[3.5] Hathran - Rashemi Spirit Magic

[Thurbane]

Is this class ability as crazy broken as I think it is, or am I misreading it?


Rashemi Spirit Magic (Ex): A hathran's training in the unique magic of her homeland gives her uncanny versatility. Beginning at 1st level, a hathran who prepares spells may choose to spontaneously cast any spell she knows in place of any spell of the same level that she has prepared, even if it is not on the same spell list as the substituted one. If the hathran normally does not prepare spells, she may instead utilize metamagic feats without the additional casting time normally required, though a spell so altered still uses up a higher-level spell slot, as normal. The hathran must be within the boundaries of Rashemen to use this ability, and there is no limit to the number of times she may do so.

So...this would give a Druid, or Cleric, access to spontaneously cast any Cleric or Druid spell?

Or a Druid 7/Cleric 1/Hathran 1 could spontaneously cast any Cleric or Druid spell, using their Druid spell slots???

I may be late to the discussion here, but that's bonkers! OK, it is limited to one (rather large) geographic location, but still. Could Acorn of Far Travel shenanigans be used to get around the geographic limitation?

I mean, I know many FR PrCs push the upper limits of power play, but I'd never stumbled across this particular ability until now.

Cheers - T

[Korwin]

Yes and Yes.

[Trandir]

Is this class ability as crazy broken as I think it is, or am I misreading it?



So...this would give a Druid, or Cleric, access to spontaneously cast any Cleric or Druid spell?

Or a Druid 7/Cleric 1/Hathran 1 could spontaneously cast any Cleric or Druid spell, using their Druid spell slots???

I may be late to the discussion here, but that's bonkers! OK, it is limited to one (rather large) geographic location, but still. Could Acorn of Far Travel shenanigans be used to get around the geographic limitation?

I mean, I know many FR PrCs push the upper limits of power play, but I'd never stumbled across this particular ability until now.

Cheers - T


Well it depends if you rule that even a level 1 druid knows every spell in his spell list and not just the cantrips and lv 1 spells. If that is the case then yes at level 20 you can get 19 levels of full casting in 2 classes with just 2 dips. If the druid receive knowledge of all the spells of a particular level when he is able to cast them you get basically nothing in exchange for one of your higher level spells per day and possibly the class capstone.

But again as many things it's up to the DM to decide wheter or not it works.

[Anthrowhale]

It's unclear to me that a Druid or Cleric knows their spells---that language is not used in their description. Wizards know spells, as do every spontaneous caster.

Perhaps a better way to exploit this is via Wizard 7/Archivist 1/Hathran 3 since Wizards and Archivists surely know their spells.

Do note that Universal Spirit Magic (at 3rd level) applies everywhere.

[Efrate]

Acorn of far travel explicitly works.

SRD Cleric says

A cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that he can cast spells of that level,

SRD druid says

A druid may prepare and cast any spell on the druid spell list, provided that she can cast spells of that level

I think you would have to have said level in the class to cast, ie 7th level cleric to cast 4th level cleric spells, but its a bit murky and I can see argument either way. Ask your dm.

Known spell is a bit iffy since cleric and druid spells are granted, but I think it is within RAI.

Wizard or archivist checks outs though, as do sorcerer, favored soul etc. AFB so not sure on dread necro, beguiler, and warmage.

[Troacctid]

Divine casters don't know their spells (except for the ones that do).

As per the glossary:

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

In the hypothetical where they do know their spells, however, I don't think acorn of far travel would necessarily work either. "As long as you carry the acorn [...] you are considered to be standing under that oak tree's canopy (and thus within an area of forested terrain)." In my estimation, you don't count as being in that location for any purpose other than the presence or absence of the tree. It's less "I'm effectively still in Rashemen" than "The tree is effectively following me around like Pikachu in Pokémon Yellow."

[Anthrowhale]

In the hypothetical where they do know their spells, however, I don't think acorn of far travel would necessarily work either. "As long as you carry the acorn [...] you are considered to be standing under that oak tree's canopy (and thus within an area of forested terrain)." In my estimation, you don't count as being in that location for any purpose other than the presence or absence of the tree. It's less "I'm effectively still in Rashemen" than "The tree is effectively following me around like Pikachu in Pokémon Yellow."

So, this would mean you never get sunburn, a Horizon Walker gets Hide+4(Competence), a Ranger 13 can use Camouflage anywhere, and Ranger 17 can HiPS anywhere. That does seem like a nicely toned down interpretation more commensurate with a 2nd level spell.

It still leaves Universal Spirit Magic granting an Archivist 1/Wizard 7/Hathran 10 the ability to cast 3 up-to-9th level Archivist spells per day, something I hadn't fully appreciated.

[Thurbane]

I hadn't read Universal Spirit Magic. So even if Acorn of Far Travel is disallowed, you can still ignore the geographical restriction up to 3/day.

And like 99% of FR casting PrCs, it's 10/10 casting progression.

[Thurbane]

I'm still curious about Clerics and Druids "knowing" spells...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?182691-Do-Clerics-know-the-spells-on-their-list

[Anthrowhale]

I hadn't read Universal Spirit Magic. So even if Acorn of Far Travel is disallowed, you can still ignore the geographical restriction up to 3/day.

And like 99% of FR casting PrCs, it's 10/10 casting progression.

