[3.5] "Spells Known"

[Thurbane]

So, just wondering what exactly counts as a Spell Known for various casters. Some feats and class abilities and similar specifically apply only to Spells Known.

1.) For casters like Sorcerer, Bard, Assassin, Favored Soul etc. it's very straightforward.

2.) Casters like Wizards and Archivists are a bit less clear cut, but I've seen it argued that anything in their spell/prayer book counts as a spell known?

3.) Beguilers, Dread Necromancers and Warmages are another one that is a little unclear: I assume it would be anything on their set class list, plus anything they have picked up with Advanced Learning?

4.) The most difficult one to define is memorized casters who access an entire list, like Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger etc. Do they even have spells known?

All thoughts and opinions welcome.

Cheers - T

[Zanos]

PHB Glossary on page 310 defines it as such:


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

With that and specific > general in mind:


1.) For casters like Sorcerer, Bard, Assassin, Favored Soul etc. it's very straightforward.
Usually, yes. Most of these classes will specifically call out that they have spells known.


2.) Casters like Wizards and Archivists are a bit less clear cut, but I've seen it argued that anything in their spell/prayer book counts as a spell known?
Wizards definitely have spells known, they're specifically called out in the glossary entry. Archivists you can argue either way: it depends on how much stock you put in the phrase that archivists learn spells "much as a wizard does". They either do not know any of their spells because they are divine casters(which don't know any spells), or they cast as wizards, so they would know all the spells in their prayerbook.


3.) Beguilers, Dread Necromancers and Warmages are another one that is a little unclear: I assume it would be anything on their set class list, plus anything they have picked up with Advanced Learning?
IIRC these classes specifically call out that you "know" all the spells on your class spell list, and advanced learning adds a spell to your class spell list.


4.) The most difficult one to define is memorized casters who access an entire list, like Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger etc. Do they even have spells known?
No, this concept only applies to arcane casters. In the absence of a more specific rule for a particular class, divine casters do not know any spells.

[Saintheart]

No, this concept only applies to arcane casters. In the absence of a more specific rule for a particular class, divine casters do not know any spells.

If so then no cleric has been legally using Divine Metamagic since Complete Divine was published, since that feat explicitly applies only to "spells you know" and its example uses Jozan the cleric.

[Zanos]

If so then no cleric has been legally using Divine Metamagic since Complete Divine was published, since that feat explicitly applies only to "spells you know" and its example uses Jozan the cleric.
A divine metamagic nerf? Say it isn't so! :smallbiggrin:

[Thurbane]

No, this concept only applies to arcane casters. In the absence of a more specific rule for a particular class, divine casters do not know any spells.

That creates its own disfunction, when it comes to the Favored Soul or Mystic.

[Zanos]

That creates its own disfunction, when it comes to the Favored Soul or Mystic.
No, I think that's just a case of specific > general. The spell known definition in the glossary of the PHB of course does not call out rules for classes that did not exist when the PHB was written. Favored Souls have a rule that is far more specific than a glossary entry that they have Spells Known.

[Aracor]

If so then no cleric has been legally using Divine Metamagic since Complete Divine was published, since that feat explicitly applies only to "spells you know" and its example uses Jozan the cleric.

To be fair, "spells you know" isn't necessarily the same as "spells known", because WotC isn't consistent.

If we look at the VERY odd divine class the Spirit Shaman, it suggests that Spells Known for it are "Spells Retrieved", which is distinct from "spells on their list".

In addition, Dragon Magic page 60 calls out that spells which grant an extra benefit only applies to characters who have spells known (such as a bard, sorcerer, warmage, or favored soul), but does NOT apply to characters who prepare spells from a class list or spellbook.

[Saintheart]

WotC isn't consistent.

I fully agree. Which is, by definition (if you'll pardon the pun), why this sort of discussion is (in my view) mostly pointless.

[Biggus]

IIRC these classes specifically call out that you "know" all the spells on your class spell list, and advanced learning adds a spell to your class spell list.


This is correct, Warmage (CArc p.12) spells it out:


He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time the way a cleric or wizard must. When a warmage gains access to a new level of spells, he automatically knows all the spells for that level listed on the warmage’s spell list. Essentially, his spell list is the same as his spells known list.

