Uncanny Forethought lets you cast every single spell without a spellbook!

[magicalmagicman]

I posted a similar thread before, but no one really debated the claims there, so I went ahead believed they were true. Then I remembered this feat, and then realized if what I said in that thread was true, then this feat is ungodly awesome! So I'm posting this thread to confirm my findings! If no one refutes my claims I will assume they are true!

Uncanny Forethought

Alternatively, as a full-round action, you can use a reserved slot to cast any spell that you know.

So what spells do wizard's know?


A wizard can use the procedure for learning a spell to reconstruct a lost spellbook. If she already has a particular spell prepared, she can write it directly into a new book at a cost of 100 gp per page (as noted in Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, above). The process wipes the prepared spell from her mind, just as casting it would. If she does not have the spell prepared, she can prepare it from a borrowed spellbook and then write it into a new book.

Duplicating an existing spellbook uses the same procedure as replacing it, but the task is much easier. The time requirement and cost per page are halved.

A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook

1st quote says when a wizard lost her spellbook (lost includes destruction since it includes, by raw a nonexisting spellbook), she can prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook and then use that spell to write it down in her new spellbook.

BUT the 2nd quote clearly states that you can only prepare spells that you know from borrowed spellbooks.

Therefore, because a wizard can prepare a spell that she knows from a borrowed spellbook when her current spellbook is lost:
1. wizard's spells known list is completely independent of their spellbook
2. a wizard will know a spell if she writes it down in a spellbook once
3. a wizard with uncanny forethought can cast every single spell she wrote down once spontaneously, even if all her spellbooks are destroyed.

Quote from Complete Arcane under mastering a foreign spellbook

This procedure is sometimes referred to as becoming attuned to the spellbook (although it's a matter of time and study, not a mystical process)
I believe this is proof that there is no magical, mental, telepathic, or mystical connection between a wizard and their spellbooks, so it doesn't matter if the lost spellbook is stolen or truly destroyed. No link means no data fetch, no data fetch means spellbook content is irrelevant.

Glossary definition of known spells


known spell: A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement.
1. It doesn't exclude destroyed spellbooks.
2. Glossary is vague. It is not specific. It makes no mention what happens when the spellbooks are destroyed. People are assuming the spells are lost. It does not directly state you lose spell knowns.
3. If we invoke specific trumps general, I argue that the spellbook rules are specific and the glossary is general.

Anyways, this is where my argument is weakest so let us consider Spell Mastery.

Spell Mastery

Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.
Spell Mastery lets you prepare spells that you selected without a spellbook, but you still can't prepare it if you don't know it. So in order to refute my claims, if you are saying that if a spell is no longer known when it's in a destroyed spellbook, then you are saying the wizard cannot prepare the spells he selected with this feat unless that spell is in one of his existing spellbooks, but because by RAW there is no connection between a wizard and his spellbook, all evidence suggests I am correct.

[shaikujin]

by PHB p. 310
known spell: A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement.

[Necroticplague]

Additionally, I also find the idea of a "nonexistent spellbook" being an actual object INCREDIBLY dubious. Under that logic, you can always prepare any wizard spell of the right level, because it's in a spellbook that doesn't exist. Since it doesn't exist, you can claim any spell is in it.

Also, you missed an important part of the second quote:


A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knowsand has recorded in her own spellbook
So if it's not in your spellbook, you can't prepare it from a borrowed one, at least not as easily as from your own. This is redundant, because anything recorded in your spellbook is your spells known (as the previous poster pointed out, and I did in a different thread). That portion about a lost spellbook genuinely only refers to a lost one, not a destroyed one. If yours is destroyed, you can't prepare spells from a borrowed book, because it's not in your own spellbook (thus violating the second part of the quoted statement above).

[magicalmagicman]

by PHB p. 310
known spell: A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement.

Good old glossary.

So...
1. To know a spell, it must be in their spellbook
2. You can only prepare spells that you know from a borrowed spellbook.
3. You can prepare spells from a borrowed spellbook even though you lost your spell book.

1 & 2 have no problem coexisting, 2 & 3 has no problem coexisting, but in order to satisfy all 3 facts...

The only conclusion we can make is...

Knowing a spell can also mean having it in a lost spellbook! This statement doesn't violate any of the 3.

So does lost mean existing but not destroyed? I say an emphatic NO to that.
1. Under replacing and copying spellbook, copying an existing spellbook is half the effort of replacing one, therefore, replacing rules apply to all nonexisting spellbooks, which includes destroyed.
2. Complete Arcane has rules for attuning to a foreign spellbook, but it also clearly states that attuning is not mystical or magical in anyway, only time and study.


This procedure is sometimes referred to as becoming attuned to the spellbook (although it's a matter of time and study, not a mystical process)

So there is, without a doubt, no connection between a wizard and its spellbook.

