Where is the RAW that says you can't cast spells of "-"?

[magicalmagicman]

I can't seem to find the rule. Only rules regarding spellcasting I can find is ability score restrictions. You can't cast spells unless you have 10+spell level in score, you have to use higher level slots to cast lower level spells if you don't have the ability score, etc.

But I cannot find any mention that "-" means the class can't cast a spell of that level. So where is this rule?

[Kelb_Panthera]

You won't find that. The "-" you're talking about is a null character. It indicates an absence of a value in the noted place, not a value of zero. You can't add to, or take away from, null with bonus spells. That's just not how that works.

[Silva Stormrage]

Ya it's more of a "No rule that says you CAN" sort of situation.

[magicalmagicman]

You won't find that. The "-" you're talking about is a null character. It indicates an absence of a value in the noted place, not a value of zero. You can't add to, or take away from, null with bonus spells. That's just not how that works.

I see, so there is no explicit RAW rule. This is very important information.

I can see the argument that NULL + 1 is still NULL

Versatile Spellcaster lets you use spell slots of a lower level, so it doesn't matter if you have NULL spell slots of the spell you want to cast, as long as you have 2 lower level spell slots you can cast it.

So unless there is any RAW rule saying otherwise, I believe versatile spellcaster allows early access to spells you know, and since there is no RAW for that...

Thanks!

[Arkhios]

Also, by simple logic: if something isn't addressed in the rules, then that something probably doesn't exist in the game. (A.K.A. "Rule of omission")
A "-" somewhere in the tables refers to non-existent <anything>. in other words, Like Kelb said, it's a null value.

Btw, what you're trying to justify won't hold ground in any table. Good luck trying to convince any level-headed DM with that. Remember, DM's Word is the Law at the table. No matter what the rules as written say or doesn't say.

[magicalmagicman]

Remember, DM's Word is the Law at the table. No matter what the rules as written say or doesn't say.

This is only a problem if the DM falsely advertises that he is playing d&d and not some homebrew ruined crap.

If it is his interpretation of the RAW, sure.
If he says its for balance reasons, he's saying he doesn't trust you to not break the game, which is ok I guess..., just means you gotta play the game in an extremely boring way for 2 more levels (which maybe 2 more months) before your fun build comes online.
If he says RAW is just guidelines then this DM's rulings is not worth discussing, and in fact, you should probably leave.

In my opinion a good DM sticks to RAW, and just asks players not to abuse it. If he is capable of throwing challenging encounters matching the power level of the party then he is an awesome DM!

[Arkhios]

In my opinion a good DM sticks to RAW, and just asks players not to abuse it. If he is capable of throwing challenging encounters matching the power level of the party then he is an awesome DM!

I completely agree with the whole sentence. However, your previous posts have a very suggestive feel of trying to abuse the RAW the way it doesn't work.

[Necrov]

I see, so there is no explicit RAW rule. This is very important information.

I can see the argument that NULL + 1 is still NULL

Versatile Spellcaster lets you use spell slots of a lower level, so it doesn't matter if you have NULL spell slots of the spell you want to cast, as long as you have 2 lower level spell slots you can cast it.

So unless there is any RAW rule saying otherwise, I believe versatile spellcaster allows early access to spells you know, and since there is no RAW for that...


Can it really be argued that you 'know' spells that you can't and have never been able to cast, e.g. of a spell level that you have not yet reached.

Spells appearing on a class spell list =/= Spells Known.

However, it's a ridiculous point anyway. As stated, a '-' is a non-existent value. You can't use it in formulation, because it doesn't exist.

And the, "The rules don't say I can't..." argument doesn't hold water either.

The rules don't explicitly state that I can't imagine myself into the seven headed Hydra-hybrid flying spaghetti monster. The rules don't explicitly state that I can't rub out the numbers on my character sheet and add higher ones to increase my stats. Remember folks, the rule of omission is important.

[magicalmagicman]

Can it really be argued that you 'know' spells that you can't and have never been able to cast, e.g. of a spell level that you have not yet reached.

Spells appearing on a class spell list =/= Spells Known.

Malconvoker directly says it adds the planar binding spells to your spell known. That's one method.

Mother Cyst is another.

Bloodlines are another.

