Versatile Spellcaster and Wizards

[SangoProduction]

Let's ignore threads of thought along the lines of "spontaneous divination (or whatever) wizards qualify because they can cast spontaneously", and "I should be able to use spell slots of other classes to fuel another class's casting".

I will simply be asking, let's just say a Wizard has dipped in to sorcerer.
Will they be able to prepare one Wizard of level 3 by using up 2 level 2 Wizard spell slots, if they took Versatile Spellcaster.

This seems like a fairly reasonable interpretation. Is it not?

Perhaps a bit less reasonably:
Could this Wizard / Sorcerer do the same trick, except, after preparation. Say: He casts his 3rd level spell, but instead of using that prepared spell slot, use two different level 2 spell slots for the same effect?

[weckar]

If they still use it to cast a spell they actually prepared (in a slot that is not yet spent) I see no real functional objection against this. It gives them an extra casting before they cast the one they prepared, at the cost of two other spells.

Maybe not 100% RAW (and certainly not RAI), but that's how I'd rule it. Just don't go using it for "Any spell from my spellbook collection OMGYESH!!!"-shenanigans.

[SangoProduction]

Just don't go using it for "Any spell from my spellbook collection OMGYESH!!!"-shenanigans.

Yeah, doing that is going beyond what's reasonable, and I think most would agree. As for the rest of the post: Thanks for your opinion.

[DarkSoul]

Yeah, doing that is going beyond what's reasonable, and I think most would agree. As for the rest of the post: Thanks for your opinion.The spells in a wizard's spellbook ARE the spells the wizard knows, though. This is assuming they copied the spells into their spellbook themselves or, if they didn't write the spells themselves, that they've mastered the spellbook per the rules in Complete Arcane.

The reason it requires a spontaneous caster is likely because it's too good if a wizard (or other prepared caster) can do it. An archivist with a favored soul dip would be just as bad (Versatile Spellcaster doesn't specify arcane-only).

If you think the way the feat works is too good, then you could either limit it to spontaneous spell slots only, so a Sorc1/Wiz X really doesn't get much use out of it, or put an extra limitation on it for prepared casters. The first one that comes to mind is adding Spell Mastery as a requirement and they can sacrifice spell slots to cast mastered spells.

[weckar]

I never liked the 'wizard knows his spellbook' argument. What if he loses his spellbook? Does he effectively lose knowledge? Because he sure doesn't need his spellbook to use this feat (or most arguments that make use of that reasoning) so that implies that the spellbook is hardlinked to his actual mind somehow?

[SangoProduction]

The spells in a wizard's spellbook ARE the spells the wizard knows, though. This is assuming they copied the spells into their spellbook themselves or, if they didn't write the spells themselves, that they've mastered the spellbook per the rules in Complete Arcane.

The reason it requires a spontaneous caster is likely because it's too good if a wizard (or other prepared caster) can do it. An archivist with a favored soul dip would be just as bad (Versatile Spellcaster doesn't specify arcane-only).

If you think the way the feat works is too good, then you could either limit it to spontaneous spell slots only, so a Sorc1/Wiz X really doesn't get much use out of it, or put an extra limitation on it for prepared casters. The first one that comes to mind is adding Spell Mastery as a requirement and they can sacrifice spell slots to cast mastered spells.

Actually, you could argue that wizards don't "know" any spells, because they have no "spells known" section in their class entry. Also...they don't know the spells, they just memorize them. You could also make the argument that certain spontaneous spellcasting classes know all their spells, because it says they do in the class feature, and with this feat, you can cast them earlier.

But again, Rules as Reasonable, rather than Rules as Written.


I never liked the 'wizard knows his spellbook' argument. What if he loses his spellbook? Does he effectively lose knowledge? Because he sure doesn't need his spellbook to use this feat (or most arguments that make use of that reasoning) so that implies that the spellbook is hardlinked to his actual mind somehow?

As he said.

[Jay R]

Using Versatile Spellcaster is itself a special form of spontaneous casting. I would rule that he can only use it with spontaneous slots.

To put it another way, a Wizard/Sorceror is only spontaneous with his Sorceror slots. All his Wizard slots must be memorized in advance (unless using a wizard-allowed Feat like Uncanny Foresight).