And you haven't even mentioned Circle Magic.

W.r.t. Clerics and Druids knowing spells, Troacctid's interpretation has support from RAW and is more conservative for what is already a high-powered class, hence it's the one I've gone with. Ruling otherwise implies Versatile Spellcaster allows a cleric/druid to draw on any of 1000+ spells many times / day.

[Thurbane]

So probably the safest way to break this ability by RAW is to be a Wizard/Archivist, with a bucket-load of spells in your Spellbook and Prayerbook.

Comes close to being an omnimancer who can access almost every spell in the game, spontaneously.

[Troacctid]

Being a wizard/archivist and not taking mystic theurge seems a bit suspect.

[Thurbane]

Being a wizard/archivist and not taking mystic theurge seems a bit suspect.

Well, I guess that come down to how you define those classes "knowing" their spells. Do they need to be of high enough level to cast them? Or is simply having them scribed in a book, after making a successful Spellcraft check?

[Troacctid]

It doesn't matter, because you can't use slots from one class to spontaneously cast spells from another class. Only your archivist spell slots could be used to cast your divine spells.

[Anthrowhale]

It doesn't matter, because you can't use slots from one class to spontaneously cast spells from another class. Only your archivist spell slots could be used to cast your divine spells.

... except that Rashemi Spirit Magic creates an explicit special case exception to this rule via:

...even if it is not on the same spell list as the substituted one.

[Anthrowhale]

Well, I guess that come down to how you define those classes "knowing" their spells. Do they need to be of high enough level to cast them? Or is simply having them scribed in a book, after making a successful Spellcraft check?

From Troacctid's quote: "For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks." The Archivist's prayerbook and the Wu Jen's spellbook have identical mechanics.

[Asmotherion]

To be fair that's not even the tip of the iceberg on Hathran cheese.

They get Circle Magic. Enough said.

[Troacctid]

... except that Rashemi Spirit Magic creates an explicit special case exception to this rule via:
That's true. I forgot about that. (Or, also a possibility, some sort of Ellimist may have retroactively altered the timeline to add that clause to the book after my post. You never know.)

[Anthrowhale]

They get Circle Magic. Enough said.

These also appear to combine? Circle magic can allow you to prepare a 9th level spell and get caster level 17 allowing Universal Spirit Magic to spontaneously cast any known wizard or divine 9th level spell at character level 13 via Archivist 1/Wizard 7/Hathran 5.

A few variations:
1) An Archivist 7/Hathran 6/Chameleon 1 can apparently know and spontaneously cast any spell (divine or arcane).
2) An Archivist 7/Hathran 5 can know and spontaneously cast any spell with a permissive DM allowing all possible sources of divine spells.


(Or, also a possibility, some sort of Ellimist may have retroactively altered the timeline to add that clause to the book after my post. You never know.)
Time travelers mucking with causality are the bane of sanity.

[Oblivionsmurf]

From Troacctid's quote: "For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks." The Archivist's prayerbook and the Wu Jen's spellbook have identical mechanics.

The closest quote I've got for Divine spellcasters 'knowing' their spells is from the PHB (p180):


NEW DIVINE SPELLS

Divine spellcasters most frequently gain new spells in one of the following two ways.

Spells Gained at a New Level: Characters who can cast divine spells undertake a certain amount of study between adventures. Each time such a character receives a new level of divine spells, he or she learns new spells from that level automatically.

Independent Research: A divine spellcaster also can research a spell independently, much as an arcane spellcaster can. (The Dungeon Master’s Guide has information on this topic under Creating New Spells in Chapter 2.) Only the creator of such a spell can prepare and cast it, unless he decides to share it with others. Some such creators share their research with their churches, but others do not. The character can create a magic scroll (provided that he or she has the Scribe Scroll feat) or write a special text similar to a spellbook to contain spells he or she has independently researched. Other divine spellcasters who find the spell in written form can learn to cast it, provided they are of sufficient level to do so and are of the same class as the creator. The process requires deciphering the writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above).


(Emphasis added)

The argument would go that, because Divine spellcasters: (a) learn spells each time they receive a new level of spells; and (b) can research new spells, or learn new spells from magical writings left by other divine casters, they effectively 'know' spells.

See also the description of Scribe Scroll: 'You can create a scroll of any spell that you know' (emphasis added). The DMG expressly notes that Clerics can scribe scrolls (although that's non-contentious) (at page 238): 'For example, clerics create scrolls of divine spells, wizards create scrolls of arcane spells, and so forth)'.

[Thurbane]

These also appear to combine? Circle magic can allow you to prepare a 9th level spell and get caster level 17 allowing Universal Spirit Magic to spontaneously cast any known wizard or divine 9th level spell at character level 13 via Archivist 1/Wizard 7/Hathran 5.

A few variations:
1) An Archivist 7/Hathran 6/Chameleon 1 can apparently know and spontaneously cast any spell (divine or arcane).
2) An Archivist 7/Hathran 5 can know and spontaneously cast any spell with a permissive DM allowing all possible sources of divine spells.

A level of Wu-Jen could be thrown in for an extra spellbook to raid. There are a handful of really nice Wu-Jen only spells.

[Biggus]

To be fair that's not even the tip of the iceberg on Hathran cheese.

They get Circle Magic. Enough said.