All these evidence points to saying "lost spellbook" includes destroyed spellbook.

[shaikujin]

Ah, I wanted to reply to that thread, but got side-tracked by other stuff while I was searching for the reference.

Anyway, here's the thing:
<quote PHB p. 310>
known spell: A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement.
<end quote>

So Wizards do have a list of spells known - whatever they have in their spellbooks.

I'd say backup spellbooks hidden in your stronghold would still meet the requirement of "in their spellbooks".

Stolen/confiscated ones should qualify as well.

So will looted spellbooks that you have spent time to familiarize with.

If the spellbooks are destroyed, then no. But spellbooks are worth a fair bit of gold. Most likely, enemies that looted/stole your spellbooks would sell them for gold rather than destroy it.

I'm hoping this is good enough for your scenario even though it doesn't allow all spells in existence.



How open are you to cheesy methods?

[shaikujin]

Good old glossary.

So...
1. To know a spell, it must be in their spellbook
2. You can only prepare spells that you know from a borrowed spellbook.
3. You can prepare spells from a borrowed spellbook even though you lost your spell book.

1 & 2 have no problem coexisting, 2 & 3 has no problem coexisting, but in order to satisfy all 3 facts...

The only conclusion we can make is...

Knowing a spell can also mean having it in a lost spellbook! This statement doesn't violate any of the 3.

So does lost mean existing but not destroyed? I say an emphatic NO to that.
1. Under replacing and copying spellbook, copying an existing spellbook is half the effort of replacing one, therefore, replacing rules apply to all nonexisting spellbooks, which includes destroyed.
2. Complete Arcane has rules for attuning to a foreign spellbook, but it also clearly states that attuning is not mystical or magical in anyway, only time and study.



So there is, without a doubt, no connection between a wizard and its spellbook.

All these evidence points to saying "lost spellbook" includes destroyed spellbook.

Whoops, I meant to add more, but accidentally hit submit before I was done. See my later post.

[magicalmagicman]

So if it's not in your spellbook, you can't prepare it from a borrowed one, at least not as easily as from your own. This is redundant, because anything recorded in your spellbook is your spells known (as the previous poster pointed out, and I did in a different thread). That portion about a lost spellbook genuinely only refers to a lost one, not a destroyed one. If yours is destroyed, you can't prepare spells from a borrowed book, because it's not in your own spellbook (thus violating the second part of the quoted statement above).


If the spellbooks are destroyed, then no.

Guys! Guys! There is no magical connection between you and your spellbook. So there is no way for a wizard to know whether his lost spellbook is destroyed or not.

You gotta prove somehow that the wizard is connected to all of his spellbook for you to claim he know longer knows a spell if the spellbook is destroyed, because that complete arcane quote I believe proves there is no magical, mental, telepathic connection.


I'm hoping this is good enough for your scenario even though it doesn't allow all spells in existence.
I might've worded my title wrong. Eventually you can cast all the spells though, after you eventually write them all down in a spell book once.

I think I have the advantage here.
1. No connection between wizard and spellbook.
2. Can prepare known spells from borrowed book even when book is lost (destroyed).
3. Glossary definition doesn't exclude spells existing in destroyed spellbook. (I admit, this one is a little iffy, but this is the only way it satisfies the rules under borrowed and replacing spellbooks).
4. Uncanny Forethought does not mention spellbooks or preparing spells even once.

edit: I'm not trying to bulldoze my way into forcing my ruling. In these past few days I've scrapped character builds I really wanted to do because after extensive RAW analysis, they are illegal. So please, show me RAW that kills what I claim :D.

[shaikujin]

Guys! Guys! There is no magical connection between you and your spellbook. So there is no way for a wizard to know whether his lost spellbook is destroyed or not.

Both the words lost and nonexisting include destroyed.

You gotta prove somehow that the wizard is connected to all of his spellbook for you to claim he know longer knows a spell if the spellbook is destroyed, because that complete arcane quote I believe proves there is no magical, mental, telepathic connection.


I might've worded my title wrong. Eventually you can cast all the spells though, after you eventually write them all down in one spell book or another.

I understand what you are saying about no mystical connections between a wizard and his spellbooks. Yes, the wizard would not know whether his old spellbooks have been destroyed.
But unfortunately, it's the DM's decision on whether the spellbook has been destroyed. This is also why I added a justification that you can give your DM - that spellbooks would be sold rather than destroyed.

Also to clarify, in the case of destroyed spellbooks, the problem is not whether there's a mystical link, it's that if the spellbook has been destroyed, there won't be any spells in it (think of it as all spells in it has been deleted). So we fail the spells known portion.

[magicalmagicman]

I understand what you are saying about no mystical connections between a wizard and his spellbooks. Yes, the wizard would not know whether his old spellbooks have been destroyed.
But unfortunately, it's the DM's decision on whether the spellbook has been destroyed. This is also why I added a justification that you can give your DM - that spellbooks would be sold rather than destroyed.