And if somebody asks, "Well, then, can I memorize a third-level spell in two 2nd-level slots?"

No. The Versatile Spellcaster Feat does not help you memorize spells.

[DarkSoul]

I never liked the 'wizard knows his spellbook' argument. What if he loses his spellbook? Does he effectively lose knowledge? Because he sure doesn't need his spellbook to use this feat (or most arguments that make use of that reasoning) so that implies that the spellbook is hardlinked to his actual mind somehow?It's not an argument, it's right there in the PHB:


Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, page 179). Emphasis mine.

Once a wizard understands a new spell she can record it into her spellbook.Understanding new spells would be learning a new spell from leveling up (regardless whether she's prepared it yet) or taking the time to understand the spell from a foreign spellbook or scroll by the rules on PHB 178-179 (specifically p. 179 "Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll). If the wizard has written a spell into a spellbook at some point, they're familiar enough with the spell to consider it "known". Once it's known then as long as she can prepare it the wizard can put it in a new spellbook:

If she already has a particular spell prepared, she can write it directly into a new book. [...] 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.
Complete Arcane gives rules for mastering a spellbook, which say

If the wizard succeeds, he can use the foreign spellbook as his own, requiring no further Spellcraft checks to prepare or copy spells from it.

So, if it's "his own" spellbook, then it follows that the spells in a mastered spellbook are part of a wizard's spells known as well.

To answer your questions directly:


If he loses his spellbook, he should get to a safe place and write down all the spells he has prepared into a new spellbook. If he casts them, there's no guarantee he'll be able to borrow a spellbook containing the spell. Once he's written down everything he's prepared, he needs to borrow spellbooks containing the rest if he can find them. Last resort would be scrolls.
He only loses knowledge of how to rewrite the spell if he loses his spellbook and doesn't have a given spell prepared. He doesn't lose knowledge of the spell, however, because he can prepare the spell from a borrowed spellbook and then write it into his own again.
No, a prepared caster doesn't need their spellbook to make use of Versatile Spellcaster, but their number of spells known, which is what the feat grants access to, is much greater than that of a spontaneous caster (who the feat was arguably intended for). In a sense, yes, once a wizard writes a spell into their spellbook it's "hardlinked to their mind". They know all the spells they've personally written down or mastered.

[SangoProduction]

Using Versatile Spellcaster is itself a special form of spontaneous casting. I would rule that he can only use it with spontaneous slots.

To put it another way, a Wizard/Sorceror is only spontaneous with his Sorceror slots. All his Wizard slots must be memorized in advance (unless using a wizard-allowed Feat like Uncanny Foresight).

And if somebody asks, "Well, then, can I memorize a third-level spell in two 2nd-level slots?"

No. The Versatile Spellcaster Feat does not help you memorize spells.

Good to get a variety of opinions.

Can we get some elaboration as to why you are restricting it to spontaneous spell slots?

What if the Wizard took Conjuror ACF to spontaneously cast Summon Monster, or took Spontaneous Divination? Using your ruling, could we still use VS for these?

[DarkSoul]

Actually, you could argue that wizards don't "know" any spells, because they have no "spells known" section in their class entry.But they do have a rules entry that says they know spells, that also explicitly says they can know any number of spells, unlike a sorcerer or bard. See my previous post. Therefore, this argument would be wrong.

Also...they don't know the spells, they just memorize them.This would also be wrong, see above.

You could also make the argument that certain spontaneous spellcasting classes know all their spells, because it says they do in the class feature, and with this feat, you can cast them earlier.Warmages, as an example, DO know all their spells of a given spell level, however the Warmage entry in Complete Arcane also says "When a warmage gains access to a new level of spells, he automatically knows all the spells for that level listed on the warmage’s spell list." The warmage can't use this feat to cast higher level spells early because he doesn't know them until he actually has the spell slots to cast them. I'm not going to look up every fixed-list spontaneous caster to verify, but I did check the beguiler and it says the same thing. You don't know any second level spells as either of these classes until you have second-level spell slots, then you know all their second level spells.