And at epic levels, they're the only full caster class in the game which gets a bonus feat 1/2 levels. Oh, and they get an extra use of universal spirit magic 1/3 levels as well.

Yeah, Hathrans are ridiculous even without assuming that a single level of Cleric or Druid allows them to spontaneously cast their entire spell list...

[Anthrowhale]

Other divine spellcasters who find the spell in written form can learn to cast it, provided they are of sufficient level to do so and are of the same class as the creator.

I generally think of 'learn' as implying 'know' since 'know' is the logical result of 'learn'. As a consequence this is strong evidence. However, Troacctid's quote adds two criteria, so the full default criteria are:

Arcane Spellcaster
has learned
can prepare

The second two criteria are clearly satisfied, but the first criteria is not. This is making me doubt that archivists "know" their spells despite sharing the same learning mechanic as a wizard due to the lack of the first criteria. This also nerfs any possibility of single feat based access to spontaneous casting off the entire list for Cleric and Druid.

Even if we assume that, you still get something broken good via Wizard 1/Archivist 7/Hathran 6. To check:

Arcane Spellcaster: Wizard 1
has learned: any spell scribed into their spellbook.
can prepare: use Circle Magic[Heighten L1 wizard spell] + Limited Wish[Rary's Arcane Conversion] (limited wish is coming from the Archivist side).

At this point, you've enabled spontaneous casting off all scribed wizard spells on the wizard list 2/day via Universal Spirit Magic.

[thethird]

Too bad you have ethran as a prerequisite otherwise you could pick magical training to have a spellbook and put spells there.

[Oblivionsmurf]

I generally think of 'learn' as implying 'know' since 'know' is the logical result of 'learn'. As a consequence this is strong evidence. However, Troacctid's quote adds two criteria, so the full default criteria are:

Arcane Spellcaster
has learned
can prepare

The second two criteria are clearly satisfied, but the first criteria is not. This is making me doubt that archivists "know" their spells despite sharing the same learning mechanic as a wizard due to the lack of the first criteria. This also nerfs any possibility of single feat based access to spontaneous casting off the entire list for Cleric and Druid.

Even if we assume that, you still get something broken good via Wizard 1/Archivist 7/Hathran 6. To check:

Arcane Spellcaster: Wizard 1
has learned: any spell scribed into their spellbook.
can prepare: use Circle Magic[Heighten L1 wizard spell] + Limited Wish[Rary's Arcane Conversion] (limited wish is coming from the Archivist side).

At this point, you've enabled spontaneous casting off all scribed wizard spells on the wizard list 2/day via Universal Spirit Magic.

Is there a distinction between a 'known spell' and a spell that you know?

If you take the view that they are both the same definition, that suggests that no divine spellcaster can ever use scribe scroll. From the description of the feat:


SCRIBE SCROLL
[ITEM CREATION]

You can create scrolls, from which you or another spellcaster can cast the scribed spells. See the Dungeon Master’s Guide for rules on scrolls.

Prerequisite: Caster level 1st.

Benefit: You can create a scroll of any spell that you know. Scribing a scroll takes one day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. The base price of a scroll is its spell level × its caster level × 25 gp. To scribe a scroll, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing one-half of this base price.

Any scroll that stores a spell with a costly material component or an XP cost also carries a commensurate cost. In addition to the costs derived from the base price, you must expend the material component or pay the XP when scribing the scroll.

(Emphasis added).


See also page 282 of the DMG:


Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).

On the same page, the DMG assumes a Cleric is capable of creating scrolls on their own:


The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it.

[Anthrowhale]

Is there a distinction between a 'known spell' and a spell that you know?
I'd say no, unless some sort of contradiction arises.

Looking closely at the scroll creation rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingScrolls), I see:

The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed...
So, scribe scroll allows you to scribe any spell that you know, but the scroll creation rules (which also require scribe scroll) expand this to any spell that you prepare.

This avoids a contradiction since clerics can scribe scrolls via spell preparation rather than via spell knowledge.

[Thurbane]

Are there any sample NPCs with Hathran levels? I mean, stat blocks are never a good source of RAw, but they sometimes give a glimpse into RAI...

[Oblivionsmurf]

I'd say no, unless some sort of contradiction arises.

Looking closely at the scroll creation rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingScrolls), I see:

So, scribe scroll allows you to scribe any spell that you know, but the scroll creation rules (which also require scribe scroll) expand this to any spell that you prepare.

This avoids a contradiction since clerics can scribe scrolls via spell preparation rather than via spell knowledge.

I thought about that, but the full language of that passage (and other item creation feats) provides:


The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself. Likewise, a material component is consumed when she begins writing, but a focus is not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

I.e. the passage is talking about this in the context of providing the spell as part of the item creation process (and expending a spell slot in that process). For example, even though the passage refers to a spell slot being expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, I assume you're not suggesting that Sorcerers and Bards can create items without expending a spell slot.

That makes it consistent with the earlier passage I quoted:


Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).

[Anthrowhale]

Let's reread this with a different emphasis.



Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).
This implies that the requirement for any item creation is not knowing a spell, but rather merely accessing a spell (a strictly weaker condition according to the known spell criteria). Clerics can access spells allowing them to scribe scrolls. Related, a wizard that has a wand of fireball but does not know fireball can make a scroll of fireball.


