wizard spell known, by raw what is it?

[newguydude1]

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


A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Once a spell from another spellcaster’s book is deciphered, the reader must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level) to prepare the spell. If the check succeeds, the wizard can prepare the spell. She must repeat the check to prepare the spell again, no matter how many times she has prepared it before. If the check fails, she cannot try to prepare the spell from the same source again until the next day. (However, as explained above, she does not need to repeat a check to decipher the writing.)


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


Alternatively, as a full-round action, you can use a reserved slot to cast any spell that you know. The spell is resolved as normal, but for the purpose of the spell, your caster level is reduced by two. The level of the slot used must be equal to or greater than the level of the spell you intend to cast.

situation: my dm is raw or die.
what i want: if i lose a spellbook, i want to grab the spell mastery feat after i lose the spellbook to regain access to some spells i had on there.
what i want2: instead of getting multiple spell mastery feats, i want to grab uncanny forethought.

the borrowed spellbook rules implicitly say spells in your spellbook and spells that you know are two separate things. so if your spellbook was annihilated, you can borrow a spellbook and prepare spells using that borrowed spellbook, but only spells that you know.

the glossary definition however says if you lose your spellbook, you know 0 spells. which kinda makes the borrowed spellbook rules unusable. because you can only prepare spells you know, but if you have no spellbook, you know no spells, so you cant prepare any spell.

this is important because if glossary definition wins then if i lose my spellbook im done. i cant take spell mastery because it wont do anything.

so ive been fishing around on the forums using google and found some stuff. mainly that wizard and spellbook have no special connection at all. so when a spellbook gets destroyed, a wizard has no idea whether it was destroyed or not. so to me the glossary definition is a gross simplification and has no authority. i told this to my dm, but he told me to prove it with raw. he also said the borrowed spellbook rules can work with the glossary if the spellbook is misplaced and not annihilated. so then we got into whether a spell being in an annihilated spellbook still counts as being in my spellbook and that complete arcane says wizards have no special connection to their spellbooks. and the whole debate became loud and my dm said just find and give him raw that proves my case instead of trying to persuade him.

so is he right or am i right? if im right help me prove it! this is important D:

is wizard spell known any spell i wrote into my spellbook at any time in the past, or is it solely spells in my spellbook?

edit: please see post #9 and tell me if theres a problem with the argument.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

What sources do you have available? Dragon #357 has the eidetic spellcaster ACF, which trades your spellbook for storing your spells in your mind.

This bypasses the issue altogether.

[Gusmo]

For wizards, the glossary definition is the best definition of Known Spells that exists. It is not explicitly contradicted by the other rules you posted. Does it make sense that certain things such as uncanny forethought no longer work if a spellbook is destroyed? Probably not, but we don't have such magic in the real world, so there's at least some absurdity in us saying 'that's not how it works' in any such case. Plus, this is hardly the only instance of rules lacking verisimilitude - martial characters suffer the most on this front, but that's another story. In this instance, if someone destroys your spellbook, you no longer Know those spells, and you presumably feel some sort of disturbance in The Force or something, and would know that feats like uncanny forethought are now limited to your spell mastery repertoire, and similar.

Edit: I'm reminded of this post from Rich (especially the part I bolded) with regard to making assumptions about what 'makes sense' in situations when you have no actual knowledge of the subject matter. Unless anyone has specific information on why such a mental link between a wizard and their spellbook isn't possible, the best course of action is to assume it is possible because the rules (or, rather, this combination of rules) imply it's possible.


It's a fictional story. It works because I say it works, and the rest of the story will be written as if it works. I, the author of the comic, am telling you that the math works out in Hel's favor no matter how you try to calculate it.

Do you need an explanation? Fine. Let's say—and I am absolutely making this up on the spot, but it still counts—that getting a dead soul gives a god a burst of power at the moment that it happens, and then a much lower long-term generation of power over the course of centuries (say, 1/1000th as much) until the soul eventually merges into whatever it merges into and stops contributing completely. Therefore, getting 10 million in one day will grant a huge boost of power to Hel that she can use immediately to gain more influence over the world-making process. All the previous souls that died had their power boosts used up by their respective gods doing things like granting spells and making miracles and such, things that Hel barely does. And once she can influence the world-building process, she can set up the rules differently so that she isn't at such a disadvantage anymore, leading to more consistent generation of power going forward.

There. Now all the math doesn't matter, because as of this post, the amount of power granted at one time greatly outweighs the accumulated drip of power over the previous however-many centuries.

But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?