But again, Rules as Reasonable, rather than Rules as Written.These aren't mutually exclusive. You're trying to take a spontaneous casting feat and apply it to a prepared caster. The effects of doing so are perfectly reasonable, they just happen to be a stronger interaction than you'd like, and you're completely within your rights to houserule them however you see fit.


EDIT: Restricting it to spontaneous spell slots brings it closer to Rules as Intended and avoids the interaction with prepared casters you're uncomfortable with. I'd likely rule it that way too, I'm more a fan of Uncanny Forethought for prepared casters.

Spontaneous Summoning isn't the same as sorcerer spontaneous casting. It's the cleric's spontaneous cure/inflict ability changed to work on Summon Monster spells. You're converting a prepared spell into the summon, not burning an empty spell slot to cast it like a sorcerer would. So is Spontaneous Divination. In my opinion, they won't interact with Versatile Spellcaster any more than a cleric's spontaneous cure would. If you're alright with a cleric 3 burning a bless and a protection from evil from memory to cast cure moderate wounds, then consider if spending a true strike and a magic missile to cast SM 2 will be alright and go from there. That doesn't make them a spontaneous caster though. If it did, a cleric could take Versatile Spellcaster without a dip.

[Troacctid]

Using Versatile Spellcaster is itself a special form of spontaneous casting.
Is it, though? It doesn't say that anywhere in the feat. In fact, nowhere in the feat does it override any part of the normal process for casting a spell, other than changing the number and level of the spell slots you need. So aside from that, you still use all the usual parameters for casting a spell from your class. For a wizard, that means preparing the spell.

[Mato]

Is it, though?Yes.

A wizard casts prepared spells.

A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).

She must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting a good night’s sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard decides which spells to prepare (see Preparing Wizard Spells, page 177).

And his spell slots act like containers, they hold the prepared spells the wizard can cast.

A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. For example, a 7th-level wizard has at least one 4th-level spell slot and two 3rd-level spell slots (see Table 3–18: The Wizard, page 55). However, the character could choose to prepare three 3rd-level spells instead, filling the 4th-level slot with a 3rd level spell.

In fact, many extra casting items & feats specifically designed for prepared casters simply fill a spell slot again.

The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast. The spell must be of a particular level, depending on the pearl. Different pearls exist for recalling one spell per day of each level from 1st through 9th and for the recall of two spells per day (each of a different level, 6th or lower).

Spontaneous casters on the other hand

Some characters can cast spells, but they don’t need spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast any spell they know using a daily allotment of spell slots. These characters are called spontaneous spellcasters.Do not prepare and expend the slots like cash rather than filling and emptying them.

But on to the question at hand.

Benefit: You can spontaneously cast any spell of the divination school by sacrificing a prepared spell of equal or greater level.The self titled "spontaneous" casting of spontaneous divination is wholly dependent on preparing spells which correctly follows RAW of the wizard entry and also means it does not follow RAW of what can or cannot be called a spontaneous spellcaster. The RAW answer is simple: A spontaneous divination wizard is not a spontaneous spellcaster.

The RC also addresses these self titled "spontaneous" methods.

Some spellcasters prepare spells, but they can cast certain spells spontaneously as detailed in their class description. {example}. Such spontaneous casting follows special rules for spontaneous spellcasting, such as how metamagic feats interact with casting time, but otherwise functions as normal spellcasting. A multiclass spellcaster can’t cast a spontaneous spell from one class in place of one from another class.While a fun fact that preparation is consider the normal method of casting, the two important parts is that you cannot use your wizard slots to spontaneous cast a spell in another class or vice versa and that a prepared spellcaster using a "spontaneous" method still functions as a prepared[U] spellcaster.

A wizard can never mechanically call it's self spontaneous spellcaster.

@Darksoul, funny. I don't see where is says a wizard's spellbook is his known spells. I see how you assumed that a wizard can learn any number of spells and how if a wizard [U]understands a spell he can write it into a spellbook, I can only believe that you have assumed that both those things are one and the same. However, while I was obtaining the quotes for my post I figured I'd grab one just for you too.

