Wizard Spellbook: Where is all the space?

[Ruethgar]

So Wizards are supposed to start with a Spellbook that has every Wizard Cantrip in it plus some first level spells, but there are more than 100 Cantrips using just official material which exceeds the limit of a Spellbook even before you get to your first level spells. Is that first book just all kinds of special or am I missing something?

[Fayd]

I think that rule was in place when there were only a few Wizard Cantrips; In my games I limit them to Core + Advanced Player's Guide, because it only adds one. (I DM more Pathfinder than 3.5) Personally, I'd say if you want more than the "standard" set, you've got to find them on your own.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Nothing says you can't have two spellbooks? You start with a college-required Mordenkainen®'s Ol' Book o' Cantrips©®, and then you have your fresh new just-graduated spellbook with first-level spells.

[Bakkan]

I'm only counting 28 cantrips in my spreadsheet of official 3.5 spells, 19 in the Player's Handbook and 9 in the Spell Compendium. Am I missing almost 75% of the cantrips? If so, where are they from?

[Malimar]

I'm only counting 28 cantrips in my spreadsheet of official 3.5 spells, 19 in the Player's Handbook and 9 in the Spell Compendium. Am I missing almost 75% of the cantrips? If so, where are they from?

I thought OP might be referring to PF material, but the PFSRD also only lists 28 official cantrips (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists---sorcerer-and-wizard).

The PFSRD offers 94 third-party cantrips (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spells-by-class-3rd-party/sorcerer-wizard-3pp), for a total of 122. OP might be confusing third-party material with "official" material? Seems unlikely.

[prufock]

I'm only counting 28 cantrips in my spreadsheet of official 3.5 spells, 19 in the Player's Handbook and 9 in the Spell Compendium. Am I missing almost 75% of the cantrips? If so, where are they from?

Dragon 324, Dragon 326, Complete Arcane, Book of Vile Darkness, Underdark, Magic of Faerun, Ghostwalk web enhancement, adds up to 44 total by my count. Still far shy of the 100 listed in the OP.

There are others from sources like Book of Eldritch Might and SeanKReynolds.com, but I don't think these are published by WotC, so they wouldn't be considered "official."

Source: IMarvinTPA spell filter

[Ruethgar]

14 more in Dragon #301 for 58, then start adding spell templates and that number gets multiplied.

Furthermore, all first level sanctum spells fall under the definition of Cantrips even if you can't cast them without the feat and they take up a higher slot.

[Âmesang]

I attempted to update one of Ed Greenwood's 1st-level 2nd Ed. spells, runefinger (from "The Wizards Three: The Night it Wailed Wizards"), as a 0-level universal spell.

DRAGON #302 also had a list of 14 cantrips along with this note:

These 0-level spells also offer an easy way to represent differences in training that apprentice spellcasters undergo. Instead of beginning play with all of the cantrips in the Player's Handbook in their spellbooks, wizards can select sixteen cantrips to put in their spellbook for "free." Clerics start by choosing a list of twelve orisons, and druids start with thirteen.

[Troacctid]

14 more in Dragon #301 for 58, then start adding spell templates and that number gets multiplied.
You mean spell templates from Dragon #311? You don't get those unless you take the appropriate feat, and they don't take up extra space in your spellbook.


Furthermore, all first level sanctum spells fall under the definition of Cantrips even if you can't cast them without the feat and they take up a higher slot.
Metamagic versions of spells also do not take up extra space in your spellbook.

[ericgrau]

I believe they only start with the core cantrips. A long time ago the PHB spells were the "normal" spells and the splatbook spells were the "unusual" spells that you had to find by adventuring and did not get automatically. Much like homebrew spells and custom spells researched by the character. This leads to confusion with a few other rules too where they seem to assume the reader knows this.

In any case this makes a lot more sense than assuming that "all the cantrips" means every cantrip ever conceived of by a wizard, including all the long forgotten ones, possibly numbering in the thousands . Since every custom spell a wizard might invent exceeds what is in all the random splatbooks.

[Ruethgar]

You mean spell templates from Dragon #311? You don't get those unless you take the appropriate feat, and they don't take up extra space in your spellbook.


Metamagic versions of spells also do not take up extra space in your spellbook.

Except that they are Cantrips and you get ALL Cantrips in your book with no qualifiers. All.

I am inclined to go with Dragon #302 as Amesang mentioned for my games, though as an alternate rule if does not apply to default rules which would still have you up to 72 Cantrips now before templates and sanctum spell.

Do note that apart from the Dragon #311 spell templates, there are also Living Spells(which for some reason never seem to have had their functionality as scribe-able spells revoked) and Sanctum War spells.

[Extra Anchovies]

First off, dragmag content isn't official content. It's WotC-endorsed 3PP.


A sanctum spell has an effective spell level one level higher than normal if cast in your sanctum (see Special, below)--but if not cast in the sanctum, it has an effective spell level one level lower than normal. All effects dependent on spell level (such as save DCs or the ability to penetrate a minor globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the adjusted level. A sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level, modified by any other metamagic feats.