Also to clarify, in the case of destroyed spellbooks, the problem is not whether there's a mystical link, it's that if the spellbook has been destroyed, there won't be any spells in it (think of it as all spells in it has been deleted). So we fail the spells known portion.

I think I see where we stand divided.

The only way for your interpretation to be valid is that somehow, the wizard's brain fetches data from the spellbook. That's the only reason I can think of why whether the spells have been deleted in a spellbook would even remotely matter. But because there is no connection, I don't think this is a valid interpretation. No connection means no data fetch, and no data fetch means spellbook's contents are irrelevant, and irrelevant content means its deletion is also irrelevant.

My interpretation is that wizards know spells, like mathematicians know equations, but still, both require spellbooks/textbooks to constantly re-lookup the spells/equations. Even though they can't recall the spell/equation perfectly, they know the material, and wizards can perfectly know their spells with spell mastery.

My interpretation is writing a spell down in a spellbook after fully deciphering and understanding it makes the spell known to him, and that's all that matters, that he has, at one point in time, learned the spell well enough to write it in his spellbook. That is what I believe the glossary, and the d20srd quotes mean, and I believe my interpretation has the advantage over yours, because there is no connection.

I believe in order to refute me, you have to prove somehow that the spellbooks that are buried deep beneath the earth somehow help the wizard with his spells without a magical connection.

[Necroticplague]

Guys! Guys! There is no magical connection between you and your spellbook. So there is no way for a wizard to know whether his lost spellbook is destroyed or not.

You gotta prove somehow that the wizard is connected to all of his spellbook for you to claim he know longer knows a spell if the spellbook is destroyed, because that complete arcane quote I believe proves there is no magical, mental, telepathic connection. *Shrugs* beats me if I know WHY the rules work. HOW they work is, however, clear. A wizard's spell's known is what they have written in their book. That is very clear. The term "known" as it applies to spells indicates something different from the real-world meaning of the term.

Also, isn't your attempted result kinda violating that? Since your basically going "Since I've ever written down a spell in some book, I always know it forever.", which violates "no special connection" far more than "my books gone, I'm going to need to either rebuild it from what i remember of it (have memorized), or figure out someone else's enough to use it to rebuild (master their book, prepare, rewrite)"



I think I have the advantage here.
1. No connection between wizard and spellbook.
2. Can prepare known spells from borrowed book even when book is lost (destroyed).
3. Glossary definition doesn't exclude spells existing in destroyed spellbook. (I admit, this one is a little iffy, but this is the only way it satisfies the rules under borrowed and replacing spellbooks).
4. Uncanny Forethought does not mention spellbooks or preparing spells even once.

So please, show me RAW that kills what I claim :D.
1. True, but irrelevant.
2.True if it's lost, false if it's destroyed (you can't have spells in a book that doesn't exist).
3. yes, it does. If your spellbook doesn't exist (for example, it's been destroyed), then it has nothing written in it. (actually, the rules for borrowing and replacing spellbooks can also be satisfied using the rules for mastering spellbooks in complete arcane. You'd need to master the spellbook to make it your own, then you can prepare spells from it, which you could use to make a new book. Since the book the SRD is from is one of the first written, it's not horrifically hard to think of them as incomplete)
4. It does mention spellbooks, at least indirectly. It references spells known which, for a wizard, is spells they have written in their spellbook.

[RoboEmperor]

Interesting point.

Lets consider a third case. A spellbook with all its spells erased! Does the wizard still know all the spells in the erased spellbook?

The Glossary quote states that the spell must be in their spellbook. If we are accepting destroyed spellbooks, how about erased spellbooks, partially erased spellbooks, and altered spellbooks? Why not future spellbooks? Though you can argue there is no way for anyone to know what spells would be in a future spellbook (except DM. Player can't because for all he knows, his wizard could die in the next 10seconds). If we are accepting destroyed spellbooks, I think erased spellbook qualifies too, so I guess this is a pass.

Lets look at the borrowed spellbook quote.
"she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook"
Past tense. The spell doesn't have to exist in the spellbook. It just needs to be recorded in it at one point in time. So I guess this is a pass as well.

The replacing quote doesn't mention anything about spells known so it doesn't apply here.

So.. I guess you're right. Wizards know spells even if they don't have a spellbook, and therefore, can cast them all spontaneously without a spellbook.

[magicalmagicman]

Also, isn't your attempted result kinda violating that? Since your basically going "Since I've ever written down a spell in some book, I always know it forever.", which violates "no special connection" far more than "my books gone, I'm going to need to either rebuild it from what i remember of it (have memorized), or figure out someone else's enough to use it to rebuild (master their book, prepare, rewrite)"

It doesn't violate. I'm saying the act of writing it in a spellbook is enough to engrave it into a wizard's memory to the point that he knows it and can prepare it from any spellbook (even borrowed ones). Engraved memory has no connection to a spellbook.