The act of preparing a spell is actually the first step in casting it. A spell is designed in such a way that it has an interruption point near its end. This allows a wizard to cast most of the spell ahead of time and finish when it’s needed, even if she is under considerable pressure. Her spellbook serves as a guide to the mental exercises she must perform to create the spell’s effect.This serves as reinforcement over the differences in how a prepared spellcaster casts prepared spells, not only filling slots but the act of preparation is the first step in casting them, but also has a highlight that a spellbook does not contain "known spells", but understood instructions. Instructions that differ depending on who wrote them and require a little cyphering for another to use rather than the true language of magic.

[Troacctid]

A wizard can never mechanically call it's self spontaneous spellcaster.
I was assuming we're talking about multiclass wizard/sorcerers here, not single-class wizards. A wizard with sorcerer levels can indeed call herself a spontaneous caster. Such a wizard would be able to use Versatile Spellcaster to prepare a higher-level spell in two lower-level spell slots. Spontaneous casting is part of the feat's prerequisite, not its benefit.

[DarkSoul]

@Darksoul, funny. I don't see where is says a wizard's spellbook is his known spells. I see how you assumed that a wizard can learn any number of spells and how if a wizard understands a spell he can write it into a spellbook, I can only believe that you have assumed that both those things are one and the same. However, while I was obtaining the quotes for my post I figured I'd grab one just for you too.
This serves as reinforcement over the differences in how a prepared spellcaster casts prepared spells, not only filling slots but the act of preparation is the first step in casting them, but also has a highlight that a spellbook does not contain "known spells", but understood instructions. Instructions that differ depending on who wrote them and require a little cyphering for another to use rather than the true language of magic.I have assumed exactly what the PHB says, which is that wizards can know any number of spells and have a specific method of acquiring more according to the PHB.

A wizard's spellbook is not his known spells. The spells a wizard knows are ones they've studied to the point that, if they prepare them, they can then write them into a spellbook. Those spells consist of every spell they've ever written into a spellbook or mastered from a foreign one (with some ambiguity allowing for an argument against the mastered spellbooks).

Wizards should likely keep a list, separate from their spellbooks, of their known spells. Most of the time the spellbook contents and the known spells list will be identical, but in cases where their spellbooks have been lost, they can differ. Or, the DM can keep a running list if they so choose. Ideally, both would with the DM's list being the "backup" copy or if they need to keep the wizard honest about the spells they do or don't know.

I didn't think I'd need to go into this much detail, so I left it where it was previously. I do see how you arrived at that assumption, after reading what I said again.

I do agree with you that wizards with spontaneous casting ACF's still aren't spontaneous casters. Their spontaneous casting is the same mechanic as clerical spontaneous casting.


I was assuming we're talking about multiclass wizard/sorcerers here, not single-class wizards. A wizard with sorcerer levels can indeed call herself a spontaneous caster. Such a wizard would be able to use Versatile Spellcaster to prepare a higher-level spell in two lower-level spell slots. Spontaneous casting is part of the feat's prerequisite, not its benefit.Agreed, but I think what you quoted from Mato was more directed at the Spontaneous X ACF's available to wizards. This gets back to the root of the discussion, though: Because wizards have so many known spells, the OP thinks allowing Versatile Spellcaster to access their full list of known spells is too good, and the question was put forth what would be a more limited way of using the feat.

[SangoProduction]

OK. Let's redirect this thread back to the original question(s).


I will simply be asking, let's just say a Wizard has dipped in to sorcerer.
Will they be able to prepare one Wizard of level 3 by using up 2 level 2 Wizard spell slots, if they took Versatile Spellcaster.

This seems like a fairly reasonable interpretation. Is it not?

Perhaps a bit less reasonably:
Could this Wizard / Sorcerer do the same trick, except, after preparation. Say: He casts his 3rd level spell, but instead of using that prepared spell slot, use two different level 2 spell slots for the same effect?

I think everyone agrees "OK, hey, they shouldn't be able to prepare from every spell in their spellbook". I think that was established in the first reply. Extrapolating on that is unnecessary.

[Troacctid]

Agreed, but I think what you quoted from Mato was more directed at the Spontaneous X ACF's available to wizards.
Well it shouldn't have been directed at that, since that's specifically not what this thread is about. So, nyeh.