"Sanctum _____" is not a different spell from "_____". If it were, the last sentence would say "A sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the unmodified spell's normal level", which it does not. A wizard can't scribe a Sanctum Magic Missile as a cantrip, in the same way that a sorcerer can't learn Sanctum Magic Missile as a cantrip. "Is a cantrip" is a quality of the spell akin to "belongs to the Transmutation school" or "has a Target entry in its description". It's not an effect of the spell, so it's outside the range of what Sanctum Spell modifies.

[Ruethgar]

First off, dragmag content isn't official content. It's WotC-endorsed 3PP.



"Sanctum _____" is not a different spell from "_____". If it were, the last sentence would say "A sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the unmodified spell's normal level", which it does not. A wizard can't scribe a Sanctum Magic Missile as a cantrip, in the same way that a sorcerer can't learn Sanctum Magic Missile as a cantrip. "Is a cantrip" is a quality of the spell akin to "belongs to the Transmutation school" or "has a Target entry in its description". It's not an effect of the spell, so it's outside the range of what Sanctum Spell modifies.

Cantrip, as defined by the WotC D&D Glossary and PHB is "An arcane 0-level spell." Until a Sanctum level one wizard spell is cast in a Sanctum, it is an arcane 0-level spell. Weather or not the wizard can actually scribe the spell is irrelevant, they start with a book with ALL arcane 0-level spells within. Also, I consider WotC licensed material to be official content which much of Dragon Magazine falls into.

[Extra Anchovies]

Cantrip, as defined by the WotC D&D Glossary and PHB is "An arcane 0-level spell." Until a Sanctum level one wizard spell is cast in a Sanctum, it is an arcane 0-level spell.

I very much disagree. A Sanctum first-level spell is a first-level spell, occupying a first-level spell slot, until it is cast, at which point its effects are "calculated" as if it were either 2nd- or 0th-level, depending on the caster's location. Spell level is not a calculated effect of a spell, it is a prescribed quality of a spell.


Whether or not the wizard can actually scribe the spell is irrelevant, they start with a book with ALL arcane 0-level spells within.

Is your position honestly "this spell can't be written down, and every wizard begins play with this spell written down in their spellbook"? I'm pretty sure there aren't printed rules governing whether books can contain written text that cannot be written, so (as with all things that have real-world counterparts) we default to how it works in our world, i.e. things that cannot be written down, tautologically, cannot be written down.

[Zweisteine]

This list (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndLive/LevelIndex.php?Level=Sor%2FWiz+0&Small=1) has 64 cantrips, if I counted correctly (they don't all seem to be official spells, but the website is generally reliable in my experience).

[PaucaTerrorem]

That rule was written with the PHB Cantrips being the only Cantrips. Then splat came out and no one considered this rule when writing new spells. I feel it should be one of two things.

1) You start with the PHB cantrips.

2) You start with as many Cantrips as the PHB had just from any source.

My 2 bits.

[Psyren]

First off, dragmag content isn't official content. It's WotC-endorsed 3PP.

This. Paizo published it, not WotC, and not for PF either.



Is your position honestly "this spell can't be written down, and every wizard begins play with this spell written down in their spellbook"? I'm pretty sure there aren't printed rules governing whether books can contain written text that cannot be written, so (as with all things that have real-world counterparts) we default to how it works in our world, i.e. things that cannot be written down, tautologically, cannot be written down.

Also this.

Things can be made a lot simpler when we're not actively trying to complicate them.

[Âmesang]

As far as I can tell (admittedly based on very little research of my own) the licensing only applies to issues published between 2002 and 2007, so the 2000-2001 issues would have been published under Wizards of the Coast, and Tactical Studies Rules before that; that didn't stop a number of later issues to be branded with the phrase "100& Official Dungeons & Dragons® Content," and besides, how do you have an "official magazine for Dungeons & Dragons" if nothing in it is really official? :smallconfused: Wouldn't that be false advertising?

Why did they transfer rights to Paizo, anyway? My own guess was that Hasbro/WotC probably wanted to save money by transferring the bulk of the work to others since D&D isn't their primary concern.

[Ruethgar]

I very much disagree. A Sanctum first-level spell is a first-level spell, occupying a first-level spell slot, until it is cast, at which point its effects are "calculated" as if it were either 2nd- or 0th-level, depending on the caster's location. Spell level is not a calculated effect of a spell, it is a prescribed quality of a spell.

Except that is not the wording of Sanctum spell. Until it is cast in a sanctum, it is one spell level lower.


Is your position honestly "this spell can't be written down, and every wizard begins play with this spell written down in their spellbook"? I'm pretty sure there aren't printed rules governing whether books can contain written text that cannot be written, so (as with all things that have real-world counterparts) we default to how it works in our world, i.e. things that cannot be written down, tautologically, cannot be written down.

I already said what I would do, just use the Dragon #302 suggestion, the continuation of this banter is merely to determine unmodified RAW, which is quite obviously dysfunctional.

[Bohandas]

I'm only counting 28 cantrips in my spreadsheet of official 3.5 spells, 19 in the Player's Handbook and 9 in the Spell Compendium. Am I missing almost 75% of the cantrips? If so, where are they from?

I count 42 in my list (though a couple, maybe up to a half dozen, might be the same spells under different names). There's a few from BoVD and Dragon Magazine that didn't make the 'Compendium

[Zanos]

Don't cantrips also only take half a page?