[denthor]

A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured. First, the wizard must decipher the writing in the book (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Once a spell from another spellcaster’s book is deciphered, the reader must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level) to prepare the spell. If the check succeeds, the wizard can prepare the spell. She must repeat the check to prepare the spell again, no matter how many times she has prepared it before. If the check fails, she cannot try to prepare the spell from the same source again until the next day. (However, as explained above, she does not need to repeat a check to decipher the writing.)





situation: my dm is raw or die.
what i want: if i lose a spellbook, i want to grab the spell mastery feat after i lose the spellbook to regain access to some spells i had on there.
what i want2: instead of getting multiple spell mastery feats, i want to grab uncanny forethought.

the borrowed spellbook rules implicitly say spells in your spellbook and spells that you know are two separate things. so if your spellbook was annihilated, you can borrow a spellbook and prepare spells using that borrowed spellbook, but only spells that you know.

the glossary definition however says if you lose your spellbook, you know 0 spells. which kinda makes the borrowed spellbook rules unusable. because you can only prepare spells you know, but if you have no spellbook, you know no spells, so you cant prepare any spell.

this is important because if glossary definition wins then if i lose my spellbook im done. i cant take spell mastery because it wont do anything.

so ive been fishing around on the forums using google and found some stuff. mainly that wizard and spellbook have no special connection at all. so when a spellbook gets destroyed, a wizard has no idea whether it was destroyed or not. so to me the glossary definition is a gross simplification and has no authority. i told this to my dm, but he told me to prove it with raw. he also said the borrowed spellbook rules can work with the glossary if the spellbook is misplaced and not annihilated. so then we got into whether a spell being in an annihilated spellbook still counts as being in my spellbook and that complete arcane says wizards have no special connection to their spellbooks. and the whole debate became loud and my dm said just find and give him raw that proves my case instead of trying to persuade him.

so is he right or am i right? if im right help me prove it! this is important D:

is wizard spell known any spell i wrote into my spellbook at any time in the past, or is it solely spells in my spellbook?[/QUOTE]

This when you work around. You learn spells and can write them in your book if you have scrolls. Yes it destroys the scroll cost gold but you get a new book or new spell for 4 times the cost.

Rather than casting you copy into a prepared book, then you know the spell your handwriting and better if you can get the wizards spell book you can copy the spell you know into your book. Or you can get the wizard to teach you the spell in memory and copy into your book.


If you lose your book pay the gold for the ink write your prepared spells into your new book.

[gogogome]

First, the glossary is not rules. You are correct that the PHB glossary is a gross oversimplification and not a rule. For example:

Gargantuan: A Gargantuan creature is between 32 and 64 feet in height or length and weighs between 32,000 and 250,000 pounds

Assumes that the creature is roughly as dense as a regular animal. A creature made of stone will weigh considerably more. A gaseous creature will weigh much less.
According to the MM the 32,000-250,000lb figure is for animals. Creatures made of stone weigh considerably more. According to the Glossary however this is an impossibility. And this is just one of many, I don't have time to comb through every single glossary definition. Glossary is not rules therefore not RAW (the R of RAW is ruled). They are summaries and nothing more just like the short spell descriptions next to spell names are summaries and not rules and in no way influence how the spell behaves.

Second, like the Gargantuan example, think of fringe cases.
1. If a wizard with the Arcane Disciple feat writes an arcane version of Cure Light Wounds into your spellbook, does your wizard know Cure Light Wounds? Can he prepare and cast Cure Light Wounds? The answer is no.
2. If a wyrm wizard writes an arcane version of Miracle, True Resurrection, and True Creation into your spellbook, does your wizard know Miracle, True Resurrection, and True Creation? Can he prepare and cast Miracle, True Resurrection, and True Creation? The answer is no.

Third, according to the glossary, divine casters have no spells known. This is patently false.

Fourth, Rules Compendium reprinted the borrowed spellbook rules. And Rules Compendium overrides everything.

Fifth, like you said, Complete Arcane states there is no special magical connection with the Wizard and his spellbook. The spellbook is no different than a hammer or a sword. It's a mundane tool.

Sixth, from my checking, the only time the rules talk about wizards "knowing" spells is that borrowed spellbook section and nowhere else. I even digitally searched most of the books. So from that RAW, all spells the wizard recorded into her spellbook are spells that she knows. Past tense. The current state of the spellbook and its contents are irrelevant.

If your "raw or die" DM is reasonable by any means then this should be enough. The PHB Glossary is not rules so it doesn't do anything, and it is full of errors so treating it like RAW is going to be disastrous, and by actual RAW in core and in Rules Compendium says that any spell that was recorded into your spellbook is a spell that you know.