Are there any sample NPCs with Hathran levels? I mean, stat blocks are never a good source of RAw, but they sometimes give a glimpse into RAI...
Not that I'm aware of, but it would be cool to find one. Note that Hathran is one of those classes which changed substantially from 3.0 to 3.5.

[Oblivionsmurf]

Let's reread this with a different emphasis.

This implies that the requirement for any item creation is not knowing a spell, but rather merely accessing a spell (a strictly weaker condition according to the known spell criteria). Clerics can access spells allowing them to scribe scrolls. Related, a wizard that has a wand of fireball but does not know fireball can make a scroll of fireball.


Not that I'm aware of, but it would be cool to find one. Note that Hathran is one of those classes which changed substantially from 3.0 to 3.5.

I agree that a Wizard that has a wand of fireball but does not know fireball can make a scroll of fireball - but isn't that just 'access through another magic item or spellcaster' (i.e. access through something other than the spellcaster himself or herself)?

I.e., to take our Cleric, aren't the ways in which he could scribe a Cure Moderate Wounds scroll as follows:


knowing the spell and preparing it (since the Cleric is not a Sorcerer or Bard, and must additionally prepare it); or
using a magic item; or
using another spellcaster?

I agree that knowledge is not required if you use a magic item or spellcaster, but otherwise it still seems to be a requirement.

Separately to the above, the Spell Glyph version of a Glyph of Warding (Clr 3) has the following text:


Spell Glyph: You can store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know. All level-dependent features of the spell are based on your caster level at the time of casting the glyph.

If Clerics don't know spells, then that text has no work to do.

I wonder if one reason for the definition in the PHB is that, in the PHB, the only casters that have to select spells that they 'know' are arcane casters.

[Anthrowhale]

I agree that a Wizard that has a wand of fireball but does not know fireball can make a scroll of fireball - but isn't that just 'access through another magic item or spellcaster' (i.e. access through something other than the spellcaster himself or herself)?

I believe you agree that Cleric A who knows Scribe Scroll can scribe a spell that Cleric B has prepared, whether or not Cleric B knows the spell?

Given that, it appears that the text for Scribe Scroll is just allowing Cleric A to fulfill both roles (as is logically possible).

[Oblivionsmurf]

I believe you agree that Cleric A who knows Scribe Scroll can scribe a spell that Cleric B has prepared, whether or not Cleric B knows the spell?

Given that, it appears that the text for Scribe Scroll is just allowing Cleric A to fulfill both roles (as is logically possible).

No, I think we might still disagree.

Broadly:


scribe scroll allows you to create a spell you know ('You can create a scroll of any spell that you know' and 'Most of the time, they [item prerequisites] take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator)'
you must additionally prepare the spell if you are a prepared caster (or, using the DMG's strict wording, you must have prepared the spell unless you are a Sorcerer or Bard, in which case knowing the spell is enough);
as an alternative to the knowledge requirement, you can obtain 'access through another magic item';
as a further alternative to the knowledge requirement, you can 'access through another... spellcaster'.


In your example, Cleric A cannot fulfill both roles - he or she is not 'another... spellcaster'; he or she is merely 'the item's creator'.

I recognise that we might not agree on the above, so what about the Glyph example I quoted earlier?


Spell Glyph: You can store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know. All level-dependent features of the spell are based on your caster level at the time of casting the glyph.

I think there really are multiple uses of 'know' in the context of spellcasting in D&D, and it is often used in an imprecise manner:


there is the ordinary usage (which I say encompasses all spellcasters, and which you say encompasses only arcane spellcasters);
there is the 'known spell' definition in the glossary of the PHB (which I think is in turn only used in the definition of 'spell completion item');
there is 'spells known', which is used by Sorcerers/Bards and similar classes.


Even though we disagree about the above, I presume you agree that some Divine spellcasters (e.g. Favoured Souls) absolutely 'know' spells (that is, the PHB definition of 'known spell' is not absolute)?

[wilphe]

Is this class ability as crazy broken as I think it is, or am I misreading it?

I mean, I know many FR PrCs push the upper limits of power play, but I'd never stumbled across this particular ability until now.



Got to be sharp when you are fighting Red Wizards

[wilphe]

Pulls his books:

FRCS. Hathran changed a lot between 3.0 and 3.5

3.0 requires 2nd level Arcane and 2nd Level Divine and only advances one of them.

So yes that is Mystic Theuge but worse, it's a very early 3.0 book

They have however have "Place magic"

"When using Place Magic she may case any arcane spell she knows or any divine spell on her spell list".

Full round action

Hathrans also got a small arcane spell list and could use divine slots to cast them even if they didn't know them as an arcane spell.

Fluff: usually Cleric/Wizards




3.5 PGTF

Now needs 4th level arcane OR divine

Spells get added to the list. No mention of "known"

Fluff: Sorcerers or Clerics

(Also it's immediately followed by Incantrix)



Comment:

Depends if you want to interpret a 3.5 ability on the basis of what it said in 3.0 when the whole class was radically changed between editions

3.25 Unapproachable East

Durthans, (Evil Version) get Place magic and "can cast any arcane or divine spell known to her"


No builds, but named NPCs are:

Sor 4 / Clr 3 / Hathran 1

Sor 3 / Clr 4 / Hathran 1 (Doesn't qualify under 3.0)

Clr 3 / Sor 9/ Hathran 5

Clr 8 / Sor 4/ Hath 3

Wiz 4 / Clr 4 / Hath 4

Clr 6 / Wiz 12 / Hath 10 (The most powerful)

Fluff says most Ethrans are Clerics or Sorcerers

[Oblivionsmurf]

Pulls his books:

FRCS. Hathran changed a lot between 3.0 and 3.5

3.0 requires 2nd level Arcane and 2nd Level Divine and only advances one of them.