So basically you are burning feats or spellcasting levels to get spells known. Seems like a justified cost, especially since we're talking about spontaneous casters exclusively here.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Can it really be argued that you 'know' spells that you can't and have never been able to cast, e.g. of a spell level that you have not yet reached.

Spells appearing on a class spell list =/= Spells Known.

I suspect this is an attempt to exploit the fact that a wizard "knows" all the spells recorded in his spellbook by using versatile spellcaster to bypass the normal limitation on your highest level spell slots. There's another thread discussing the interactions between versatile spellcaster and prepared casters that came up recently.

The rules for scribing a spell to a spellbook never actually contain your options to scribing only spells you can cast, so it is possible to scribe spells of a higher level than you could cast or even spells off-list.

Of couse, even if you can get a DM to okay casting a higher level spell than you can currently cast by use of versatile spellcaster shennanigans (quite the iffy proposition, really), there's no way you're casting anything off-list this way.

[Necrov]

Malconvoker directly says it adds the planar binding spells to your spell known. That's one method.

Mother Cyst is another.

Bloodlines are another.

So basically you are burning feats or spellcasting levels to get spells known. Seems like a justified cost, especially since we're talking about spontaneous casters exclusively here.

I suspect your interpretation of the way that interacts is completely against the RAI, but that's by-the-by. Seeing as you appear to want to talk strict RAW, how do you intend to treat "-" as a value. It isn't; it's an omission. It isn't that this is a cheesey interpretation of RAW (though it certainly is cheesey) it's just not an interpretation of RAW at all. "Rules don't state I can't." =/= "I can."


I suspect this is an attempt to exploit the fact that a wizard "knows" all the spells recorded in his spellbook by using versatile spellcaster to bypass the normal limitation on your highest level spell slots. There's another thread discussing the interactions between versatile spellcaster and prepared casters that came up recently.

Understandable. But still utterly ridiculous.

[magicalmagicman]

I completely agree with the whole sentence. However, your previous posts have a very suggestive feel of trying to abuse the RAW the way it doesn't work.

Well in my experience, most RAW abuses actually fail, which is why I post them. It's also fun to think about how to make some awesome combos. Anyways most if not all suggestions I made in the past have failed so i guess you are right about what I did.

The only thing I actually followed through from my past posts is using mother cyst on non-sorcerer-wizard-cleric classes, and to use it bypass planar binding costs.

I was planning on ditching Versatile Spellcaster Early Access too, but just wanted to be absolutely sure. Good thing I double checked because it turns out RAW supports me XD.

Lets see... right now the only questionable things I'm doing is...
1. Earth Spell for Early Entry into Shadowcraft Mage at level 7.
2. Versatile Spellcaster for access to Necrotic Tumor at level 12.
3. Spamming enervation to lower saves on planar bound creatures after I kill their summons and using reach spell to land nectrotic cysts from behind the magic circle.
4. Getting Miracle on my Sorcerer via Wyrm Wizard for more access to spells, and possibly making it into a shadow spell to bypass the divine spell deity restriction in Forgotten Realms. I really have no interest in miracle's "greater" capabilities. Even posted a thread here to see if anything piques my interest.

And... that's it. That's my entire character right there in 4 points.

[Necrov]

I was planning on ditching Versatile Spellcaster Early Access too, but just wanted to be absolutely sure. Good thing I double checked because it turns out RAW supports me XD.


But it really, really doesn't. Because once again, you can't treat "-" as a value.

[magicalmagicman]

But it really, really doesn't. Because once again, you can't treat "-" as a value.

Who cares if "-" doesn't have a value? I'm not using "-", I'm using the spell slots 1 level lower than it. There is no rule saying I can't cast a spell that I have "-" spell slots for, there is a rule saying I can use lower level spell slots to cast a spell I know, and there is in fact rules saying you can cast higher level spells that you can cast via scrolls so...

The only thing that "-" = NULL shuts down is the bonus spell slot shenanigans from Fiendish Codex II.

[Necrov]

Who cares if "-" doesn't have a value? I'm not using "-", I'm using the spell slots 1 level lower than it. There is no rule saying I can't cast a spell that I have "-" spell slots for, there is a rule saying I can use lower level spell slots to cast a spell I know, and there is in fact rules saying you can cast higher level spells that you can cast via scrolls so...