1. True, but irrelevant.
2.True if it's lost, false if it's destroyed (you can't have spells in a book that doesn't exist).
3. yes, it does. If your spellbook doesn't exist (for example, it's been destroyed), then it has nothing written in it. (actually, the rules for borrowing and replacing spellbooks can also be satisfied using the rules for mastering spellbooks in complete arcane. You'd need to master the spellbook to make it your own, then you can prepare spells from it, which you could use to make a new book. Since the book the SRD is from is one of the first written, it's not horrifically hard to think of them as incomplete)
4. It does mention spellbooks, at least indirectly. It references spells known which, for a wizard, is spells they have written in their spellbook.

2. My interpretation mentioned says it's true even if it's destroyed.
3. You're wrong here. Mastering the spellbooks lets you prepare spells that you've previously never seen before. Borrowing and replacing spellbooks does not let you prepare spells you have previously never seen before. Prove either that mastering the spellbook does not grant you access to previously unknown spells, or that you can prepare previously unknown spells from borrowed spellbooks, otherwise I am right and you are wrong about this.
4. We are determining right now whether spells known means it has to current exist in a spellbook even if it's buried 100ft under or whether a wizard just need to have written it down in a spellbook at one time in his life.

[RoboEmperor]

Oh I forgot to examine the existing spellbook thing.

If you can copy all existing spellbooks at half price and time, by contrast, you can't copy all non-existing spellbooks at half price and time.

Destroyed, erased, and missing spellbooks are all non-existing spellbooks so... I guess that's right too.

It's funny. Missing spellbooks still exist, but clearly this says that it doesn't. I mean, lost = missing right? If you can't copy lost spellbooks at half time and gp, then you can't with missing spellbooks right? Which means missing spellbooks are the same as destroyed spellbooks, and they all fall under lost spellbooks.

Oh I see where the weird thing starts. The d20srd basically classified all spellbooks as either lost or existing.

[shaikujin]

I love cheese as much as anyone, but unfortunately, the supporting statements thus far for destroyed spellbooks are still not airtight.

"For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks"

It says "having".
If it was "had" or "once had", then we have no problems. But justifying to your DM that "having it in your spellboks" includes destroyed spellbooks is quite shaky.

[shaikujin]

And below, cheese I used before to get all Known Spells (first posted at http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19300170&postcount=431). The tricks won't fly at a lot of tables, but that particular thread was extremely lactose tolerant.



Abusing Tome of Ancient Lore

UA Transmuter ACF gains Spell Versatility. This allows the Transmuter on every 5 levels, to treat a spell of any school (of a spell level he has access to), as if it were a Transmutation spell. ie having access to level 3 spells, means any level 3 spell, as long as it belongs to a school of magic (Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Necromancy etc etc) can be made into a Transmutation spell.
A high level Transmuter with access to 9th level spells, can hence scribe a scroll with a Transmutation version of Wish or even a Divine spell like Miracle.
Given enough time, the Transmuter (and his Transmuter friends), can scribe the spell, then retrain their ACF level to to learn/convert another spell as a Transmutation spell, scribe this, then retrain again
Therefore, potentially, any spell of any level, can be an Arcane spell from the Transmutation School. As long as the above potential exists, see next step
Tome of Ancient Lore (the more expensive 22,000 gp version in CD) contains all conceivable spells (not only arcane). 90% chance to find any arcane spell using index. Spells from tome has half prep time
Since Transmutation versions of every divine or arcane spell can exist, it can be found in a Tome of Ancient Lore.
Wizen the Wizard will look for each spell and scribe them into his spellbook




Abusing Ancestral Relic of Aureon’s Spellshard (for non psionic games, just ignore the psionic tattoo portions and use something else)
Psionic Tattoo of Reality Revision (as per Wizard's "Getting Wired" online article http://archive.wizards.com/default.a.../psm/20031225a). Lvl 9 Tattoo costs 7,650 gp.

This is an Ancestral Relic which is made into an Item Familiar. 380,000 gp, plus free familiar benefits (Invested XP, skills).
XP for the Reality Revision is paid by Wizend (299,500 xp).

Using MIC's guidelines to add effects of 1 item to another, we add Aureon’s Spellshard (6,250 gp) to the Tattoo. This holds the equivalent of 500 pages of spells. Wizards can imprint spells in it without paying usual material component cost. A spell book with a level 9 spell already in it costs 900 gp. Wizend reserves 9 pages in the spellshard and reserves 900 gp for a spell already written into it. (If this doesn't work, just use a simple spellshard with 1 level 9 spell instead).