[Extra Anchovies]

Don't cantrips also only take half a page?

I could've sworn that was the case, but when I checked a few days ago I found that the PF and 3.5 rules both said otherwise:

Even a 0-level spell (cantrip) takes one page.

[Âmesang]

Come to think of it… is there any reason why a wizard couldn't just write out his spells really, really small? :smalltongue:

[Troacctid]

Come to think of it… is there any reason why a wizard couldn't just write out his spells really, really small? :smalltongue:
It takes special training to scribe spells that way, but it is possible, according to Complete Arcane.

[Rijan_Sai]

Come to think of it… is there any reason why a wizard couldn't just write out his spells really, really small? :smalltongue:

Relevant link (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0306.html) :smallbiggrin:

[Eisfalken]

Except that is not the wording of Sanctum spell. Until it is cast in a sanctum, it is one spell level lower.

Wow. You really don't know how metamagic works, huh? That's funny as hell.

Please, go to here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#metamagicFeats) and read very, very carefully how metamagic works.

You don't know any spell as a "Sanctum X". You know spell X. It's level in your spellbook absolutely doesn't change, because you don't apply Sanctum to every spell you learn, end of statement. You apply Sanctum either A) when you memorize it for the day (prepared spellcasting) or B) when you cast the spell (spontaneous spellcasting). You can not learn any 1st-level spell as a 0-level spell with any form of metamagic.

Relevant quotes from the SRD:

"During preparation, the character chooses which spells to prepare with metamagic feats (and thus which ones take up higher-level spell slots than normal)."

Sanctum Spell works exactly like this, only instead of an increase of spell level, it is a decrease. But it doesn't take effect until you actually memorize the spell.

"In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description."

Metamagic is a modifier of a spell. It is not a different spell. You do not learn metamagic spells differently from their regular versions (with notable exceptions for specific classes; I believe sorcerers have a variant in UA for this).


I already said what I would do, just use the Dragon #302 suggestion, the continuation of this banter is merely to determine unmodified RAW, which is quite obviously dysfunctional.

No, there is nothing dysfunctional here. You literally do not know the game rules. I don't know how you completely failed to grasp the way metamagic works, but I feel very sorry for any players about to get into arguments with your ignorance of RAW.

Because the way I have described metamagic is RAW. If you can't understand that, then no, no further productive conversation can be had here.

[Ruethgar]

"During preparation, the character chooses which spells to prepare with metamagic feats (and thus which ones take up higher-level spell slots than normal)."

Sanctum Spell works exactly like this, only instead of an increase of spell level, it is a decrease. But it doesn't take effect until you actually memorize the spell.

"In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description."

Sanctum does not change the spell slot, only the spell level. Very few effects change the spell level, the majority of metamagic does not. From the second paragraph I quoted you appear to have a slight misunderstanding there.

The third paragraph is a general rule, trumped by the specific of Sanctum spell.

I am fully aware that metamagic versions of spells cannot be recorded or learned by the rules of the wizard and how metamagic is applied(though a Spellhoarding dragon might be able to do it). However, the starting spellbook contains all arcane zero level spells with no qualifiers limiting it such as 'all scribe-able cantrips' or similar. Logic would dictate that a spell would need to be able to be scribed to be written(as stated above) and that would be a perfectly reasonable house rule, but as the text stands that is not the case.

[BowStreetRunner]

Sanctum does not change the spell slot, only the spell level. Very few effects change the spell level, the majority of metamagic does not.

Per the description of Sanctum Spell, a sanctum spell keeps its original slot. So a 1st level sanctum spell takes up a 1st level spell slot. I think we are all good there.

Now, per the rules regarding Metamagic Feats (PHB 88): "In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell...The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user." So a 1st level metamagic spell, regardless of the level at which it is prepared and cast, is still a 1st level spell. It only becomes a 2nd level spell when cast in a sanctum, or a 0 level spell when cast outside a sanctum.

[Melcar]

So Wizards are supposed to start with a Spellbook that has every Wizard Cantrip in it plus some first level spells, but there are more than 100 Cantrips using just official material which exceeds the limit of a Spellbook even before you get to your first level spells. Is that first book just all kinds of special or am I missing something?

With craft bookbinding, you can make your own spellbook contain thousands of pages. Or be of a size that would allow more than one spell per page. The PHB "spellbook" is a generic pocket spellbook, where you can place a few relevant for "on the road" spells.

It’s not the Grimoires of the Arch Mage. Larloch has a cube of pure magic where all his spells are hidden in a form of Rubik’s Cube of spells. It has infinite space! Use your imagination!!!

[Malimar]

Sanctum does not change the spell slot, only the spell level. Very few effects change the spell level, the majority of metamagic does not. From the second paragraph I quoted you appear to have a slight misunderstanding there.

The third paragraph is a general rule, trumped by the specific of Sanctum spell.