The only thing that "-" = NULL shuts down is the bonus spell slot shenanigans from Fiendish Codex II.

I'm not directly opposed to mental exercises about how RAW can be broken with specific interpretations.

But at this point you're not interpreting anything. You're just taking "There is no rule that says I can't," as... "I can." Which is definitely not the case, at all.

"Rules don't state I can't." =/= "I can."

[magicalmagicman]

"Rules don't state I can't." =/= "I can."

Except in this case, there are rules saying "I can", and there are no rules saying "I can't". QED "I can."

[AvatarVecna]

@magicalmagicman

Could you post the reason why you're wanting to do this, so we can walk through it step by step? I have an idea why this interpretation might be wrong, but it depends on what exactly you're referring to.

[magicalmagicman]

@magicalmagicman

Could you post the reason why you're wanting to do this, so we can walk through it step by step? I have an idea why this interpretation might be wrong, but it depends on what exactly you're referring to.

Sorcerer 6/Malconvoker 2, can the sorcerer cast lesser planar binding with versatile spellcasting?

Is basically the best example I can think of.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm not directly opposed to mental exercises about how RAW can be broken with specific interpretations.

But at this point you're not interpreting anything. You're just taking "There is no rule that says I can't," as... "I can." Which is definitely not the case, at all.

"Rules don't state I can't." =/= "I can."

He's cobbling together the pieces of spellcasting to get ahold of things early.

He's getting the spell known from features of other classes and/or by scribing spells to his book that are above the level he can currently cast then fueling these spells known with slots of a lower level via versatile spellcaster.

It's dodgy as hell but not necessarily RAW illegal.

[Ashtagon]

Versatile Spellcaster lets you cast higher-level spells using lower-level spell slots. It also a) requires the ability to spontaneously cast spells, and b) only works on spells known.

Spontaneous casters (sorcerers and bards) know only a very limited number of spells, and crucially, don't ever know any spells that aren't of a level they can already cast.

There's possibly some multiclassing shenanigans involving levels of both sorcerer and wizard, but at that point, you're sacrificing a level to gain a level, which isn't really early entry as most think of it.

[Necrov]

Except in this case, there are rules saying "I can", and there are no rules saying "I can't". QED "I can."

We've reached an impasse. Your question has been addressed by several of us now. Our opinions have been pretty unified on the matter as far as I can see.

Of course; nothing states you have to take the answer given to you.

I think however, you'd struggle to ever actually play this character a table that employs practical common sense. But of course; YMMV.

[Telonius]

Who cares if "-" doesn't have a value? I'm not using "-", I'm using the spell slots 1 level lower than it. There is no rule saying I can't cast a spell that I have "-" spell slots for, there is a rule saying I can use lower level spell slots to cast a spell I know, and there is in fact rules saying you can cast higher level spells that you can cast via scrolls so...

The only thing that "-" = NULL shuts down is the bonus spell slot shenanigans from Fiendish Codex II.

Try replacing "-" with "potato." Both are equally not numerical values. Can you show me that you can cast (potato minus one) level spells? Of course not, because "lower" doesn't apply, potato isn't a number. It'd be like saying you can cast a spell if you have slot greener than six available.

[Necrov]

Try replacing "-" with "potato." Both are equally not numerical values. Can you show me that you can cast (potato minus one) level spells? Of course not, because "lower" doesn't apply, potato isn't a number. It'd be like saying you can cast a spell if you have slot greener than six available.

May I sig?

[magicalmagicman]

Try replacing "-" with "potato." Both are equally not numerical values. Can you show me that you can cast (potato minus one) level spells? Of course not, because "lower" doesn't apply, potato isn't a number. It'd be like saying you can cast a spell if you have slot greener than six available.

I'm a little confused here.

Lets say you have Potato amount of level 5 spell slots.
Lets say you have ten level 4 spell slots.

It wouldn't be (Potato minus one), it would be (Five minus one), because you know a level 5 spell (the spell isn't a potato level spell)

I haven't read the other thread about wizards and versatile spellcaster because I have no interest in stuff like that, but I think some of you might be confusing this thread with that thread o_o.