Hope this helps.

[Zanos]

For wizards, the glossary definition is the best definition of Known Spells that exists. It is not explicitly contradicted by the other rules you posted. Does it make sense that certain things such as uncanny forethought no longer work if a spellbook is destroyed?
It's because the flavor vs mechanics of Uncanny Forethought. The fluff is not that you're casting some spell you know spontaneously, it's that your caster is so smart that you actually prepared whatever spell you needed for this situation via some kind of supergenius precognition. Then you laugh and say 'just as planned.' You're basically retconning your spell preparations. Modeling that mechanically is kinda weird, so there's technically no need to actually prepare spells from your spellbook to use it.

[Mike Miller]

@newguydude

You answered your own question with your first quote. You have the simple definition of known spells. That is the RAW. I also second eidetic spellcaster to bypass this issue, but since I am pretty sure your DM doesn't allow dragon magazine, I suggest you make duplicate spellbooks.

[newguydude1]

First, the glossary is not rules. You are correct that the PHB glossary is a gross oversimplification and not a rule. For example:


According to the MM the 32,000-250,000lb figure is for animals. Creatures made of stone weigh considerably more. According to the Glossary however this is an impossibility. And this is just one of many, I don't have time to comb through every single glossary definition. Glossary is not rules therefore not RAW (the R of RAW is ruled). They are summaries and nothing more just like the short spell descriptions next to spell names are summaries and not rules and in no way influence how the spell behaves.

Second, like the Gargantuan example, think of fringe cases.
1. If a wizard with the Arcane Disciple feat writes an arcane version of Cure Light Wounds into your spellbook, does your wizard know Cure Light Wounds? Can he prepare and cast Cure Light Wounds? The answer is no.
2. If a wyrm wizard writes an arcane version of Miracle, True Resurrection, and True Creation into your spellbook, does your wizard know Miracle, True Resurrection, and True Creation? Can he prepare and cast Miracle, True Resurrection, and True Creation? The answer is no.

Third, according to the glossary, divine casters have no spells known. This is patently false.

Fourth, Rules Compendium reprinted the borrowed spellbook rules. And Rules Compendium overrides everything.

Fifth, like you said, Complete Arcane states there is no special magical connection with the Wizard and his spellbook. The spellbook is no different than a hammer or a sword. It's a mundane tool.

Sixth, from my checking, the only time the rules talk about wizards "knowing" spells is that borrowed spellbook section and nowhere else. I even digitally searched most of the books. So from that RAW, all spells the wizard recorded into her spellbook are spells that she knows. Past tense. The current state of the spellbook and its contents are irrelevant.

If your "raw or die" DM is reasonable by any means then this should be enough. The PHB Glossary is not rules so it doesn't do anything, and it is full of errors so treating it like RAW is going to be disastrous, and by actual RAW in core and in Rules Compendium says that any spell that was recorded into your spellbook is a spell that you know.

Hope this helps.

omg! this might work!

before i present this to my dm though, does anyone else see a problem with gogogome's argument?

[magicalmagicman]

@newguydude1
You need to get rid of your tunnel vision and read all the rules before engaging in a debate. Because the answer to all your woes is on the same page of the rules you're debating about.



The procedure for learning a spell can be used to reconstruct a lost spellbook. A spellcaster who already has a particular spell prepared can write that spell directly into a new book at a cost of 100 gp per page. The process wipes the prepared spell from the mind, just as casting it would. If the caster doesn’t have the spell prepared, it can be prepared from a borrowed spellbook, then written into a new book.

The rules directly and unambiguously say you can reconstruct a lost spellbook by preparing spells from a borrowed spellbook.
The borrowed spellbooks rules say you can only prepare spells that you know and have recorded in your spellbook.
Therefore, the rules are directly and unambiguously saying you have a list of "known spells" you can prepare from a borrowed spellbook even when you have 0 spellbooks.
This is RAW. The rules explicitly says you have a list of "known spells" completely independent of your spellbooks. Therefore you can use Spell Mastery to select these known spells to regain access to them.

Now lets take a look at the glossary.
The glossary says you must have the spell in your spellbooks. Plural. So you need more than one spellbook and the spell in at least 2 of them. So in that sense, a wizard with only one spellbook knows 0 spells. The glossary also says only arcane spells are known.

This is the primary source rule

When you find a disagreement between two rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
If the glossary makes the primary source illegal, then it is ignored as per the primary source rule, which explicitly states short descriptions and tables lose to the primary source.