So yes that is Mystic Theuge but worse, it's a very early 3.0 book

They have however have "Place magic"

"When using Place Magic she may case any arcane spell she knows or any divine spell on her spell list".





3.25 Unapproachable East

Durthans, (Evil Version) get Place magic and "can cast any arcane or divine spell known to her"


Good quotes on both.

The 3.0 Hathran suggests they made a distinction between spells known (for arcane casters) and presence on spell lists (for divine casters) (though, again, I wonder if that was merely because divine casters automatically know all of their spells anyway).

The Unapproachable East Durthan clearly indicates Divine casters can 'know' Divine spells.

[Anthrowhale]

No, I think we might still disagree.
The difficulty with saying that 'known spell', 'spell you know', and 'spell known' differ is that you need a clear rule for the semantics of each one. Building up that semantics without rules support feels like creating house rules to me. In normal english, these are equivalent and I don't know any formal statement that they differ.


scribe scroll allows you to create a spell you know ('You can create a scroll of any spell that you know' and 'Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator)'

Agreed.


you must additionally prepare the spell if you are a prepared caster (or, using the DMG's strict wording, you must have prepared the spell unless you are a Sorcerer or Bard, in which case knowing the spell is enough);

I disagree here. My reading is that scroll-making rules implicitly expand the scope to allow prepared casters to make scrolls.


as an alternative to the knowledge requirement, you can obtain 'access through another magic item';
as a further alternative to the knowledge requirement, you can 'access through another... spellcaster'.

Agreed.


In your example, Cleric A cannot fulfill both roles - he or she is not 'another... spellcaster'; he or she is merely 'the item's creator'.

I'm ambivalent here. It's not normal english to have 'another' refer to the first agent, but allowing that as a possibility when another refers to a role rather than a specific agent is allowable. "To fly the plane, you need a pilot and another acting as a navigator." Can the pilot act as a navigator? Maybe yes, if they have the additional skills/knowledge. Here, 'another' is referring to roles which could possibly be filled by the same agent.


I recognise that we might not agree on the above, so what about the Glyph example I quoted earlier?


[I]Spell Glyph: You can store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know. All level-dependent features of the spell are based on your caster level at the time of casting the glyph.

I'm not sure what to think. Spells are often as-written broken. Consider False Vision (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/falseVision.htm) which is a 40' radius emanation with range touch. Since range constrains area of effect that's pretty broken. My best guess would be that when said 'know' they really meant 'know or prepared' as I'm currently understanding scribe scroll.

I think there really are multiple uses of 'know' in the context of spellcasting in D&D, and it is often used in an imprecise manner:

there is the ordinary usage (which I say encompasses all spellcasters, and which you say encompasses only arcane spellcasters);
there is the 'known spell' definition in the glossary of the PHB (which I think is in turn only used in the definition of 'spell completion item');
there is 'spells known', which is used by Sorcerers/Bards and similar classes.


It's not enough to admit that language is loose. (I agree---it's easy to imagine edit errors if 'known spell' requires more than a consequence of learning a spell.) We need to be able to consistently answer questions. For example:

Can a Hathran use Rashemi Spirit Magic to cast any Cleric spell?
Can a Hathran use Rashemi Spirit Magic to cast any learned Archivist spell?
Can a Cleric use Versatile Spellcaster to cast any Cleric spelll?



Even though we disagree about the above, I presume you agree that some Divine spellcasters (e.g. Favoured Souls) absolutely 'know' spells (that is, the PHB definition of 'known spell' is not absolute)?
Right---that's a special case.

The 3.0 Hathran and 3.25 Durthan quotes do not clarify for me.

The 3.0 Hathran suggests that 'arcane spell she knows' and 'divine spell on her spell list' can not be consolidated as 'spell she knows' (inline with my understanding).
However, it makes it clear that the intent was allowing any divine spell on list (inline with your? understanding).
However2, the rules for "Place Magic" and "Rashemi Spirit Magic" in the 3.5 Hathran incarnation are clearly contradictory, since "Rashemi Spirit Magic" says: "...even if it is not on the same spell list as the substituted one." while 3.0-3.25 "Place Magic" only allows spontaneous casting within type (arcane or divine).

[Oblivionsmurf]

Ultimately, I think we might need to agree to disagree, but I'll give it another crack!



I disagree here. My reading is that scroll-making rules implicitly expand the scope to allow prepared casters to make scrolls.

Agreed.


Still disagree, based on the wording of the text:


The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself. Likewise, a material component is consumed when she begins writing, but a focus is not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

Prepared arcane casters already know spells, based on your (the PHB's) definition of 'known spell'. If the intention of this passage was to expand the list of available item creators, the underlined brackets bit in the excerpt above would provide 'or must know the spell, in the case of an arcane caster'.