I am fully aware that metamagic versions of spells cannot be recorded or learned by the rules of the wizard and how metamagic is applied(though a Spellhoarding dragon might be able to do it). However, the starting spellbook contains all arcane zero level spells with no qualifiers limiting it such as 'all scribe-able cantrips' or similar. Logic would dictate that a spell would need to be able to be scribed to be written(as stated above) and that would be a perfectly reasonable house rule, but as the text stands that is not the case.

http://i.imgur.com/Vemuptg.png

[Ruethgar]

Now, per the rules regarding Metamagic Feats (PHB 88): "In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell...The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user." So a 1st level metamagic spell, regardless of the level at which it is prepared and cast, is still a 1st level spell. It only becomes a 2nd level spell when cast in a sanctum, or a 0 level spell when cast outside a sanctum.

Actually, Sanctum spells are one level lower when not cast in a sanctum as opposed to when cast outside the sanctum meaning it is a spell level lower until you cast it in the sanctum weather it is cast or not. The specific rule of sanctum would trump the general rule of metamagic.

[BowStreetRunner]

Actually, Sanctum spells are one level lower when not cast in a sanctum as opposed to when cast outside the sanctum meaning it is a spell level lower until you cast it in the sanctum weather it is cast or not. The specific rule of sanctum would trump the general rule of metamagic.

It does not EVER have a lower spell level nor does it EVER have a higher spell level. It has a lower or higher EFFECTIVE spell level, which is not the same as having a lower or higher spell level.

Honestly, I do not believe you seriously care whether RAW or RAI the rules actually support what you are proposing. I think you want so very much to play it your own way you are going to reject any arguments to the contrary no matter how much you have to twist the wording to do so and even if you don't find a single other person who supports your position.

At the end of the day, if you are the DM it's your game run it however you please. If you are a player then ask your DM. But if you come into the Playground to ask our opinion and all you do is reject everything anyone else says, then why did you bother to ask us in the first place? You obviously have already made up your mind and we aren't going to change it.

[ryu]

I could've sworn that was the case, but when I checked a few days ago I found that the PF and 3.5 rules both said otherwise:

Ah but that's just it. EVERY cantrip in total takes one page. Not singularly.

[Jay R]

Weather or not the wizard can actually scribe the spell is irrelevant, they start with a book with ALL arcane 0-level spells within.

Whether or not it can be separately scribed in the book cannot possibly be irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is separately scribed in the book.

You are working hard to find absurd interpretations in order to define something as impossible.

Why?

[Psyren]

Actually, Sanctum spells are one level lower when not cast in a sanctum as opposed to when cast outside the sanctum meaning it is a spell level lower until you cast it in the sanctum weather it is cast or not. The specific rule of sanctum would trump the general rule of metamagic.

"When you cast it" and "when you scribe it" don't appear to be the same thing to me. The feat's text says nothing about scribing.

[Jay R]

Actually, Sanctum spells are one level lower when not cast in a sanctum as opposed to when cast outside the sanctum meaning it is a spell level lower until you cast it in the sanctum weather it is cast or not. The specific rule of sanctum would trump the general rule of metamagic.

It only "trumps" the general rule when they disagree.

Magic Missile is a first level spell, scribed in your book as a first level spell.

If you then take the Sanctum Spell feat, you can cast Magic Missile at an effective 2nd level, out of your book in which it is scribed as a first level spell.

Outside of your Sanctum, you can cast Magic Missile as an effective 0th level spell, out of your book in which it is scribed as a 1st level spell.

Nothing in the rules for Sanctum Spell does it suggest that you have to scribe the spell a second time. Nowhere. A Sanctum Magic Missile is a 1st level spell, but the metamagic of Sanctum Spell treats it differently, just as a Quickened Magic Missile is a 1st level spell memorized in a 5th level slot.

You do not re-scribe metamagic versions of your spells. You just don't.

[Ruethgar]

It does not EVER have a lower spell level nor does it EVER have a higher spell level. It has a lower or higher EFFECTIVE spell level, which is not the same as having a lower or higher spell level.

I will concede that there is definite merit in this point. One could easily rule that way, though I'm unfamiliar with text enforcing that.

As to why I am being difficult about this, I was mostly pointing out flaws in people's assertions of the rules in order to have expressed as complete a range of possible interpretations as able weather or not I would actually use such interpretations, or promote them for others to use.


Whether or not it can be separately scribed in the book cannot possibly be irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is separately scribed in the book.

The book you receive was never nessisarily scribed. It could have bee created by other means, the most obvious being poor forethought in the 3.5 update, but also the wish-like line of spells and gods.


"When you cast it" and "when you scribe it" don't appear to be the same thing to me. The feat's text says nothing about scribing.

While it says nothing about how it is scribed, the feat's text does give an exclusionary condition as to when it is a lower level making it such that in every instance in which the spell is not cast within a sanctum it is treated as a spell level lower.

[Zanos]

I could've sworn that was the case, but when I checked a few days ago I found that the PF and 3.5 rules both said otherwise:
Ah. Then let the madness continue.

[Eisfalken]

I am fully aware that metamagic versions of spells cannot be recorded or learned by the rules of the wizard and how metamagic is applied(though a Spellhoarding dragon might be able to do it). However, the starting spellbook contains all arcane zero level spells with no qualifiers limiting it such as 'all scribe-able cantrips' or similar. Logic would dictate that a spell would need to be able to be scribed to be written(as stated above) and that would be a perfectly reasonable house rule, but as the text stands that is not the case.

