Does the magical training feat let you use spell trigger items?

[Crake]

So I was looking at the magical training feat, and it says you may cast 3 cantrips "as either a sorcerer or wizard". Would this give you access to spell trigger items like wands and staves for spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list?

[Saintheart]

Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.)

So the real question is whether a cantrip counts for the purposes of "a spell on his or her spell list", i.e. whether having cantrips means you have the sorcerer/wizard spell list at hand.

Given Magical Training is, by fluff and even by the title, giving you very minor spells to cast, I'd say it does. If a Paladin who doesn't know fourth level spells yet can still activate a wand containing a fourth level Paladin spell, it'd be pretty tough to say a dude with only access to cantrips can't. I can see the counterargument -- "But you're given those cantrips and you cast as a sorcerer or wizard, not access to the sorc/wiz spell list as such" -- but I'm persuaded the fluff pushes more towards being able to activate wands in this manner than not.

[Flickerdart]

I'd say that since you are not actually a sorcerer/wizard (you merely cast 3 cantrips as one of them would), you don't get access to their list, and therefore can't use those items. Your list is the 3 spells you can cast, so you can use items of those.

[Crake]

I'd say that since you are not actually a sorcerer/wizard (you merely cast 3 cantrips as one of them would), you don't get access to their list, and therefore can't use those items. Your list is the 3 spells you can cast, so you can use items of those.

Would someone with the magical training feat be able to use a runestaff with cantrips? Extend that to someone with magical training and the versatile spellcaster feat, would they be able to use a runestaff with 1st level spells?

Considering that if you choose to cast as a wizard, you can add more spells into your spellbook and cast the cantrips, does that argument really hold up?

[Troacctid]

Would someone with the magical training feat be able to use a runestaff with cantrips? Extend that to someone with magical training and the versatile spellcaster feat, would they be able to use a runestaff with 1st level spells?

Considering that if you choose to cast as a wizard, you can add more spells into your spellbook and cast the cantrips, does that argument really hold up?

You can only do those things if the spells in question are on your class spell list. Magical Training doesn't give you a class spell list. It just gives you a small handful of spells.

[Flickerdart]

...Considering that if you choose to cast as a wizard, you can add more spells into your spellbook...
What makes you say that? The feat does not say anything about gaining the ability to write spells into your book. You cast spells as a wizard, you prepare them like a wizard...but nothing about the feat suggests you can learn spells like a wizard (i.e. by writing in the book).

[Troacctid]

What makes you say that? The feat does not say anything about gaining the ability to write spells into your book. You cast spells as a wizard, you prepare them like a wizard...but nothing about the feat suggests you can learn spells like a wizard (i.e. by writing in the book).

AFB, but if I recall correctly, anyone with a spellbook can copy spells into it the way a Wizard can—the rules don't restrict that ability by class. However, if you can't cast the spells, either because they're not on your list or you're not high enough level, it doesn't give you any ability to do so, so it's kinda pointless.

[Flickerdart]

AFB, but if I recall correctly, anyone with a spellbook can copy spells into it the way a Wizard can—the rules don't restrict that ability by class. However, if you can't cast the spells, either because they're not on your list or you're not high enough level, it doesn't give you any ability to do so, so it's kinda pointless.
No. It says "wizard" every time.

"Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods...A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook...A wizard also can research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one...Once a wizard understands a new spell, she can record it into her spellbook."

[Troacctid]

No. It says "wizard" every time.

"Wizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods...A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook...A wizard also can research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one...Once a wizard understands a new spell, she can record it into her spellbook."

Rules Compendium updated it to say "Spellcaster" instead of "Wizard". Page 160.

Now that I'm looking at it, though, there is a clause that says you have to be able to learn the spell in order to make the Spellcraft check to add it to your book, so that might pose an obstacle.

[Flickerdart]

Rules Compendium updated it to say "Spellcaster" instead of "Wizard". Page 160.
Hum. Isn't a spellcaster defined as a member of a spellcasting class, though?

[Troacctid]

Hum. Isn't a spellcaster defined as a member of a spellcasting class, though?

"A character capable of casting spells," per the glossary. If it required class levels, then monsters like couatls and nymphs wouldn't count, which would be weird.