The text is intended to demonstrate that you lose the spell (or a spell slot for a Sorcerer or similar) upon scribing the scroll. For example, even though the text doesn't expressly refer to a Sorcerer/Bard losing a spell slot, I assume you wouldn't suggest that this does not occur.



I'm ambivalent here. It's not normal english to have 'another' refer to the first agent, but allowing that as a possibility when another refers to a role rather than a specific agent is allowable. "To fly the plane, you need a pilot and another acting as a navigator." Can the pilot act as a navigator? Maybe yes, if they have the additional skills/knowledge. Here, 'another' is referring to roles which could possibly be filled by the same agent.


I don't think I have ever heard 'another' used in this context, and it seems a bit tortured to me. Do you have any good examples?

Adopting your example, isn't the relevant sentence 'To fly a plane, you need a pilot and another pilot' (i.e. both are the same role)?

Separately, I'm always loathe to use dictionary definitions, but this might be useful:


1 Used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further.
[as determiner] ‘have another drink’
‘I didn't say another word’
[as pronoun] ‘she was to become another of his stars’

1.1 [as determiner] Used with a proper name to indicate someone or something's similarity to the person or event specified.
‘this will not be another Vietnam’

2 Used to refer to a different person or thing from one already mentioned or known about.
[as determiner] ‘come back another day’
‘his wife left him for another man’
[as pronoun] ‘moving from one place to another’

2.1 [as determiner] Used to refer to someone sharing an attribute in common with the person already mentioned.
‘his kiss with another man caused a tabloid rumpus’



I'm not sure what to think. Spells are often as-written broken. Consider False Vision which is a 40' radius emanation with range touch. Since range constrains area of effect that's pretty broken. My best guess would be that when said 'know' they really meant 'know or prepared' as I'm currently understanding scribe scroll.


I accept that spells can be poorly worded, but doesn't the same also apply to abilities? Setting aside our academic discussion about whether Divine casters can 'know' spells (which is still a useful discussion), isn't it reasonable to assume the drafters of the Hathran class intended Rashemi Spirit Magic to be able to be used by a pure Cleric that entered the class?



It's not enough to admit that language is loose. (I agree---it's easy to imagine edit errors if 'known spell' requires more than a consequence of learning a spell.) We need to be able to consistently answer questions. For example:

Can a Hathran use Rashemi Spirit Magic to cast any Cleric spell?
Can a Hathran use Rashemi Spirit Magic to cast any learned Archivist spell?
Can a Cleric use Versatile Spellcaster to cast any Cleric spelll?


In order:

1. Yes, but only if the Cleric could already cast spells of that level, based on the PHB reference to them learning new spell levels automatically as they level up:


Spells Gained at a New Level: Characters who can cast divine spells undertake a certain amount of study between adventures. Each time such a character receives a new level of divine spells, he or she learns new spells from that level automatically.

I know you disagree about 'learning' equaling 'knowing', but I think we can both agree that, if you have not learnt something, you cannot know it.

2. Yes, probably. I haven't looked at this just yet, but the Archivist's rules refer back to the Wizard's spellbook rules.

3. Yes, if the Cleric could already cast spells of the higher level gained through Versatile Spellcaster (see question 1 above). Otherwise, no.



The 3.0 Hathran suggests that 'arcane spell she knows' and 'divine spell on her spell list' can not be consolidated as 'spell she knows' (inline with my understanding).
However, it makes it clear that the intent was allowing any divine spell on list (inline with your? understanding).


Agree on the first limb above, though it could just be clumsy wording. For example, the intention could be that:


arcane spellcasters must 'know' the spell to cast it (i.e. it is not enough to be on their spell list, and must in fact be known by them); and
divine spellcasters can cast any spell on their spell list (in line with their ordinary rules).


On the second limb, I think we both agree?




However2, the rules for "Place Magic" and "Rashemi Spirit Magic" in the 3.5 Hathran incarnation are clearly contradictory, since "Rashemi Spirit Magic" says: "...even if it is not on the same spell list as the substituted one." while 3.0-3.25 "Place Magic" only allows spontaneous casting within type (arcane or divine).


I don't disagree with the underlined, but I do think it is irrelevant. The Durthan (3.25) description of Place Magic provides:


When a hathran or durthan uses place magic, she can cast any arcane or divine spell known to her. (Spells on her hathran or durthan spell list can be cast as either arcane or divine spells, as she desires.)

The ability was obviously updated in PGtF, but the point of the excerpt is to observe that divine casters can 'know' spells according to a 3.25 source (separately, if pushed, I'd probably object a bit to Unapproachable East being described as '3.25' - even though it was published before 3.5 came out, the writers were clearly aware of the 3.5 changes).

[Anthrowhale]

How do you reconcile your agreement here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24106240&postcount=30) that a wizard that does not know or prepare fireball can use a wand of fireball to scribe a scroll of fireball while insisting here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24107506&postcount=32) that a spell must be prepared to scribe it? I think this is a key headscratcher for me. Do you have an interpretation consistent with all the rules?


Adopting your example, isn't the relevant sentence 'To fly a plane, you need a pilot and another pilot' (i.e. both are the same role)?

'To fly a plane, you need a pilot and another pilot' seems fine, and you could imagine one person filling both roles in a pinch.


