x, there were no spells that were not core.

I say "almost" because it removes a couple misconceptions stated once in this thread that the 3.5 verbiage "casts spells primarily drawn from" as being somehow different from "knows spells primarily drawn from," and the idea that they're referring to spells outside the PHB as being "unusual." Here's the 3.0 rule from the 3rd edition SRD:


The spells a sorcerer knows can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer and wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.

It's really a rare case of a revision making the rules less clear, although the 3.5 rule doesn't contradict the 3.0 rule. It's just encourages more misinterpretation. The 3.0 wording should make RAI more clear.

[HighWater]

That's not really a valid interpretation. At the time the PHB was released, there were no spells in any other books. Non-Core did not exist.

Actually, the "creating new spells" section of the DMG is very much core.


"With the DM's permission, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of (see Spells in the sorcerer description, page 54). [...] he might have learned an unusual spell from an arcane scroll or spellbook."

I'll increase the wordcount on my statement, as it's apparently not specific enough.
The phrase unusual wizard/sorcerer spells refers to wizard/sorcerer spells that are not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list that starts on PHB page 192. This was presumably to allow sorcerers to pick up spells the DM introduced, or spells that were introduced later. The sorcerer/wizard spell list on PHB192 and onward is considered "common". Sorcerer/wizard spells not on that list are "unusual". This leads to the conclusion that non-core spells (of any kind) were deemed unusual during the writing of the PHB.

[Talya]

Actually, the "creating new spells" section of the DMG is very much core.



I'll increase the wordcount on my statement, as it's apparently not specific enough.
The phrase unusual wizard/sorcerer spells refers to wizard/sorcerer spells that are not on the sorcerer/wizard spell list that starts on PHB page 192. This was presumably to allow sorcerers to pick up spells the DM introduced, or spells that were introduced later. The sorcerer/wizard spell list on PHB192 and onward is considered "common". Sorcerer/wizard spells not on that list are "unusual". This leads to the conclusion that non-core spells (of any kind) were deemed unusual during the writing of the PHB.

Non-core spells of any kind WERE unusual during the writing of the PHB - so unusual that they did not exist, period.

An arcane version of Holy Word (example spell) is also damned unusual, and perfectly allowable with DM permission as per both the RAW and RAI of the section you are quoting. That's the entire point of that statement. By definition, when you learn a spell not on your spell list with DM permission, you are following the same process you are describing with DM-created spells. An Arcane Holy Word is a DM created spell.

[HighWater]

Non-core spells of any kind WERE unusual during the writing of the PHB - so unusual that they did not exist, period.
Again, Creation of New Spells DMG.


By definition, when you learn a spell not on your spell list with DM permission, you are following the same process you are describing with DM-created spells. An Arcane Holy Word is a DM created spell.
On the necessity of DM created spells we agree.
The sections call for an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell. It needs to be a sorcerer/wizard spell first. You can't go to the Druid list and say "I've seen that spell used 3 times, I'm gonna make it my next spell now" because it's not a sorcerer/wizard spell. You can ask the DM for the existence of a sorcerer/wizard version of that spell, and then learn that though.

The real difference I'm arguing is that a sorcerer is not entitled to spells outside of sorcerer/wizard lists in any way that beats the way of the wizard (who can do the same copying from spellbook/scroll or researching trick). Both require DM fiat, and the existence of an arcane variant of the spell (which can be whipped up by the DM for instance). The sorcerer isn't special in this regard (and yes that saddens me).

[Talya]

The sections call for an unusual sorcerer/wizard spell. It needs to be a sorcerer/wizard spell first.

If it's a sorcerer spell first, you don't need to create it. It's already there.

Lots of spells duplicate effects on different classes spell lists, and they aren't even the same spell.

Nothing by RAW prevents you from making an arcane Holy Word and sticking it on the sorcerer's list. The process (not the example) is explicitly allowed, in fact, although it requires DM adjudication.

Note, also, that the sorcerer wording is unique, because all spellcasting classes are covered by the DMG rules on custom spells. Clerics, druids, wizards, paladins, rangers, bards, and sorcerer could all, given the right skills, research a new spell and with DM approval add it to their list/spellbook/whatever. Sorcerer is unique in the wording on learning unusual spells not on their spell list. The difference is that when you create a custom spell, you add it to the class's spell list. When a sorcerer adds an unusual spell to their spells known, that does not necessarily add that spell to the sorcerer list - just because Sorcerer A can cast that spell, does not mean Sorcerer B has the same opportunity.

[Killer Angel]

You can't go to the Druid list and say "I've seen that spell used 3 times, I'm gonna make it my next spell now" because it's not a sorcerer/wizard spell.