This gets back to the root of the discussion, though: Because wizards have so many known spells, the OP thinks allowing Versatile Spellcaster to access their full list of known spells is too good, and the question was put forth what would be a more limited way of using the feat.
Spontaneous access to their full list of known spells isn't RAW in the first place, though—that's my point. OP's interpretation isn't a fix, it's how the feat normally works for wizards.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Point of order; the versatile spellcaster feat doesn't require the character to be a spontaneous spellcaster only that he be able to cast spells spontaneously, which spontaneous divination wizards (and other variants) unambiguously -can- do.

On the other hand, it says the character can use two lower level slots to cast a spell one level higher; not sacrifice slots or prepared spells, use spell slots. A prepared caster doesn't use spell slots to cast at all. He prepares spells in slots and then casts them. You'd also need a feat or feature that allows a prepared caster to use an unused spell slot to cast a spell he knows to enable versatile spellcaster to function; like alacritous cogitation.

With versatile spellcaster, spontaneous divination, and alacritous cogitation a wizard could leave his slots empty and use his lower level slots to cast any spell he knows (that's in his or a mastered spellbook) two to one but would not be able to cast more than a single spell he knows with a slot of the appropriate level. Seems to me that cutting his daily alotment in half might be a fair trade for being able to cast anything he knows spontaneously and that's what this combo actually does if you're sticking to strict RAW.

[DarkSoul]

I think everyone agrees "OK, hey, they shouldn't be able to prepare from every spell in their spellbook". I think that was established in the first reply. Extrapolating on that is unnecessary.Obviously, everyone doesn't agree. In the interest of answering your questions though:

Versatile Spellcaster has nothing to do with preparing spells, only casting them. Let's use a Sorc 1/Wiz 5 with Fireball and Haste as their level 3 spells known and both of them being in their spellbook, along with a random selection of level 0-2 spells.

Will they be able to prepare an extra level 3 spell by using 2 level 2's? No. Versatile Spellcaster affects how you cast spells, not prepare them. This wizard prepares a haste at level 3 (but not a fireball) along with a bear's endurance, a blur, and a rope trick at level 2, two magic missiles and a true strike at level 1, and prestidigitation and three other 0-level.


Perhaps a bit less reasonably:
Could this Wizard / Sorcerer do the same trick, except, after preparation. Say: He casts his 3rd level spell, but instead of using that prepared spell slot, use two different level 2 spell slots for the same effect?This is how Versatile Spellcaster actually works. The example wizard above could cast his haste spell, and then realize he needs a fireball. Because fireball is among his spells known, he could sacrifice two of his level 2 spells to cast one.

Later, he's ambushed and really needs another blur spell, having used his first one earlier. He's got two magic missiles left, so he sacrifices those to cast blur, then spends his prepared prestidigitation and mage hand to cast a magic missile to finish off the ambusher as it tries to flee.

[SangoProduction]

On the other hand, it says the character can use two lower level slots to cast a spell one level higher; not sacrifice slots or prepared spells, use spell slots. A prepared caster doesn't use spell slots to cast at all. He prepares spells in slots and then casts them. You'd also need a feat or feature that allows a prepared caster to use an unused spell slot to cast a spell he knows to enable versatile spellcaster to function; like alacritous cogitation.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm

Just because they prepare stuff ahead of time in spell slots doesn't mean they don't use spell slots.

[Kelb_Panthera]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm

Just because they prepare stuff ahead of time in spell slots doesn't mean they don't use spell slots.

You misunderstand. Of course they use spell slots but they don't "use spell slots" in the same way spontaneous casters do in the way the particular phrasing of the feat denotes. A prepared caster prepares then casts as two separate steps in the spellcasting process. Spontaneous casters don't do this. They simply use the energy inherent in the spell slots to cast the spell directly without that preparation step.

Wherever, in the various texts, mention is made of the spellcasting process, a distinction is made between "using spell slots" as a spontaneous caster and "using or sacrificing prepared spells" as a prepared caster. The phrasing of versatile spellcaster is in line with the former but not the latter.

[Zanos]

As far as I can tell, a wizard with one level in sorcerer can use versatile spellcaster to cast any spell in his spellbook. A spell known is: "A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks."