I accept that spells can be poorly worded, but doesn't the same also apply to abilities?

Sure.


Setting aside our academic discussion about whether Divine casters can 'know' spells (which is still a useful discussion), isn't it reasonable to assume the drafters of the Hathran class intended Rashemi Spirit Magic to be able to be used by a pure Cleric that entered the class?

Yes, but I'm note sure. I'd like to use Hathran 3.0 Place Magic(where clerics clearly did benefit) as precedent, but these two abilities clearly differ rules-wise. It's not hard to imagine that the writers wanted to nerf it in the transition to 3.5.


I think we can both agree that, if you have not learnt something, you cannot know it.

Yes.


3. Yes, if the Cleric could already cast spells of the higher level gained through Versatile Spellcaster (see question 1 above). Otherwise, no.

I suspect that almost no DMs allow a Cleric with Versatile Spellcaster to spontaneously cast spells of all accessed levels. It's so good, that it would practically be a required level 1 feat for Druid & Cleric.


On the second limb, I think we both agree?

Yes.


I don't disagree with the underlined, but I do think it is irrelevant.

The relevance is that Place Magic is clearly not a precedent for how Rashemi Spirit Magic is supposed to work, so we cannot extract RAI from it.

...the point of the excerpt is to observe that divine casters can 'know' spells according to a 3.25 source ...
So, Hathran 3.0 is easily consistent with divine-not-known and awkwardly consistent with divine-known while Durthan 3.25 is consistent with divine-known.

[Oblivionsmurf]

A bit of a delay in responding (work has been hectic).

First, our discussion about 'Scribe Scroll' and similar feats is probably a red herring. From page 215 of the DMG:


Prerequisites: Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind. The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item’s caster level.

A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item (such as a scroll) or one charge from a spell trigger item (such as a wand), if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.

It is possible for more than one character to cooperate in the creation of an item, with each participant providing one or more of the prerequisites. In some cases, cooperation may even be necessary, such as if one character knows some of the spells necessary to create an item and another character knows the rest.

If two or more characters cooperate to create an item, they must agree among themselves who will be considered the creator for the purpose of determinations where the creator’s level must be known. (It’s generally sensible, although not mandatory, for the highest-level character involved to be considered the creator.) The character designated as the creator pays the XP required to make the item.

Typically, a list of prerequisites includes one feat and one or more spells (or some other requirement in addition to the feat). When two spells at the end of a list are separated by “or,” one of those spells is required in addition to every other spell mentioned prior to the last two. For example, the prerequisites for a ring of three wishes are “Forge Ring, wish or miracle,” meaning that either wish or miracle is required as well as the Forge Ring feat.

That is, when 'Scribe Scroll' (or similar feats) state you can 'create a scroll of any spell that you know', they are really just referring to these prerequisites. I think the passage above also addresses your comment about one person fulfilling the same role (it refers to multiple 'participants' and 'characters', not roles); however, again, I think we have moved beyond relying on the item creation rules now.

With that in mind, I maintain my earlier position that D&D uses language loosely, including in relation to characters 'knowing' spells. As noted above, 'scribe scroll' (and similar item creation feats) use the term 'spell you know' to in fact refer to the DMG item creation rules.

I've already mentioned Glyph of Warding, but I'll repeat it below for the benefit of others:


Spell Glyph: You can store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know. All level-dependent features of the spell are based on your caster level at the time of casting the glyph.

Additionally, Divine Metamagic (Complete Divine, p 80) has similar wording:


When you take this feat, choose a metamagic feat. This feat applies only to that metamagic feat. As a free action, you can take the energy from turning or rebuking undead and use it to apply a metamagic feat to spells that you know. You must spend one turn or rebuke attempt, plus an additional attempt for each level increase in the metamagic feat you’re using. For example, Jozan the cleric could sacrifice three turn attempts to empower a holy smite he’s casting. Because you’re using positive or negative energy to augment your spells, the spell slot for the spell doesn’t change.

See also Midnight Metamagic, from Magic of Incarnum:


Benefit: Once per day, you can invest essentia into this feat and choose one or more spells that you know (and have prepared, if you prepare spells) to apply the effect of a metamagic feat that you know.

Page 6 of the text plainly envisages Divine casters choosing Midnight Metamagic.

There are also other feats (that do not require arcane pre-requisites and are plainly intended to apply to any sort of caster) that similarly refer to knowing spells (e.g. Innate Spell and Chaotic Spell Recall).

EDIT: See also Eye of Horus-Re (from Player's Guide to Faerun):


Spells per Day/Spells Known: Beginning at 2nd level, when a new eye of Horus-Re level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in cleric. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained (improved chance of turning or rebuking undead, and so on), except for an increased effective level of spellcasting. This essentially means that he adds the level of eye of Horus-Re to the level of cleric, and then determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly.

The entry requirement is 'Able to cast 3rd-level divine spells', and the fluff text says 'All eyes of Horus-Re are clerics of that deity, though some have paladin levels as well'.

[Anthrowhale]

With that in mind, I maintain my earlier position that D&D uses language loosely, including in relation to characters 'knowing' spells.