No, you're still trying to apply metamagic to the spell being learned/scribed. You can't. Sanctum Spell doesn't say you can apply it when you scribe the spell, thus there is no specific rule overriding the general rule that metamagic feats are still only applied to spells when memorized or cast, NOT scribed.

You are seriously not understanding how metamagic works. No metamagic spell can be written in a book as a metamagic version of itself. You can memorize a quickened magic missile all day long in your 5th level spell slots, but if you go to write it in the book, it's only going to be magic missile, 1st level, one page.

There is no part of the Sanctum Spell feat that says it allows you to apply it when trying to learn/scribe the spell. Because of this, general rule for metamagic still applies: metamagic only counts when spell is prepared (for wizards, clerics, druids etc.) or when cast (for sorcerers, favored souls, bards, etc.).

This is in no way a case of "specific trumps general". You literally are trying to apply RAW incorrectly. It doesn't matter that Sanctum changes the spell's level; it still only applies at the moment of memorization/casting, not when trying to learn/scribe it. None of the text in that feat changes this. It only says that when you apply Sanctum to a spell, you alter it's level for the purposes of casting it (+1 spell level in sanctum, -1 outside sanctum). But it only applies when you cast it. It says nothing about altering the way the spell is affected in any other way.

Even the feat says it still occupies a spell slot of the same spell level. You can't even put a 1st-level Sanctum spell in a 0-level slot. It just counts as a 0-level spell if you cast it outside the sanctum, for purposes of save DC or other spell level issues. There is no such thing as a 0-level Sanctum spell; they're all still 1st-level spells.

So no. There are not "100" 0-level spells. Any player trying to sell you on that is cheating. Against RAW. I don't know how they actually warped you into believing this was legal by RAW, but it truly is not.

[Extra Anchovies]

As an aside, can we all agree that Sanctum Spell is one of the worst-written pieces of rules text in the entire game?


I will concede that there is definite merit in this point. One could easily rule that way, though I'm unfamiliar with text enforcing that.
All effects dependent on spell level (including save DCs) are calculated according to the adjusted level.

The level of a spell is a quality possessed by the spell, not an effect caused by the spell - let alone one whose effects can be calculated.

[Psyren]

While it says nothing about how it is scribed, the feat's text does give an exclusionary condition as to when it is a lower level making it such that in every instance in which the spell is not cast within a sanctum it is treated as a spell level lower.

That doesn't change the fact that the feat is a metamagic feat. It simply does not apply when you're not casting or preparing it, making it meaningless outside of those contexts.

(Edit: What Eisfalken said)

[Crake]

As an aside, can we all agree that Sanctum Spell is one of the worst-written pieces of rules text in the entire game?



The level of a spell is a quality possessed by the spell, not an effect caused by the spell - let alone one whose effects can be calculated.

Badly written implies that the feat is vague and hard to interpret. Sanctum spell is actually very concise and clear in what it does, so I'd say its quite well written. Now, as to whether or not it's game breaking and poorly thought out/implemented for what it was intended to do, that's a different question.

[Eisfalken]

That doesn't change the fact that the feat is a metamagic feat. It simply does not apply when you're not casting or preparing it, making it meaningless outside of those contexts.

(Edit: What Eisfalken said)

This is easier to understand when you parse how the feat applies to the spell.

Q: Is a sanctum endure elements spell a 0-level, 1st-level, or 2nd-level spell?
A: It is a 1st-level spell. The base spell, endure elements, is 1st level, and sanctum does not change which spell slot it goes into (i.e a 1st-level slot). RAW says so right there in Complete Arcane.

Q: When you cast sanctum endure elements, is it a 0-level, 1st-level, or 2nd-level spell?
A: It is a 1st-level spell. For purposes of spell level, such as saving throw DC and other statistics, it is either counted as a 0-level or 2nd-level spell, but only at the time you cast it and not an instant beforehand. The spell does a quick check of the conditions where it is cast:
1. Spell is cast outside of the sanctum = -1 spell level applied when spell is cast. This in no way allows you to use a lower-level spell slot to cast it, even spontaneously. A sorcerer casting this spell still takes a full-round action to do it, and burns off a 1st-level spell slot. However, if he were required to make a saving throw against the spell for some reason, he makes the save against a 0-level spell, not a 1st-level spell.
2. Spell is cast inside sanctum = +1 spell level applied when spell is cast. As above, if you were forced to save against such a spell, you save against a 2nd-level spell.

The feat isn't written badly; there's just a lot of people here don't seem to know how Sanctum actually works (or they are being deliberate about that, so they can cheat the game somehow). It doesn't actually modify the spell level at all until the very instant you cast it. That's because it has to do a check for the location it is cast in before determining effect. The spell never counts as 0-level, no more than it counts as 2nd-level. It's a 1st-level spell until it fires off, then it is altered into something else at that moment. By then, however, it is too late: you burned a 1st-level slot just to get it off in the first place, and it most certainly occupies a 1st-level page in the book, not 0-level.