Therefore, a wizard has spell slots, and spells known. He can use two spell slots to cast any spell in his spellbook that is one level higher than the slots. Pretty clear cut.

[SangoProduction]

The SRD references unused spell slots for wizards, which means they can be used (by preparing spells in them). In the interpretation proposed, it is then possible to burn "unused" spell slots (those without prepared spells) for this purpose. Of course, this all assumes that a "(un)Used spell slot" is a thing, and not just a description.

I'm off to bed. I'll see you in the morning.


Obviously, everyone doesn't agree. In the interest of answering your questions though:

Versatile Spellcaster has nothing to do with preparing spells, only casting them. Let's use a Sorc 1/Wiz 5 with Fireball and Haste as their level 3 spells known and both of them being in their spellbook, along with a random selection of level 0-2 spells.

Will they be able to prepare an extra level 3 spell by using 2 level 2's? No. Versatile Spellcaster affects how you cast spells, not prepare them. This wizard prepares a haste at level 3 (but not a fireball) along with a bear's endurance, a blur, and a rope trick at level 2, two magic missiles and a true strike at level 1, and prestidigitation and three other 0-level.

This is how Versatile Spellcaster actually works. The example wizard above could cast his haste spell, and then realize he needs a fireball. Because fireball is among his spells known, he could sacrifice two of his level 2 spells to cast one.

Later, he's ambushed and really needs another blur spell, having used his first one earlier. He's got two magic missiles left, so he sacrifices those to cast blur, then spends his prepared prestidigitation and mage hand to cast a magic missile to finish off the ambusher as it tries to flee.

An interesting take.

[DarkSoul]

As far as I can tell, a wizard with one level in sorcerer can use versatile spellcaster to cast any spell in his spellbook. A spell known is: "A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks."

Therefore, a wizard has spell slots, and spells known. He can use two spell slots to cast any spell in his spellbook that is one level higher than the slots. Pretty clear cut.Thanks for reminding me that it's actually defined in the PHB glossary. I knew I'd seen it printed somewhere, but couldn't for the life of me remember where. It looks like Wizard spells known is completely dependent on their spellbooks, not whether they've had a spell there in the past. More reason to have duplicate spellbooks I guess.

[weckar]

This does raise the question on what qualifies ownership of a spellbook. Does a spellbook purchased or stolen from another wizard become your property and therefore your knowledge? Does the owner of a library that has a spellbook section know all spells held within those? Can ownership be shared?

[DarkSoul]

This does raise the question on what qualifies ownership of a spellbook. Does a spellbook purchased or stolen from another wizard become your property and therefore your knowledge? Does the owner of a library that has a spellbook section know all spells held within those? Can ownership be shared?Ownership doesn't guarantee knowledge. A purchased or stolen spellbook still has to be mastered or you need to spend the time to figure out the spells individually. Once a stolen spellbook has been mastered, though, then it counts toward your spells known. If the owner of the library full of spellbooks has mastered all of them then yes, they all count as spells known. I suppose ownership could be shared if multiple wizards master the same spellbook.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This does raise the question on what qualifies ownership of a spellbook. Does a spellbook purchased or stolen from another wizard become your property and therefore your knowledge? Does the owner of a library that has a spellbook section know all spells held within those? Can ownership be shared?

I'd think mastery of the book would be a bare minimum requirement. Just because you have a spellbook (that you didn't scribe yourself) doesn't mean you understand anything in it.

Shared ownership is an interesting concept. Multiple wizards can certainly prepare from the same book as long as either one of them scribed it and the other mastered it or if they both master a book neither of them has scribed. Ownership of anything isn't defined within RAW so it's a bit nebulous.

[weckar]

The reason I bring it up, of course, is that while the glossary definition is certainly RAW - no mention is ever made anywhere of spellbook 'mastery' or anything of the sort. So taking that to the table as a (not unreasonable) interpretation, it is nonetheless an interpretation like any other non-raw interpretation made in this thread regarding the practical application of VS.

[Zanos]

Ownership is very undefined as Kelb mentioned. There are a variety of magic items that have effects for their "owners" that are otherwise slotless. I always assumed you had to have it on your person, but I suppose it's up the DM since the books are generally silent.