You have a fair bit of evidence, so I must agree that the language is used loosely. That leaves us forced to consider the proper definition of 'know' each time it arises which is rather fraught with difficulty. Perhaps one way to settle this is in terms of affordance: what is the minimal affordance associated with each use of 'know'? A rule using the word 'know' must implicitly allow the minimum affordance in addition to the glossary definition. Large affordances may be intended, but the smallest affordance is the conservative choice which should always work.

For Scribe Scroll it refers to spell access per the quote.
For Glyph of Warding it presumably refers to any spell you could cast at the time of casting the glyph of warding? This seems minimal, but it would imply that a cleric must prepare the spell for a spell glyph.
For Divine Metamagic, it presumably additionally refers to spells a cleric prepares rather than any spell on the cleric list.
For Midnight Metamagic, it presumably additionally refers to spells a cleric prepares.
For Eye of Horus-Re, it presumably refers to the entire cleric list.
For Versatile Spellcaster... any spell prepared for a cleric?
For Rashemi Spirit Magic... any spell prepared for a cleric?

[Oblivionsmurf]

You have a fair bit of evidence, so I must agree that the language is used loosely. That leaves us forced to consider the proper definition of 'know' each time it arises which is rather fraught with difficulty. Perhaps one way to settle this is in terms of affordance: what is the minimal affordance associated with each use of 'know'? A rule using the word 'know' must implicitly allow the minimum affordance in addition to the glossary definition. Large affordances may be intended, but the smallest affordance is the conservative choice which should always work.

For Scribe Scroll it refers to spell access per the quote.
For Glyph of Warding it presumably refers to any spell you could cast at the time of casting the glyph of warding? This seems minimal, but it would imply that a cleric must prepare the spell for a spell glyph.
For Divine Metamagic, it presumably additionally refers to spells a cleric prepares rather than any spell on the cleric list.
For Midnight Metamagic, it presumably additionally refers to spells a cleric prepares.
For Eye of Horus-Re, it presumably refers to the entire cleric list.
For Versatile Spellcaster... any spell prepared for a cleric?
For Rashemi Spirit Magic... any spell prepared for a cleric?


I agree we need some sort of guiding principle on how to interpret 'know' in any instance. One thing that I think is sadly lacking in D&D is rules on how to interpret the rules in instances of ambiguity (presumably because the designers considered that people should just be able to resolve these issues through common sense and DM adjudication).

For my part, I wonder if the 'minimal affordance' test is too narrow, or incomplete. For example, take this excerpt from Absorption in the Spell Compendium:


You can use captured spell energy to cast any spell you know or have prepared, but spells so cast don’t disappear from your list of prepared spells or count against the number of spells you can normally cast per day (so you so must keep a running total of spell levels absorbed and used). The levels of spell energy you have stored must be equal to or greater than the level of the spell you want to cast, and you must have at hand (and expend) any material components required for the spell.

The spell is Sor/Wiz 9, so the 'minimal affordance' test presumably wouldn't have anything to say about the description at all. Someone looking at the spell would read 'know', refer to the PHB definition, and then say that the spell allows a Wizard to cast any spell in their spellbook (irrespective of whether the Wizard has prepared it). I would have issues with that definition, because it ignores the words 'or have prepared'. Here, we would need some sort of interpretation that narrows the meaning of 'know' in the spell description.

For my part, I usually go with a statutory interpretation approach to D&D rules.


Obviously, true statutory interpretation differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it should be pretty easy to come up with a near universal set of rules. For example, you might have something like:


You should interpret the text of a rule according to its ordinary meaning, unless this results in an absurd result.
If there would be an absurd result, you should interpret the rule in a way that best captures the objective intention of the author of the rule (for example, based on the text around the rule, or other text that refers to the rule).
You should always ensure that the rule is interpreted in a way that gives it work to do (for instance, in our Absorption example above, if you give 'know' its PHB glossary definition, the words 'or have prepared' have no work to do).



(I'm a bit rushed at the moment, so this list is by no means final, but it hopefully gives a good sense of what I mean).

One downside with this sort of approach is that statutory interpretation works in real life in part because:


legislators are aware of the principles governing statutory interpretation, and (usually try to) draft legislation carefully and meaningfully (whereas D&D authors might be a bit more loose or rushed); and
in real life, if a law is horrendously misapplied, the legislature can address that (whereas this does not work for D&D books).



So, maybe there is no perfect solution except to just rely on common sense (and inevitable arguments about what 'common sense' means).

[Anthrowhale]

Prepared-but-not-PHB-Known is possible via the Sha'ir. I'm not suggesting that Absorption should be interpreted with that knowledge though, as Sha'ir is a more peripheral class. When considering absorption previously, I had defaulted into your interpretation. Your interpretation also happens to be a more minimal affordance than the alternative.

The definitions we've gone through have known spells =

Spells that a spontaneous caster knows intrinsically (as per Absorption)
Type 1 + Arcane Spellcaster + has learned + can prepare (as per PHB glossary)
Type 1 or prepared spells (as per Divine Metamagic)
The entire list for Cleric (as per Eye of Horus-Re)
Type 2 or the entire list for Druid/Cleric (as per Place Magic)
Accessible spell (as per Scribe Scroll)

All of this makes it clear there are many more gradations of 'know' than the PHB definition.

Rashemi Spirit Magic still seems ambiguous however. It's at least type 2 when interacting with arcane casters. The minimal affordance with divine casters is type 3 but Place Magic provides precedence for type 5.