Using A&EG rules for cost of items that grant feats, it costs 10,000 for 1 feat (plus 5,000 for each pre-req). For now, Wizend assigns the remaining apprx 360,000 gp value of the Relic into 36 feats (or less if some of them have prereqs).

Since it's an Ancestral Relic, the following things can be changed on a whim (stealing Biffoniacus_Furiou's trick for Runestaff) as long as the value does not exceed 380,000 gp
i) tattoo's power can be changed to any other power of any level
ii) the level 9 spell contained in Aureon's Spellshard can be changed to contain any 1 spell up to level 9
iii) the 36 feats can be changed to others
iv) other powers can be acquired by lowering the number of feats provided by the item

[Barstro]

A wizard's spell's known is what they have written in their book. That is very clear. The term "known" as it applies to spells indicates something different from the real-world meaning of the term.

In trying to parse out the "why" and "how" of this, I see it this way;

1) A Wizard learns a spell by taking the time to personally add it to his spellbook. This is not a short or easy process. Most of us in this world can probably still scribe a page in just a couple minutes. It's more akin to an engineer looking at a schematic that was done in binary and "translating" it to base ten for his own notes. It wasn't just copied; he had to translate and understand a lot in order to get it all down correctly.

2) A Wizard prepares a spell by studying that page to refresh his memory to get it all correct. Sort of like cramming for an exam. Otherwise, he doesn't really remember all of it.

3) A Wizard can copy/prepare from someone else's spellbook because he already knows the issue, he just needs a bit of a refresher to re-translate it into his own work.

4) Using Uncanny Forethought is like getting access to everyone's spellbooks. But the Wizard cannot figure them out unless he has already learned the particular spell by putting it into his own spellbook before (lost or destroyed doesn't matter, it's the work that went into it in the first place).

Sadly, I'm not sure how RAW any of the above is, but it seems to me to satisfy Vancian magic.

[magicalmagicman]

I think at this point, only two things would make me believe I am wrong.
1. "Lost spellbook" must exclude destroyed spellbooks or must only include spellbooks that exist and are merely missing.
2. Glossary definition must exclude destroyed spellbook.

I admit what I'm saying about #2 is a little iffy and questionable, but here's the thing, I genuinely believe if WotC wanted you to only be able to replace missing spellbooks, they would've clearly specified so. They would've said that the lost spellbook must not be destroyed or something if they meant that, but they didn't because lost includes destroyed spellbooks. I think they used the word lost because they didn't want to limit themselves with destroyed spellbooks or missing spellbooks, but include both.



It says "having".
If it was "had" or "once had", then we have no problems. But justifying to your DM that "having it in your spellboks" includes destroyed spellbooks is quite shaky.

It is shaky, I agree, but I argue it's no less shaky than claiming lost spellbooks does not include destroyed spellbooks.

So it's one shaky interpretation v.s. the other. Except, the fluff supports my version more because:
1. If there is no connection between a wizard and his spellbook, then how the hell does its contents affect what a wizard knows? How come he can only prepare spells from borrowed spellbooks that exists in his current existing spellbooks if they are all buried 100ft under? Saying magically without magical link is beyond shaky.
2. Spell Mastery


Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.
According to your interpretation, a wizard still needs the spell to exist in a spellbook for him to prepare it without a spellbook because even if you can prepare a spell without a spellbook, if he doesn't know it, he can't prepare it. I say this is totally bogus. My version of the interpretation says a wizard can prepare spells that he selected for spell mastery even if those spells are gone from his spellbook. My version is RAW Legal, and fluff actually prefers my version over yours in my opinion, which is why I am so adamant I am correct.

[AnachroNinja]

I feel like the more obvious exploit here is to copy spells into your personal spell book. Sell that spell book. It is now "lost" to you, but not destroyed. It is still your spell book however, because you copied the spells into it, you were bound to it. In much the same way that Fistandantilus's spell book is still his even after it's found by Raistlin, it is still yours. You can even put your name on it in runes.

Then you use the profits to buy a blank book and copy more spells into it, repeat until you have all the spells you can get a hold of copied into a spell book, preferably 3 or more for redundancy, and roll out.

[Gallowglass]

You are doing that thing where you notice that there is an alternate parsing to how to read a passage, then thinking about how it would work if you parsed it that way, then working yourself up to the point where you now stubbornly insist that THAT is the only way to not parse the passage even though you used to understand a different way to parse it.

Too me, in my opinion, Its overwritten but not complicated.

A first level wizard gets a spellbook. That spellbook can be added to or modified as they go through life. It could be a single weighty tome, it could be a bunch of loose-leaf parchments in tubes, it could be painted on trodlodyte hide, it could be anything. That's just fluff.

They get all 0th level spells and 3 1st level spells in that spellbook. You can get a couple more with high int, specialty school, ACF or whatnot.

In a vacuum, every level they get to scribe 2 more spells into your book. These represent your normal mode of operation or learning.