[Ruethgar]

No, you're still trying to apply metamagic to the spell being learned/scribed...(stuff based on false pretense)

This is in no way a case of "specific trumps general". You literally are trying to apply RAW incorrectly. It doesn't matter that Sanctum changes the spell's level; it still only applies at the moment of memorization/casting, not when trying to learn/scribe it. None of the text in that feat changes this. It only says that when you apply Sanctum to a spell, you alter it's level for the purposes of casting it (+1 spell level in sanctum, -1 outside sanctum). But it only applies when you cast it. It says nothing about altering the way the spell is affected in any other way.

Even the feat says it still occupies a spell slot of the same spell level. You can't even put a 1st-level Sanctum spell in a 0-level slot. It just counts as a 0-level spell if you cast it outside the sanctum, for purposes of save DC or other spell level issues. There is no such thing as a 0-level Sanctum spell; they're all still 1st-level spells.

So no. There are not "100" 0-level spells. Any player trying to sell you on that is cheating. Against RAW. I don't know how they actually warped you into believing this was legal by RAW, but it truly is not.

You seem to be confusing my assertions. I have never said you could possibly write a metamagic spell into a spellbook. Simply that wizards start with a spellbook containing all cantrips with no qualifiers on weather they are scribe-able or not.

You also seem to be confused on the wording of Sanctum spell. The lower level applies at all times after application of the feat except within a sanctum, this means a Sancum Magic Missile memorized by a Wizard is a 0 level spell. This comes into play for other things, such as sacrificing prepared spells for some other effect based on spell level(there was one horrid option for something like +1 att per spell level or something).

It is a case of specific trumps general in that Sanctum spell alters spell level like Hieghten does rather than only spell slot like every other metamagic feat in the game and as described in the general metamagic rules.

Occupying a higher spell slot does not automatically mean it is a higher level spell. An Extended Prestidigitation for example is a 0 level spell even though you can't put it in a 0 level slot without metamagic manipulation trickery.

Even discounting Sanctum, we were up to 72 cantrips before the application of spell templates which are treated as different spells from their base spells. You may not be able to learn or cast them without a feat or other special feature, but they are extra cantrips that would easily exceed the 100 spell mark.


This is easier to understand when you parse how the feat applies to the spell.

Q: Is a sanctum endure elements spell a 0-level, 1st-level, or 2nd-level spell?
A: It is a 1st-level spell. The base spell, endure elements, is 1st level, and sanctum does not change which spell slot it goes into (i.e a 1st-level slot). RAW says so right there in Complete Arcane.


This is false. If prepared, it is a 0 level spell for all effects that rely on spell level, such as defining whether or not it is a cantrip. When cast, it is either a 0 or a 2nd level spell depending on whether you are in your Sanctum or not.



Q: When you cast sanctum endure elements, is it a 0-level, 1st-level, or 2nd-level spell?
A: It is a 1st-level spell. For purposes of spell level, such as saving throw DC and other statistics, it is either counted as a 0-level or 2nd-level spell, but only at the time you cast it and not an instant beforehand. The spell does a quick check of the conditions where it is cast:
1. Spell is cast outside of the sanctum = -1 spell level applied when spell is cast. This in no way allows you to use a lower-level spell slot to cast it, even spontaneously. A sorcerer casting this spell still takes a full-round action to do it, and burns off a 1st-level spell slot. However, if he were required to make a saving throw against the spell for some reason, he makes the save against a 0-level spell, not a 1st-level spell.
2. Spell is cast inside sanctum = +1 spell level applied when spell is cast. As above, if you were forced to save against such a spell, you save against a 2nd-level spell.


Mostly true, except that it's not "if cast outside the sanctum", it is instead "if not cast within the sanctum" which is a much broader spectrum of states.

[Segev]

An open question to which I want to answer "yes," but can see arguments for "no," is whether a cantrip remains a cantrip when you apply metamagic to it. This is really only relevant to PF, not 3.5, but consider whether a enlarged mage hand can be cast at will, or consumes the 1st level spell slot in which it's prepared and thus cannot be cast again.

I bring this up because it seems pertinent to the "what level does the spell really count as?" discussion.

[icefractal]

Sanctum [Foo] might be a 0-level spell when prepared, but it's a 1st level spell when written in a spellbook. So if we were going strictly by that, the spell exists in a perpetual loop of qualifying and disqualifying itself from the spellbooks of starting Wizards.

Perhaps all Wizards have a second spellbook that exists in a state of quantum indeterminacy, the pages flickering between blank and filled with Sanctum versions of 1st level spells. Since this book isn't particularly useful for anything, they tend to throw it away when they start adventuring. :smalltongue:

Also, this is why Sanctum Spell is ultra-banned from any games I run. Because aside from whether it breaks anything, it leads to really stupid arguments.

[Psyren]

Did you really have to revive a 7-month-old thread just to say "NO U?"

[Zanos]

Did you really have to revive a 7-month-old thread just to say "NO U?"
For what it's worth, I missed how terrible this thread is the first time I replied to it. Wizard spellbooks are extradimensional spaces because of spell templates and metamagic, apparently. So being reminded that it exists was moderately amusing.