[AvatarVecna]

Sorcerer 6/Malconvoker 2, can the sorcerer cast lesser planar binding with versatile spellcasting?

Is basically the best example I can think of.

No, but not because it wouldn't work (which is a very confusing sentence to write).

Malconvoker 2 puts "Lesser Planar Binding" as a 5th level spell on both your class spell list and in your spells known, meaning that your character, who has the spellcasting abilities of a Sorcerer 7, has a 5th level spell on their Spells Known list, but no 5th level slots with which to cast it. Unfortunately, even with Versatile Spellcaster, your character cannot cast "Lesser Planar Binding" yet...but that's because your character only has 3rd level slots, because they cast as a Sorcerer 7. Once you become capable of casting as a Sorcerer 8, and gain 4th level slots, you can use those in conjunction with Versatile Spellcaster to cast "Lesser Planar Binding". So it would work...if you had another level.

Now, what is that the build you're using? Because I saw Sorcerer and Wyrm Wizard, and that combo has some problems (assuming you're using Spell Research to pull a similar trick).

[magicalmagicman]

No, but not because it wouldn't work (which is a very confusing sentence to write).

Malconvoker 2 puts "Lesser Planar Binding" as a 5th level spell on both your class spell list and in your spells known, meaning that your character, who has the spellcasting abilities of a Sorcerer 7, has a 5th level spell on their Spells Known list, but no 5th level slots with which to cast it. Unfortunately, even with Versatile Spellcaster, your character cannot cast "Lesser Planar Binding" yet...but that's because your character only has 3rd level slots, because they cast as a Sorcerer 7. Once you become capable of casting as a Sorcerer 8, and gain 4th level slots, you can use those in conjunction with Versatile Spellcaster to cast "Lesser Planar Binding". So it would work...if you had another level.

Now, what is that the build you're using? Because I saw Sorcerer and Wyrm Wizard, and that combo has some problems (assuming you're using Spell Research to pull a similar trick).

Right, my bad, how about Sorcerer 7/Malconvoker 2? Miscalculated there. My apologies! Anyways you're saying it would work right?

The wyrm wizard thing is for something else, shadowcraft mage related, not versatile spellcaster, and arcane preparation solves the issue I think you're thinking about.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The null value in the daily spell alotment is irrelevant to this particular excersize. The OP was looking for a specific prohibition that doesn't actually exist; specifically one that forbids casting spells of a level for which you have null spell slots.

Let's see if we can't glean what he's doing here.

A sorcerer 6/ malconvoker 3 casts as a sorcerer 8 and has 3 fourth level spell slots (plus bonus for cha).

A malconvoker 2 gets lesser planar binding as a 5th level spell known (among others). As a specific rule this supercedes the normal spells known table.

What the OP is trying to do is use 2 level 4 slots to power lesser planar binding even though he does not have the capability to cast 5th level spells yet.

The sticking point is whether the phrase "you can add the following spells to your class spell list and your list of known spells (or your spellbook) at the indicated levels" means that you add the spells immediately to your spells known, or if they are added to your spells known (in addition to the normal allotment for that level) when you become capable of casting spells of that level normally or even, perhaps, that they become spells that you can choose at those levels. Note "can" not "do."

[AvatarVecna]

Right, my bad, how about Sorcerer 7/Malconvoker 2? Miscalculated there. My apologies! Anyways you're saying it would work right?

The wyrm wizard thing is for something else, shadowcraft mage related, not versatile spellcaster.

Yes, Sorcerer7/Malconvoker 2 with the Versatile Spellcaster feat can use two 4th level spell slots to cast the 5th level spell "Lesser Planar Binding". The potential problem I noticed was in regards to combining Wyrm Wizard with Sorcerer.

[AvatarVecna]

The null value in the daily spell alotment is irrelevant to this particular excersize. The OP was looking for a specific prohibition that doesn't actually exist; specifically one that forbids casting spells of a level for which you have null spell slots.

Let's see if we can't glean what he's doing here.

A sorcerer 6/ malconvoker 3 casts as a sorcerer 8 and has 3 fourth level spell slots (plus bonus for cha).

A malconvoker 2 gets lesser planar binding as a 5th level spell known (among others). As a specific rule this supercedes the normal spells known table.