Outside that vacuum, you can also buy scrolls of spells then use those scrolls to learn new spells and add them to your spellbook. You can also get spells from plundering other spellbooks. Scribing these non-level-gained spells into your spellbook cost money. That's just a weak balance issue. Money for class features, isn't it fun!

Any time you find a scroll of a spell that is on your class list, you can choose to destroy the scroll in the process of adding the spell to your spellbook (if its of a level you can learn). If its too high level for you (- on the spells known at this level) then you can't. Heighten spell and other shenanigans are just that. shenanigans. No reasonable DM is under obligation to allow you to shenanigate just because of your RAWarrior parsing of language.

every spell that you have, at some point, scribed into your spellbook is a "known" spell for you. Fluff that however you want, it doesn't matter. I like the "you spend a lot of time and effort learning the spell, reformulating it, coding it in your own shorthand, drawing diagrams and making force ratio calculations. That's what in your spellbook. Its too much information for you to completely recall (without a feat like spell mastery or something) so you have to refer back to the spellbook to get it "cast ready"". But that's just fluff, you can fluff it however you want.

spell mastery, every time you take it, lets you pick some spells THAT YOU KNOW and, you know, get to know them better. Take them out for pot roast and snuggles on the couch, so you don't need a spellbook to get them cast ready during spell preperation.

uncanny forethought lets you reserve some slots during spell preperation and use those to spontaneously cast spell mastery spells or other spells you KNOW (i.e. have at some point gone through the laborious process of adding them to your spellbook) as a longer action.

If your spellbook is lost or damaged (and you haven't for some reason spent money and effort to have a second spellbook) then you have the following actions available to you:

- those spells that you have memorized from your current spell preparation, you can spend some money and scribe them into a spellbook which takes them out of your memory.
- if someone lends you a spellbook, you can memorize spells you KNOW (i.e. that you have at some point scribed into your now lost spellbooks) from there spellbook. (*flipping through- that's a neat spell, but I don't know it... oh here's invisibility, I know THAT spell... lets see... yeah I can figure it out from his notes, because I'm just refreshing my memory a little*)
- if someone lends you their spellbook, you can scribe spells out of it by spending money as if buying/learning a new spell into your new spellbook.

spellmastery, you already don't need a spellbook to "prepare" those spells and, leniently, you could argue that you can scribe those into your new spellbook (why you would when you have a feat that means you don't need a spellbook for those spells, I don't know.

uncanny forethought does NOTHING for you. In fact its a net subtraction in this case because when you last prepared spells, you left some slots "open" for uncanny forethought, so you have no spells in those slot to rescribe into your new spellbook. The feat lets you cast a spell you KNOW, but there's no indication that it works by loading it up into memory so that you can scribe it into your spellbook. Again, -leniently- you could potentially do that if your DM lets you. But its not RAW or even clearly RAI. Its probably Rules-as-didn't-think-of-that-when-we-built-that-feat.

NOTHING about any of this lets you somehow scribe a spell into your new spellbook that you have never gone through the trouble of scribing before. those are not KNOWN spells for you. your KNOWN spells are those that you have, at some point, scribed into your spellbook regardless of the current state or whereabouts of that spellbook.

[magicalmagicman]

@Gallowglass
I'm confused o_o. You seem to completely agree with me, yet you claim you are refuting me. I think you misunderstood me.

I'm saying Uncanny forethought lets you EVENTUALLY cast all spells without a spellbook. As in after you have scribed every spell in existence at least once in a spellbook. I never said uncanny forethought lets you cast spells you never seen before.

I never said you can use Uncanny Forethought to create a new spellbook out of thin air. I don't think reserved slots = prepared spells. You can cast all your spells you've written down at least once in your life spontaneously forever, but you can't use this feat to recreate your spell book, in my opinion.

[AnachroNinja]

He very specifically never once claimed uncanny forethought let a player have any spell ever without copying it once. He explicitly stated you would have to scribe each Sorel into a spell book once. The disconnect is his theory that you could then destroy the spell book, and it would still count as spells he knows.

Edit: Ninjas....

[Quertus]

Yes, once you have written every spell in existence down once, you may then burn all your spellbooks, and use uncanny forethought to cast them. As a full round action. Meh.

[magicalmagicman]

Yes, once you have written every spell in existence down once, you may then burn all your spellbooks, and use uncanny forethought to cast them. As a full round action. Meh.

Ok, I will admit, that I worded my title the way I did in order to attract attention, because I made a thread claiming everything I said here (except uncanny forethought) and I only had like 4 replies.

[Gallowglass]

I'm saying Uncanny forethought lets you EVENTUALLY cast all spells without a spellbook. As in after you have scribed every spell in existence at least once in a spellbook. I never said uncanny forethought lets you cast spells you never seen before.