[Grod_The_Giant]

For what it's worth, I missed how terrible this thread is the first time I replied to it. Wizard spellbooks are extradimensional spaces because of spell templates and metamagic, apparently. So being reminded that it exists was moderately amusing.
Yeah. As far as I can tell, it goes something like

"I have a real rules problem!"
"That's because you're reading the rules in a weird and probably-incorrect way that creates* a problem."
"Nuh-uh! It's a real problem!"



*Well, aggravates. There are a lot of cantrips; I got 28 out of the PHB+SpC alone, which is almost a third of your book right there.

[BWR]

First off, dragmag content isn't official content. It's WotC-endorsed 3PP.


So the words "100% official content" printed on every issue are somehow wrong?

[Calthropstu]

Is your position honestly "this spell can't be written down, and every wizard begins play with this spell written down in their spellbook"? I'm pretty sure there aren't printed rules governing whether books can contain written text that cannot be written, so (as with all things that have real-world counterparts) we default to how it works in our world, i.e. things that cannot be written down, tautologically, cannot be written down.

This forum is awesome. This has to be the most epically ridiculous argument I have ever seen... Nowhere else would this need to be said.

[Coretron03]

This forum is awesome. This has to be the most epically ridiculous argument I have ever seen... Nowhere else would this need to be said.

This is a 3.5/pathfinder forumn. Of course it's going to be rediclous, we're talking about a game where you can gain special dark powers with puddings, take abilities that get you bitten by hippos and Classes that grant the amazing power of Amidexterity, resulting in hundreds of pages of discussion about all of its dysfunctions. Of course it's going to be insane and/or awesome.

[Psyren]

An open question to which I want to answer "yes," but can see arguments for "no," is whether a cantrip remains a cantrip when you apply metamagic to it. This is really only relevant to PF, not 3.5, but consider whether a enlarged mage hand can be cast at will, or consumes the 1st level spell slot in which it's prepared and thus cannot be cast again.

I bring this up because it seems pertinent to the "what level does the spell really count as?" discussion.

"In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage." (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9r9w)

Using the higher slot is less advantageous (as now the number of casts are limited, and the metamagicked spell competes with higher level spells) so you are required to use that.

[Segev]

"In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage." (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9r9w)

Using the higher slot is less advantageous (as now the number of casts are limited, and the metamagicked spell competes with higher level spells) so you are required to use that.

Oh, it goes in the 1st level slot. The question is more whether it - as a Cantrip - can be cast repeatedly, or is expended like a level 1 spell. The "whatever is worse for you" rule does seem to cover that, though.

Next question: if you prepare a Cantrip (without metamagic) in a 1st level slot, does it get expended when you cast it, or can you cast it over and over? Say, because you wanted to have 5 cantrips today.

[Dagroth]

So someone stated that if you memorize Magic Missile as a Sanctum Spell, it is memorized as a 0-level spell...

The converse of that is obviously that if you memorize Magic Missile as a Sanctum Spell while in your Sanctum, it is memorized as a 2nd level spell.

And then you leave your Sanctum and cast the spell... and it's a 0-level spell. :smallconfused:

So, the text of the feat says that if you memorize Magic Missile as a Sanctum Spell it takes up a 1st level spell slot.

If you cast it inside your Sanctum, it counts as a 2nd level spell (basically, it gets heightened without requiring the higher level slot). If you cast it outside of your Sanctum, it counts as a 0-level spell. Either way, it uses up one of your 1st level spell slots.

Seems perfectly clear to me.

[Psyren]

Next question: if you prepare a Cantrip (without metamagic) in a 1st level slot, does it get expended when you cast it, or can you cast it over and over? Say, because you wanted to have 5 cantrips today.

There's been no consensus on this one that I could find.

[VisitingDaGulag]

BWR won the thread. Paizo was at their best doing Drag Mags

[Anthrowhale]

I've never really understood the confusion about sanctum spell. The text says "effective spell level ... if cast ..." Effective spell level is not spell level. Sanctum does nothing to alter the actual spell level and the "effective spell level" is not even defined before casting.

[Mordaedil]

If this ever became a thing at my table where I DM, I'd just interpret the rule to mean all cantrips ever made can fit into one page and let the wizard, wizard on.

[Grod_The_Giant]

This forum is awesome. This has to be the most epically ridiculous argument I have ever seen... Nowhere else would this need to be said.
Nah. You want real absurdity, look up the arguments on whether or not the Rules Compendium is a legitimate sourcebook.

[Zanos]

Nah. You want real absurdity, look up the arguments on whether or not the Rules Compendium is a legitimate sourcebook.
Of course it isn't. It doesn't say have the authority to declare itself as having priority over the primary sources.

[Psyren]

The death of that primary source bollocks was one of my favorite aspects of converting to Pathfinder. The designers should not have to be fighting with their own rules adjudication in order to adjudicate rules.

[nyjastul69]

Of course it isn't. It doesn't say have the authority to declare itself as having priority over the primary sources.

But, even if it did have that authority, which it doesn't (see primary source rules located in the errata files), it would still be overruled by the most recent printing of the rules, the premium PH. So it's stealth errata does not apply either way. See, it's nice, neat and simple. 😂 ROTFLMAO [blue text]...

I apologize, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

I just rule that all the 0 level spells take up a single page. It's simple and clean and lessens the bookkeeping.

[Psyren]

The Premium PHB also says there are 11 base classes. So clearly it has erased every non-core class from existence because it is the latest book.