What the OP is trying to do is use 2 level 4 slots to power lesser planar binding even though he does not have the capability to cast 5th level spells yet.

The sticking point is whether the phrase "you can add the following spells to your class spell list and your list of known spells (or your spellbook) at the indicated levels" means that you add the spells immediately to your spells known, or if they are added to your spells known (in addition to the normal allotment for that level) when you become capable of casting spells of that level normally.

This is my understanding of their argument as well. I say that it works, but only because Malconvoker is written poorly: Sorcerer 6/Malconvoker X is pretty legitimate as far as class progressions go; the fact that it gives you a 5th level spell known before you gain 5th level slots means that the designers probably should've included a line like "you gain these when you become capable of casting spells of that level".

Reading the particular ability again, it includes the phrase "at the indicated levels". This could be interpreted as "you gain these spells known when you become capable of casting them", but that ignores the rest of the ability's text, namely:


If you already have one or more of these spells on your class list at a different level, treat it as being of the lower level.

Looking at Lesser Planar Binding in particular, I noticed that there's classes that have it as a 3rd level spell; to me, at least, including the phrase "at the indicated levels" is indicating that the spells are added to your Spells Known list immediately at the spell levels indicated, rather than that you must wait until being capable of casting them to gain that spell.

Compare this to the Beguiler class, a spontaneous caster whose Spells Known list is "any spell on the Beguiler class spell list that the Beguiler is capable of casting"; the Beguiler only Knows a spell they're capable of casting, even though once they reach a new level of spells, they Know every spell at that spell level on their class list. If Malconvoker had some similar indication of "you only know these spells if you're capable of casting that spell level", this might not work. Sure, it could be argued that they could still use Versatile Spellcaster, since that makes them capable of casting that level of spells, and that argument's been used for the Beguiler as well, but including a condition that you only Know the spell if you're capable of casting the spell level would make this much less clear-cut; as it stands, there's no limitation, Malconvoker 2 just puts these spells on your spells known list.

[nedz]

This is only a problem if the DM falsely advertises that he is playing d&d and not some homebrew ruined crap.

If it is his interpretation of the RAW, sure.
If he says its for balance reasons, he's saying he doesn't trust you to not break the game, which is ok I guess..., just means you gotta play the game in an extremely boring way for 2 more levels (which maybe 2 more months) before your fun build comes online.
If he says RAW is just guidelines then this DM's rulings is not worth discussing, and in fact, you should probably leave.

In my opinion a good DM sticks to RAW, and just asks players not to abuse it. If he is capable of throwing challenging encounters matching the power level of the party then he is an awesome DM!

RAW is many-ways dysfunctional (see below) so houserules are obligatory.

Every group contains players of different play-styles: some can't help themselves in abusing RAW, others can't help themselves in creating sub-par characters. A good DM will customise their style, and rules (if necessary), to the play-styles of the players. Your opinions only relate to your own preferred play-style - which is fine - not the game in general terms.

[Malak'ai]

I'm AFB at the moment so cant easily check the wording, but does V. Spellcasting essentually say "you can cast this spell by using two spell slots from one spell level lower than what it would normally take to cast this spell", or "you can treat this spell as a spell level lower than normal as long as it costs two spell slots of that spell level to cast"?

My interptitation of it is, if the wording of V. Spellcasting amounts to the first statement, then no, you can't cast the spell. You simply don't have the skill in magic (read: class levels) required to cast the spell, no matter how many lower level slots you sacrafice.

If the wording amounts to the latter, have at it! Spam the crud outta that incantation for all you're worth for as long as you have enough slots avaliable.

[magicalmagicman]

You simply don't have the skill in magic (read: class levels)

You're gonna have to provide a RAW quote for this. This is the quote I've been asking for in my original post.

[ZeroiaSD]

You're not going to find a rule that says you can't do every possible thing you can think of.


You're also not going to find a rule saying fighters can't cast spells- you just won't find rules saying they can.

[Psyren]

You're gonna have to provide a RAW quote for this. This is the quote I've been asking for in my original post.

I think the issue is that everyone is going off this rule:


Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score.

The text directs us to the table, at which point we are shown that wizards of a certain level only have a number of spells corresponding to that level. Since "-" isn't a number, it doesn't meet the "certain number" requirement and you can't cast above the maximum you have access to no matter what you do.