Ah, then I did misunderstand you. Sorry, its been a confusing scrawl of ponderous text. Yes, if you have managed to somehow scribe every spell in existence into a spellbook at some point, then uncanny forethought lets you cast any of them as a full round action regardless of what the current state of your massive compendium of spells is. Except, any reasonable DM won't let you use this to lower the casting time on spells that take longer than a full round action to cast because that's stupid.

Someone did a thread once where they figured out how many pages, how many workdays, and how much money it costs to scribe all spells. Of course, that was probably 47 splat book ago so its probably no longer accurate. But if I remember, its a tidy sum of time, money and paper.

[Gruftzwerg]

wizards learn spells on 2 ways and add them to their "known list".

1. The 2 free spells you get every level up. These are kinda your free researched spells while adventuring and earning xp.


2. a wizard can learn a spell from other sources (and adds them to his "known list"). 1st you need to encrypt it via "Read Magic", than study for a day and roll a spellcraft check. If you succeed, you can write it into your spellbook (and add it to your known list). If you fail the check, you can't try it again until you have a new rank in spellcraft.


The spells the wizards know are either the 2 free from level up or any other spell where he succeeded the spellcraft roll to grasp the spell and add it to his spellbook (as you said, it doesn't matter is that book is destroyed or not. the important part is the he did the spellcraft check).

Sure if you go strict by raw and close your eyes, you may read/interpret it other way.
But I too share your opinion that the "known" list isn't limited to the spellbook the character has access to atm.

imho the text itself is missleading. here they are about "known spells in their spellbook" and other text implies that the "known spells" are the one he has done his spelcraft check (or his free spells). I would go for RAI and the latter one.

[Barstro]

Yes, once you have written every spell in existence down once, you may then burn all your spellbooks, and use uncanny forethought to cast them. As a full round action. Meh.

Now that I understand the OP's question, and looking at what I consider to be relevant material;

Sure, any spell can be cast. Spots left open like that cannot have any sort of metamagic (barring some other thing that interacts with all this) and the spells take a full round action (I assume that means; unless the spell otherwise takes longer). Expensive and interesting.

[RoboEmperor]

You can't take the glossary as word of god.

According to the glossary, charm = dominate monster if you pass the charisma check. In fact it's greater than dominate because the subject can use his brain instead of acting like a mindless drone.

Anyways at best the glossary are guidelines, RAI, but in this case the glossary does not directly violate the RAW, and all examples show the OP is correct that the wizard knows spells even though it doesn't exist in a non-destroyed spellbook. That spell mastery example is a great example. I think that example pretty much makes this whole thing air-tight.

[shaikujin]

Before I start, I just want to point out again that the chances of spellbooks being destroyed is low. Looted spellbooks can sold for a good sum of gold. Unless there's an effort "burn the pagan's evil spellbook" or some such.

So the entire issue with destroyed spellbooks may not come up at all.





I admit what I'm saying about #2 is a little iffy and questionable, but here's the thing, I genuinely believe if WotC wanted you to only be able to replace missing spellbooks, they would've clearly specified so.


I believe this as well. Unfortunately, from the way RAW is worded and interact, it does not work that way. I'll summarize the 3 relevant parts:

A) A wizard can use the procedure for learning a spell to reconstruct a lost spellbook
...
If she does not have the spell prepared, she can prepare it from a borrowed spellbook and then write it into a new book.

B) A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook

C) For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks
(note: while this is the glossary, it's also the only place that mentions what counts as "knowing a spell" for wizards)

We want to do A. To achieve A, we have to do B. And in order to do B, we need to meet the requirements of C ("having" a spell in their spellbooks. "having" is not past tense).


A case can be made for spellbook that has been stolen/misplaced in order to meet the requirements of C. Of course, stricter DMs may still say no, but it's at least arguable.

But for a destroyed spellbook, the requirements of C cannot be met. Ie one cannot still be "having" a spell in a spellbook that has been destroyed. The damned "having" part is the part that makes things shaky.

I know it doesn't make sense as there's specifically no mystical link, but RAW specifically says "having". If the DM agrees that the glossary is incorrect and should have said
"For wizards, knowing a spell means ever having it in their spellbooks before", then there are no problems.



For the playgrounders who brought up that it makes no sense that you still need to have a spellbook with a spell to qualify as "knowing it", especially even when replacing a lost spellbook, note that for spells known, the spellbook with the known spell does not need to be with you. Having a set of backup spellbooks stored in a safe location would allow requirement C to be met.

As such, we need some method to say beyond any doubt that even if the spellbook is destroyed, the spells that were previously in it still qualifies as "having it in their spellbooks". It doesn't have to be the exact language, something along that line, or an example of similar requirements is good enough.

Feats can do this, as specific trumps general. However, neither Uncanny Forethought or Spell Mastery seems to have the language to support this.