This is the kind of ridiculousness that happens when we try to argue using any lens other than that they cranked out some reprints to make a quick buck on 3.5 nostalgia.

Again though, I have no dog in this fight, because the game I play actually allows FAQ and splats to make needed changes.

[nyjastul69]

The Premium PHB also says there are 11 base classes. So clearly it has erased every non-core class from existence because it is the latest book.

This is the kind of ridiculousness that happens when we try to argue using any lens other than that they cranked out some reprints to make a quick buck on 3.5 nostalgia.

Again though, I have no dog in this fight, because the game I play actually allows FAQ and splats to make needed changes.

Sorry, I didn't make my sarcasm clear enough. It should be now though. I'm not sure how to blue text from my phone.

[Arael666]

That rule was written with the PHB Cantrips being the only Cantrips. Then splat came out and no one considered this rule when writing new spells. I feel it should be one of two things.

1) You start with the PHB cantrips.

2) You start with as many Cantrips as the PHB had just from any source.

My 2 bits.

I always interpreted it as "you start with as many cantrips as you want".

[Psyren]

Sorry, I didn't make my sarcasm clear enough. It should be now though. I'm not sure how to blue text from my phone.

Oh I knew you were being sarcastic, but I also know that there are folks out there that actually play that particular argument straight. My reply was more directed at them than at you, which is why I didn't quote your post.

[nyjastul69]

Oh I knew you were being sarcastic, but I also know that there are folks out there that actually play that particular argument straight. My reply was more directed at them than at you, which is why I didn't quote your post.

Okay, just making sure.That's how I read it. I can come across as surly at times though.

[Segev]

The real test is whether the Rules Compendium contains every single cantrip. >_> <_<

[Zanos]

The real test is whether the Rules Compendium contains every single cantrip. >_> <_<
Cantrips fit into null space, so every printed page contains a theoretically unlimited number of cantrips.

[Calthropstu]

The real test is whether the Rules Compendium contains every single cantrip. >_> <_<

I find cantrips to be a misnomer. Not a single one of them can trip.

[Keltest]

I find cantrips to be a misnomer. Not a single one of them can trip.

no no no, its "cant rip". Theyre incapable of creating tears in objects.

[Vogie]

I find cantrips to be a misnomer. Not a single one of them can trip.

Also, this thread is moot as they should clearly only be transcribed on cans (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin).

[Segev]

I am now amused by the notion of a wizard who encoded his spellbook into the labels of soup cans.

[Psyren]

I find cantrips to be a misnomer. Not a single one of them can trip.

Admixture + Toppling Spell?

[Calthropstu]

I am now amused by the notion of a wizard who encoded his spellbook into the labels of soup cans.

Campbell's Chunky Prismatic Spray gives an interesting mental image.


Admixture + Toppling Spell?

Eh, that's the feat doing it, not the cantrip.

[Dagroth]

I am now amused by the notion of a wizard who encoded his spellbook into the labels of soup cans.


Campbell's Chunky Prismatic Spray gives an interesting mental image.

Gives an all-new image to the term "murder-hobo"...

[Psyren]

Eh, that's the feat doing it, not the cantrip.

One cannot trip without the other. :smallbiggrin:

[Ruethgar]

I find cantrips to be a misnomer. Not a single one of them can trip.

Concussive Cantrips can trip.


no no no, its "cant rip". Theyre incapable of creating tears in objects.

Living Cantrips can rip and trip so there's that.

[Mordaedil]

Gives an all-new image to the term "murder-hobo"...

Doesn't change their actual appearance much.

[Segev]

I am now amused by the notion of a wizard who encoded his spellbook into the labels of soup cans.Campbell's Chunky Prismatic Spray gives an interesting mental image.Gives an all-new image to the term "murder-hobo"...

:smalleek:

Does that make it a breath weapon?

[Dagroth]

Doesn't change their actual appearance much.

True, that is pretty-much a tin-foil hat he's wearing:
http://www.scifi-universe.com/upload/galeries/images_film/Excalibur_2.jpg

[ryu]

Well technically that hat exists to counter people who think antimagic field is a spell that exists in contexts other than selective metamagic.

[Mordaedil]

I thought that was a helmet of non-detection and anti-paranoia.

[ryu]

I thought that was a helmet of non-detection and anti-paranoia.

What the hell kind of incompetent wizard wants ANTI-paranoia? Paranoia is our bread and butter. We love paranoia. Any pets we have are likely named after it in some way. In fact, I wasn't truly satisfied my high level wizard was safe until I was using mindrape and miracle to control what I remembered at any given time, had an army of ice assassins of an ice assassin I'd made of myself that was killed just because people with high level wizard casting and an insatiable urge to kill me is not something I feel comfortable leaving alive longer than absolutely necessary, crated an entire array of contingent spells for the army that I shrunk down to fit in my cloths, started cycling vecna blooded on a daily basis to regularly wipe all knowledge of me from history, and a few dozen other silly things.

[Mordaedil]

*anti-paranoia might actually just be a constant confusion effect; see insanity spell.

[Segev]

No, no, they just misspelled it. Auntie Paranoia is every wizard's favorite relative.