[ILM]

In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.

If you cast spells spontaneously, you can select any spell you know, provided you’re capable of casting spells of that level or higher and you have an appropriate spell slot available.
Does that answer your question?

[magicalmagicman]

Does that answer your question?

YES! Thank you! It does. The end of this debate! Yay! I'm a put off versatile spellcaster til way later.

[Ashtagon]

You're gonna have to provide a RAW quote for this. This is the quote I've been asking for in my original post.


You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

(http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm)

If your caster level is insufficient to cast the spell, you can't cast it, even if you use shenanigans to raise your spell slots for that spell level above "—", and even if you use shenanigans to know the spell before you would normally be able to know it.

Of course, if you can find a +1 caster level (or however many caster levels are needed) item in addition to everything else you've done, you're good to go.

[Segev]

If I'm parsing the OP correctly, what he wants to do is use Versatile Spellcaster to, for example, as a 4th level Sorcerer, burn 2 2nd level spell slots to get a 3rd level spell slot, and then cast a 3rd level spell. Am I reading him correctly?

I think it's actually one of the "standard cheeses" to do something similar, creating higher-than-your-level-grants spell slots with Versatile Spellcaster for things like metamagic and even, potentially, early access to PrCs. Please do correct me if I'm wrong; I have not really followed Versatile Spellcaster threads all that closely.

Getting an actual - in my above example - 3rd level spell (e.g. fly or fireball) to cast out of that 3rd level spot might be tricky, but an empowered magic missile, if indeed creating a 3rd level slot this way works at all, would be feasible (as your Sorcerer could have that feat and know that spell).

[magicalmagicman]

Getting an actual - in my above example - 3rd level spell (e.g. fly or fireball) to cast out of that 3rd level spot might be tricky, but an empowered magic missile, if indeed creating a 3rd level slot this way works at all, would be feasible (as your Sorcerer could have that feat and know that spell).

Yes I agree with you now thanks to the new RAW brought to my attention. Unless someone debates that Versatile Spellcaster cannot be used with metamagic spells, I agree with this, however, the only exception would be Heighten Spell, since it specifically says it is as difficult to prepare and cast as its effective level.

[Malak'ai]

You're gonna have to provide a RAW quote for this. This is the quote I've been asking for in my original post.

Did you not see the "I'm AFB" statement right at the start of my post? If I were able to do so, then or now, without having to get out of bed, go to the living room, fire up my computer and search the SRD and all my PDF's, I would have.

I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh, but I made it clear I didn't have access to my books right then, and that those statements were my interpritation of the rules, which you implied you were fine with in post #6 on the first page.

I'll also apologize in advance if I've taken your reply the wrong way and I'm snapping for next to no reason. Brain is in frustraited, sleep starved angry mode, so I mean no offence.


Does that answer your question?

Thank you :smallsmile:.

[MisterKaws]

I really need to just add this thing to my sig; been quoting it a lot lately.

PHB p23 - Spells Per Day


If the entry is “—” for a given level of spells, the
character may not cast any spells of that level.

In short, you're simply forbidden from casting higher-level spells unless an ability specifically overrides this rule, and in my knowledge, the only ability to do so is Precocious Apprentice.

[Troacctid]

I really need to just add this thing to my sig; been quoting it a lot lately.

PHB p23 - Spells Per Day



In short, you're simply forbidden from casting higher-level spells unless an ability specifically overrides this rule, and in my knowledge, the only ability to do so is Precocious Apprentice.
Another obvious example would be multiclassing, which might allow you to cast spells of that level via a different class.

I was just about to quote the same rule. Kind of shocking that the thread went so long without it showing up.

[ILM]

PHB p23 - Spells Per Day
Huh. Well that was a much simpler quote :smalltongue:.

[Zanos]

I suspect this is an attempt to exploit the fact that a wizard "knows" all the spells recorded in his spellbook by using versatile spellcaster to bypass the normal limitation on your highest level spell slots. There's another thread discussing the interactions between versatile spellcaster and prepared casters that came up recently.

The full glossary definition of a known spell is as follows: "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."

There is a strong argument that wizards do not know spells that they cannot prepare, and versatile spellcaster does not work on spells above your highest available level.