So thats two things the glossary got wrong. Which disqualifies it.

[Zanos]

The costs for reconstructing a lost spellbook are exactly the same as the rules for copying entirely new spells into a spellbook, though.

[newguydude1]

@newguydude1
You need to get rid of your tunnel vision and read all the rules before engaging in a debate. Because the answer to all your woes is on the same page of the rules you're debating about.



The rules directly and unambiguously say you can reconstruct a lost spellbook by preparing spells from a borrowed spellbook.
The borrowed spellbooks rules say you can only prepare spells that you know and have recorded in your spellbook.
Therefore, the rules are directly and unambiguously saying you have a list of "known spells" you can prepare from a borrowed spellbook even when you have 0 spellbooks.
This is RAW. The rules explicitly says you have a list of "known spells" completely independent of your spellbooks. Therefore you can use Spell Mastery to select these known spells to regain access to them.

Now lets take a look at the glossary.
The glossary says you must have the spell in your spellbooks. Plural. So you need more than one spellbook and the spell in at least 2 of them. So in that sense, a wizard with only one spellbook knows 0 spells. The glossary also says only arcane spells are known.

This is the primary source rule

If the glossary makes the primary source illegal, then it is ignored as per the primary source rule, which explicitly states short descriptions and tables lose to the primary source.

So thats two things the glossary got wrong. Which disqualifies it.

omg! tytytytyty!!!!! i luv u <3<3<3


The costs for reconstructing a lost spellbook are exactly the same as the rules for copying entirely new spells into a spellbook, though.

money doesnt matter because i only care about spell mastery and uncanny forethought.

[Gavinfoxx]

situation: my dm is raw or die.

Your DM is a jerk, and the fact that you are worried about WHEN your wizard gets beaten up, his spellbook taken and destroyed, and then he gets unceremoniously murdered means you should stop gaming with that ******* and should also not consider him a friend and probably never interact with him again ever.

[Asmotherion]

Your DM is a jerk, and the fact that you are worried about WHEN your wizard gets beaten up, his spellbook taken and destroyed, and then he gets unceremoniously murdered means you should stop gaming with that ******* and should also not consider him a friend and probably never interact with him again ever.

Don't you think you're over-reacting just a little bit? :smallamused:

I mean, there are different campain styles, and some people like to play hardcore-realism.

[Gavinfoxx]

Don't you think you're over-reacting just a little bit? :smallamused:

I mean, there are different campain styles, and some people like to play hardcore-realism.

Search through this guy's posts. Seriously. Look at what he's written over the last month and a half. It's more than a little terrifying.

[Asmotherion]

Search through this guy's posts. Seriously. Look at what he's written over the last month and a half. It's more than a little terrifying.

You're probably right... I mean, I had only this thread for refearence.

[newguydude1]

omg when i saw more posts on this thread i thought you guys are rebutting magicalmagicmans stuff. so happy that it wasnt XD

ok so i presented magicalmagicmans argument to my dm and he accepted it. he said he wanted to say lost spellbook does not mean destroyed spellbook just to get a rise out of me, but he thinks i would take that personally so he didnt.

anyways yeah, by raw a wizards spell known list is spells that he personally recorded into a spellbook. so whenever someone uses the glossary definition, correct them with the real rules!

[Crake]

anyways yeah, by raw a wizards spell known list is spells that he personally recorded into a spellbook. so whenever someone uses the glossary definition, correct them with the real rules!

This makes sense when you think of spells as code. Writing or reverse engineering new code (developing or learning a new spell) requires a lot more time and thought than re-writing old code (memorizing and scribing a spell you've already learned in the past), and it makes sense that you could know a spell well enough that you could learn to prepare it from memory without a spellbook, even if you didn't have your spellbook on hand, by simply thinking back and "re-writing" the spell in your mind (picking up spell mastery after having lost your spellbook).

I'm glad I read this thread, it's given me a new perspective on what it means for a wizard to know a particular spell, though I often use eidetic spellcaster for just this very reason. Bonus points if you get 2 levels in chameleon and use your floating bonus feat to learn a new spell every day.

[Darg]

If you have it written in a spell book you have or have had it is a spell you know. If you are able to take the feat Spell Mastery without having access to your spell book, you are still able to use the spells you have had at one time copied into a spell book (or other form) as fulfillment of the requirement of spells known. Otherwise the only other possibility is that only the spells you get automatically on level ups could ever be considered spells known. Which would be wrong.

[Xar Zarath]

ditto on eidetic wizard, just remove as many obstacles as possible