Right now, I'm thinking to that ancient bard, that saw a Cure Light Wounds spell, used a couple of times by the cleric, and said "Useful. I need one of those..."

[PaucaTerrorem]

I'd like to use an old saying here: "Go ask your DM".

If they say yes, goody for you.
If they say no, show them your points and haggle(not bicker, haggle). If it's still a no, shucks for you.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Right now, I'm thinking to that ancient bard, that saw a Cure Light Wounds spell, used a couple of times by the cleric, and said "Useful. I need one of those..."

IMO: Bard is traditionally a support role in combat. Look at their abilities. Healing is traditionally a support ability.

Also IMO all casters should be able to independently research all spells off of all lists. It's up to the DM to determine spell level, XP and component costs, and casting time. The beauty here is that while it seems like it puts more work on the DM, anyone who's DM'ed knows how to handle this. "Dude, I let you have (X number) of 'unusual' spells added. New ones are all 9th level, costs 500K XP and GC in components, and has a 50% chance of blowing up in your face".

Key here is don't pester your DM. Keep **** reasonable and reasonable DM's will work with you.

[flare'90]

Right now, I'm thinking to that ancient bard, that saw a Cure Light Wounds spell, used a couple of times by the cleric, and said "Useful. I need one of those..."

In the first editions, Bards were a "prestige class" accessed by being a fighter/rogue/druid, so cure spells were in their list from the beginning, so to speak.

[Talya]

In the first editions, Bards were a "prestige class" accessed by... druid


The Irish in me is happy with this pseudo-historical bit of accuracy.

[Banaticus]

Someone may have already said this in the past few pages. If you want to play a sorcerer who can cast divine spells, there's this class called Favored Soul.

[Darkweave31]

Flavor-wise I think it actually kind of makes sense that a sorcerer could learn to cast spells from the cleric list at least. Sorcerers have some draconic blood in them (by default fluff). Many dragons have the ability to draw their spells from the cleric list and a few domains. So I could see it becoming a sort of quest to learn about those spells from a dragon mentor as a reward for roleplay.

[flare'90]

The Irish in me is happy with this pseudo-historical bit of accuracy.

The thing is that druids were a cleric subclass, iirc. So you had to multiclass at a relatively high level to reach the class.

[Killer Angel]

In the first editions, Bards were a "prestige class" accessed by being a fighter/rogue/druid, so cure spells were in their list from the beginning, so to speak.

This doesn't changes the fact that in 3.5, bard casts arcane spells. And it's in 3.5 that we are discussing the "unusual spells" that the sorcerer can gain.

[Talya]

Just remember that whether a spell is arcane or divine is decided not by the spell, but by the person casting it. Time Stop on a domain list is divine. A Miracle that somehow finds its way onto a sorcerer spell list is arcane, like Cure spells on a bard. The spells themselves are not arcane or divine until associated to a specific arcane or divine spellcaster.

[Curmudgeon]

Just remember that whether a spell is arcane or divine is decided not by the spell, but by the person casting it.
That's not quite accurate. Spells on scrolls are arcane or divine, and that's inherent in those spells. Dungeon Master's Guide says (page 211) that activating a spell from a scroll is casting that spell. The Use Magic Device entry also states that you're casting a spell from a scroll if you activate it using that skill. In the case of spell trigger items (staffs and wands) the user is also stated to be casting the spell (Dungeon Master's Guide, pages 243 & 245), and spells in wands and staffs aren't typed as arcane or divine. So the arcane/divine spellcasting characteristics of the person casting a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff don't affect the type of spell. Those spells retain their type (scrolls) or their lack of type (wands, staffs).

[flare'90]

That's not quite accurate. Spells on scrolls are arcane or divine, and that's inherent in those spells. Dungeon Master's Guide says (page 211) that activating a spell from a scroll is casting that spell. The Use Magic Device entry also states that you're casting a spell from a scroll if you activate it using that skill. In the case of spell trigger items (staffs and wands) the user is also stated to be casting the spell (Dungeon Master's Guide, pages 243 & 245), and spells in wands and staffs aren't typed as arcane or divine. So the arcane/divine spellcasting characteristics of the person casting a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff don't affect the type of spell. Those spells retain their type (scrolls) or their lack of type (wands, staffs).

So if you want to determine if a scroll is arcane or divine you should check who made it (assuming it wasn't an artificer)?