It doesn't render the feats dysfunctional, because backup spellbooks exists and will allow the "known spell" requirements to be met.

[magicalmagicman]

Feats can do this, as specific trumps general. However, neither Uncanny Forethought or Spell Mastery seems to have the language to support this.

Just to be clear, you are advocating that if all of a wizard's spellbook is destroyed, spell mastery feat is worthless, because the wizard cannot prepare a spell he doesn't know.

Our disagreement just narrows to that one word "having."

My interpretation for that glossary is "shaky" but fluff completely supports it.

Your interpretation is shaky too, and the fluff completely rejects it.

Glossary is vague. I can make two arguments, one is that "having it in a destroyed spellbook" satisfies the glossary, and two is that the glossary fails to mention what happens when the spellbook is lost or destroyed and I can invoke specific trumps general, and claim the spellbook rules are specific. You're are both making assumptions that wizards no longer know the spell when the spellbook is destroyed. I repeat for emphasis, glossary is not specific on this, and the spellbook rules fill in the gaps.

But you're right, it all comes down to how you interpret that, and I daresay my argument is less shaky than yours.

@shaikujin
Please continue to argue. All this debate keeps making my argument stronger (I think), and i want to be as close to airtight as possible.

[shaikujin]

Just to be clear, you are advocating that if all of a wizard's spellbook is destroyed, spell mastery feat is worthless, because the wizard cannot prepare a spell he doesn't know.


No. It's only the first part of Spell Mastery that cannot be fulfilled:

"Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know."

The spells you choose upon selecting this feat must be a "known" spell.


Once you have selected it, the spellbooks can be destroyed because the feat specifically says that from that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.


At least that's what I think. But you do bring up a good point. If the DM interprets it so that even with the feat, a wizard still needs to fulfill the requirement that the spell has to be a known spell for it to be "prepared", the feat becomes a lot less useful. Though not worthless, as stolen and lost spellbooks still fulfill the requirement.


Also, to change the mindset a bit, I'm not arguing with you and saying you are wrong, just pointing out that there's a requirement that needs to be addressed to make this airtight.

[magicalmagicman]

Also, to change the mindset a bit, I'm not arguing with you and saying you are wrong, just pointing out that there's a requirement that needs to be addressed to make this airtight.

Fair enough.

What do you say to my argument of:
1. Glossary known spell definition fails to address the event of the losing of a spellbook.
2. If a spell is in one of the wizard's spellbooks, it's known, if it's not, it's not known. This much is clear, but what about a spell that used to be in a spellbook?
3. Borrowed and Replacing spellbook rules address the final issue.
4. It would be a bad assumption to make that a known spell is lost when it is removed from a spellbook because of above reasons.

[Jay R]

known spell: A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks.
(Emphasis added.)

"and can prepare." A wizard cannot prepare a spell in a spellbook she no longer owns.

"having it" in their spellbooks. I admit that this is ambiguous, but I would rule that "having it in [her] spellbook" requires more than it being in some spellbook somewhere. That wizard has to have it.

To the argument that there is no mystical connection between a wizard and her spellbook, I respond that, in that case, the spellbook isn't hers after it's been stolen. She doesn't have it in her spellbook. The thief has it in his spellbook.

Remember the name of the feat - "Uncanny Forethought". The implication is that this represents uncanny advanced planning. I would not allow a wizard to cast a spell with Uncanny Forethought unless she could have memorized it that morning - either through mastery or a spellbook available that morning.

I would allow her to cast a spell from a book she no longer possesses if she had that book available when she prepared that spell slot.

It doesn't let you cast spells you don't have access to. It lets you cast any spells you do have access to.

[shaikujin]

What do you say to my argument of:
1. Glossary known spell definition fails to address the event of the losing of a spellbook.


Agreed. And I also agree that the the section on replacing spellbooks is the correct place that this is addressed. Unfortunately, it has references to "known" spells, and the glossary is where this is defined.




2. If a spell is in one of the wizard's spellbooks, it's known, if it's not, it's not known. This much is clear, but what about a spell that used to be in a spellbook?


If the spell used to be in the spellbook and has somehow been removed from said spellbook, my take is that this spell can no longer be counted as a known spell, unless there's some other factor involved.




3. Borrowed and Replacing spellbook rules address the final issue.


Can you clarify which final issue? If you mean that this addresses all other cases of a lost spellbook where the spellbook is not destroyed, yes.




4. It would be a bad assumption to make that a known spell is lost when it is removed from a spellbook because of above reasons.

I'm afraid my take on this is the opposite. If a previously known spell is removed from all spellbooks (including stolen and backup spellbooks) of the wizard, then that wizard has lost the spell as a known spell. We need some sort of RAW or examples to prove that this is not the case.

[gorfnab]

Easy Bake Wizard reading this thread.

http://i.imgur.com/agJIP.gif

Looks like I may need to rethink some of the handbook.