[DarkSoul]

Mastering a spellbook comes from Complete Arcane, and requires a successful spellcraft check of DC 25 + the highest level spell in the book, and takes a week + 1 day per spell in the book. If you make the check, the spellbook is considered yours for all purposes.

[weckar]

That of course does not cover loss of ownership/mastery. From that text, you would be free to sell the spellbook and still have access for the purposes of VS?

[DarkSoul]

That of course does not cover loss of ownership/mastery. From that text, you would be free to sell the spellbook and still have access for the purposes of VS?Well, considering the definition of known spells for wizards says the spells have to be in your spellbooks, once you sell one you'd no longer have those spells known unless they appear in other spellbooks you still own. It makes sense that you'd know the spell because you've already studied it in-depth, but that's getting into house rules territory.

Sticking to RAW, if you sell a spellbook you've mastered, you no longer know those spells for VS if the spells don't appear in another spellbook you still have.

[Elroy114]

I completely agree

[Mato]

I was assuming we're talking about multiclass wizard/sorcerers here, not single-class wizards.That was addressed, perhaps neither me, the other posters, or the rules can make them selves clear enough for you to understand.

When I spoke of how a wizard partially casts his spells in the morning and fills a spell slot with a prepared spell, I quite plainly also addressed how versatile spellcaster cannot be used with prepared spellcasting. As someone else has already more plainly pointed out, the feat does not give you the ability to prepare a spell into two different slots. And as the rules compendium quote points out, you cannot sacrifice your sorcerer slots to cast wizard spells or your wizard slots to cast sorcerer spells. The subject was well covered.

Now there is another interpretation, one I didn't address. GitP has a habit of discussion opinions rather than the rules and often purposely misconstruing information in an effort to endlessly debate a topic rather than reaching a conclusion. What I'm taling about is if you partially ignore versatile spellcaster's rules and instead solely focus on the trait that it gives you the ability to cast a spell. Emphasis, red letter, enlarge, and don't forget the all caps on that. The argument is a a hasty generalization used in defense of circular reasoning and based on the assumed outcome that the feat it's self bestows a spellcasting ability and it ignores the circumstances, such as the wizard's rules of spellcasting.

It was last year someone on another board taught me the value of following through. If versatile spellcaster truely bestowed a an exception on how you cast spells in others that it didn't bring up, then if you truly believe that I can exploit your reasoning to abusive levels. Such as if my wizard is standing in a null magic area, well versatile spellcaster says I can cast a spell. If my wizard is pinned and I want to cast black tentacles, well versatile spellcaster says I can cast a spell. If my wizard's intelligence has been reduced to 3, well versatile spellcaster says I can cast a spell. I can just as easily plug my ears and shout my point over and over again as many times as I wish and they could not be refuted by anyone making the first claim as both are simply assuming the same exact thing and both ignore rules printed else where (wizards need to prepare vs say can't use magic in null areas), if one is true and you cannot prove why it should be and another is not, then you slip into yet another fallacy.

[SangoProduction]

Such as if my wizard is standing in a null magic area, well versatile spellcaster says I can cast a spell. If my wizard is pinned and I want to cast black tentacles, well versatile spellcaster says I can cast a spell. If my wizard's intelligence has been reduced to 3, well versatile spellcaster says I can cast a spell. I can just as easily plug my ears and shout my point over and over again as many times as I wish and they could not be refuted by anyone making the first claim as both are simply assuming the same exact thing and both ignore rules printed else where (wizards need to prepare vs say can't use magic in null areas), if one is true and you cannot prove why it should be and another is not, then you slip into yet another fallacy.

The same argument is can be said for literally anything that says "you can cast..." Including the class feature. Even the "specific beats general" rule isn't truly helpful, because you can go "well, AMF generally stops spell casting, but my class specifically says I can cast my spells. hur dur dur." And nowhere is it defined what is a general rule, what is a specific rule, and what is an even more specific rule.

And yet, oddly enough, people don't really make such claims. Because they are not reasonable interpretations. So no, this isn't really a counter argument in any capacity.