[Curmudgeon]

So if you want to determine if a scroll is arcane or divine you should check who made it (assuming it wasn't an artificer)?
Even that isn't necessarily going to give you an answer. What if a Cleric/Bard/Mystic Theurge created a scroll of Cure Light Wounds? They could make it either arcane or divine. You have to get the properties of the spell from the scroll itself.

[malonkey1]

Even that isn't necessarily going to give you an answer. What if a Cleric/Bard/Mystic Theurge created a scroll of Cure Light Wounds? They could make it either arcane or divine. You have to get the properties of the spell from the scroll itself.

Simple, did he craft it from arcane or divine slots?

[flare'90]

Even that isn't necessarily going to give you an answer. What if a Cleric/Bard/Mystic Theurge created a scroll of Cure Light Wounds? They could make it either arcane or divine. You have to get the properties of the spell from the scroll itself.

You simply Identify a scroll and note what the spell says? Ok,i can live with that.

More on topic, if a sorcerer with Arcane Disciple (Luck) crafts a scroll of miracle, the scroll is arcane or divine?

[Curmudgeon]

More on topic, if a sorcerer with Arcane Disciple (Luck) crafts a scroll of miracle, the scroll is arcane or divine?

Benefit: Add the chosen domain's spells to your class list of arcane spells. That's pretty clear; it's an arcane spell. It happens to be an arcane spell that asks a deity for something, but it's still arcane.

[Killer Angel]

I wonder: if the sorcerer could effectively gain spells from every list, would that be enough to put her in Tier 1 (given the same limitation about the number of spell known)?

[flare'90]

I wonder: if the sorcerer could effectively gain spells from every list, would that be enough to put her in Tier 1 (given the same limitation about the number of spell known)?

It would still lack the long-term flexibility of T1 classes, so i don't think it would be T1.
Now, if the sorcerer had a retrieve spell mechanic like the spirit shaman then would probably be T1 but, even with access to every spell list, the limited number of spells know in total makes it very difficult to reach T1 (assuming we talk only about spells, if we talk about powers the then we have psychic reformation to swap around the spell list).

[SiuiS]

The OP is confused because of the base assumption that a custom sorc/wizard spell is somehow not added to the sorc/wiz spell list. Sorcerers get unique spells, but wizards do not; every wizard-castable spell has "sorc/wiz" in the level line.

Why would a sorcerer need a special rule to learn sorcerer spells?

The answer is either a complex justification or a simple "well, she wouldn't".

Now, why would a sorcerer need a special rule to learn non-sorcerer spells?

Because it's an exception to the base premise of every other class, naturally.



You can't go to the Druid list and say "I've seen that spell used 3 times, I'm gonna make it my next spell now" because it's not a sorcerer/wizard spell.


Sure, you have to actually get familiar with it instead of just saying "I saw it once upon a time". This is a Roleplaying game, after all. You should Roleplay that, just like an archivist; talk to Druids about their magic and philosophy. Worn with them in an understanding of it. Then add it to your repertoire.

Again, there's no need for a special rule for the class that gets Sorc/wiz spells to learn Sorc/Wiz spells – they already can, because it's already a sorcerer spell. If there's a Sorc/Wiz version, they don't need permission.


That's not quite accurate. Spells on scrolls are arcane or divine, and that's inherent in those spells.

That still fits the medium being the determinator, though, doesn't it? Unless a bard who makes a scroll of cure light wounds makes a divine scroll that she herself cannot use...

[TuggyNE]

The OP is confused because of the base assumption that a custom sorc/wizard spell is somehow not added to the sorc/wiz spell list. Sorcerers get unique spells, but wizards do not; every wizard-castable spell has "sorc/wiz" in the level line.

Mordenkainen's lucubration (PHB, Wiz 6) says hi.

[PaucaTerrorem]

There are a few 'sorc only' and 'wiz only' spells out there.

[HighWater]

Why would a sorcerer need a special rule to learn sorcerer spells?

The answer is either a complex justification or a simple "well, she wouldn't".

This reasoning is assuming the designers managed to make D&D 3.5 a watertight rules-system. It is not. First of all, it is written in natural language, which will create any kind of ambiguity if the text is long enough. Second, compare the Bard section on Spells with the Sorcerer section on Spells (which appears to give the sorcerer more spell-selection options), and then bring in PHB p.179

"With the DM's permission, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of (see Spells in the sorcerer description, page 54)." (emphasis mine)
It becomes apparent that they left something out of the Bard spell descriptor (whoops!). The Designers were not flawless, the book is filled with missing, redundant ánd contradictory statements. Arguing that "this line limits sorcerers to sorcerer/wizard spells" is redundant thanks to rules in a different book and therefore cannot be true is not a solid argument.

I think there's a good chance that the only reason the "unusual" clause exists, is for sorcerers to learn things the DM has thrown in that aren't PHB material. To learn via scrolls or observation. Yes this is an extra rule that was made redundant by another book (whoops again!).

That said though, this leaves me in a tight spot explaining "which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard list (page 192)", without concluding that the writer of this section wanted to limit sorcerers neigh completely to PHB sorc/wizard spells as opposed to non-PHB sorc/wizard spells. Sorcerers generally only learn the "common" spells, which is a clause that definitely applies to PHB spells. This is unnecessarely mean to sorcerers, but really not beyond the designers.

I still prefer the "sorcerers can learn any spell (provided study)"-interpretation from a gameplay perspective, it may even make sense fluff-wise, but I doubt it was actually intended. If such a break with list-tradition was really intended, odds are it would've been worded much more strongly. Also, remember that page 179 says that whatever Sorcerers can do, Bards can do too! (In spite of the Bard section not saying that...) So they go give sorcerers and bards clearly demarkated lists (especially the Bard list is quite different from the Sor/Wiz list, with spells coming in at different levels) and then use a wording that points to redundancy and common literary practise (replacing words with refering words to avoid endless repetition) to try and say "oh, just ignore that and study something else", but without clearly stating so.

[Talya]

That's not quite accurate. Spells on scrolls are arcane or divine, and that's inherent in those spells. Dungeon Master's Guide says (page 211) that activating a spell from a scroll is casting that spell. The Use Magic Device entry also states that you're casting a spell from a scroll if you activate it using that skill. In the case of spell trigger items (staffs and wands) the user is also stated to be casting the spell (Dungeon Master's Guide, pages 243 & 245), and spells in wands and staffs aren't typed as arcane or divine. So the arcane/divine spellcasting characteristics of the person casting a spell from a scroll, wand, or staff don't affect the type of spell. Those spells retain their type (scrolls) or their lack of type (wands, staffs).

It's still accurate. Whether a scroll is arcane or divine is decided by who scribes the scroll, not the spell on the scroll.

So CLW scribed by a Bard is Arcane, while Time Stop scribed by a cleric who has it on their domain list is Divine.

Spells themselves are still neither Arcane nor Divine until associated with the class that casts them. (And the original caster of a scroll is the creator, not the one who reads it.)

My point is you cannot unequivocably say any particular spell is arcane or divine based on the spell itself. Time Stop is not an arcane spell, until the wizard/sorcerer casting it makes it so. If a cleric or archivist casts it, it is divine. There's no such thing as "Sorcerers casting divine spells" (without some obscure ACF or feat, anyway). If a sorcerer casts Lesser Restoration, it's an arcane spell. People here are saying "Sorcerer's shouldn't be able to cast divine spells!" They're right...but not for the reason they are thinking, and the statement has no effect on the spells to which they end up having access. There's nothing divine about the spells on the cleric or druid list, until the cleric or druid casts them.

[Eldest]

If the sorcerer takes cure light wounds as a 2nd level spell, and scribes it onto a scroll, could a wizard learn it from that?

Could a cleric cast it from the scroll? (a bard can cast a clw scroll a cleric prepares, right?)

How about a factotum? Could a factotum use arcane mastery to cast the sorcerer's now arcane clw?

In order, no, no, no, no, and no.

It is now on the sorcerer's list, and is arcane. Wizards can't cast from the sorcerer's list. It is an arcane spell, and so an arcane scroll, so clerics couldn't cast from the scroll. A bard can't cast a divine spell from a scroll. A factotum draws from the wiz/sorc list for spells. They can't cast from the sorc list.

[Talya]

In order, no, no, no, no, and no.

It is now on the sorcerer's list, and is arcane. Wizards can't cast from the sorcerer's list. It is an arcane spell, and so an arcane scroll, so clerics couldn't cast from the scroll. A bard can't cast a divine spell from a scroll. A factotum draws from the wiz/sorc list for spells. They can't cast from the sorc list.

For that matter, another sorcerer might not be able to cast it either.

[malonkey1]

For that matter, another sorcerer might not be able to cast it either.

I would think that they could cast it from a Sorcerer scroll, but they'd probably need to perform some study, as if they were learning it.

[Curmudgeon]

There's no such thing as "Sorcerers casting divine spells" (without some obscure ACF or feat, anyway).
Use Magic Device isn't obscure, an ACF, or a feat. If a Sorcerer can activate a divine spell using Use a Scroll, they're casting a divine spell. The Favored Soul who scribed that scroll made it divine, and the Sorcerer doesn't alter the nature of the magic when they cast it.