(The others have similar wording)

Advanced Learning doesn't specifically refer to spells known, but it does say:


Once a new spell is selected, it is forever added to that warmage’s spell list and can be cast just like any other spell on the warmage’s list.

Which given that "his spell list is the same as his spells known list" seems pretty clear-cut that those count too.

[RandomPeasant]

Which given that "his spell list is the same as his spells known list" seems pretty clear-cut that those count too.

The Dread Necromancer's wording makes this explicit, saying the spell "can be cast just like any other spell she knows".

[Doctor Despair]

The Dread Necromancer reading is crucial to a common optimization trick for them: Versatile Spellcaster.

When a Dread Necromancer levels up to 4, 6, 8, etc, if they do not have Heighten Spell, they gain spell slots at that level, and would arguably gain no spells known. They know all spells at a level they can cast; however, if they do not know spells at their new level, even with spell slots at that level, they cannot cast spells at that level, so they would gain no spells known. As that flies in the face of RAI, one might conclude that they automatically gain all spells known at a new level if they would be able to cast spells of that level if they had spells known at that level.

... however, Versatile Spellcaster explicitly allows spontaneous casters to trade two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell they know that is one level higher. While a level 1 Dread Necromancer may not know a level 2 spell, they would be able to trade two level 1 spell slots to cast a level 2 spell if they had any of them known... And that is the exact same situation they'd find themselves in if they reached level 4 without Heighted Spell.

We end up with a DM needing to utilize one of two readings:

1. Dread Necromancers need to take Heighten Spell before level 4, or they can never gain any new spells known

2. Dread Necromancers can use Versatile Spellcaster to gain access to their spells a few levels early (level 2s at level 1, level 3s at level 4, level 4s at level 6, and so on).

With that said, a Dread Necromancer could use both Heighten Spell and Versatile Spellcaster together to get early access regardless of the DM's reading, but... anyway, that's my rambling tangent for today.

[RandomPeasant]

I don't see how any of that follows at all. If you have 4th level spell slots, you can cast 4th level spells. It's like saying that a Sorcerer can't enter Incantatrix until 8th level because they can only cast 3rd level "spell" as a 6th level character. It's parsing the rules in a way to intentional create dysfunction, and you can just not do that.

[Doctor Despair]

I don't see how any of that follows at all. If you have 4th level spell slots, you can cast 4th level spells. It's like saying that a Sorcerer can't enter Incantatrix until 8th level because they can only cast 3rd level "spell" as a 6th level character. It's parsing the rules in a way to intentional create dysfunction, and you can just not do that.

I am unsympathetic to the reading that doesn't allow Dread Necromancers to learn spells without the Heighten Spell feat. I'm just saying that I've literally seen people on these forums argue that very point.

[Silly Name]

When a Dread Necromancer levels up to 4, 6, 8, etc, if they do not have Heighten Spell, they gain spell slots at that level, and would arguably gain no spells known.

???


They know all spells at a level they can cast; however, if they do not know spells at their new level, even with spell slots at that level, they cannot cast spells at that level, so they would gain no spells known.

What?! Quoting straight from the book: "When a dread necromancer gains access to a new level of spells, she automatically knows all the spells for that level given on the dread necromancer's spell list. Dread necromancers also have the option of adding to their existing spell list through their advanced learning ability as they increase in level (see below)."

What are you talking about? What does Heighten Spell have to do with it?

[Scots Dragon]

What?! Quoting straight from the book: "When a dread necromancer gains access to a new level of spells, she automatically knows all the spells for that level given on the dread necromancer's spell list. Dread necromancers also have the option of adding to their existing spell list through their advanced learning ability as they increase in level (see below)."

What are you talking about? What does Heighten Spell have to do with it?
This really does look like one of those things where 3.5e fans invented a dysfunction that wasn't even there.

A lot of people going on about precise wording in the rules being important to third edition while also having really, really bad reading comprehension created probably the greatest set of problems for this entire edition and I am really, really tired of it.

[ShurikVch]

4.) The most difficult one to define is memorized casters who access an entire list, like Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger etc. Do they even have spells known?
No: they have spells granted - not spells known.

[nedz]

No: they have spells granted - not spells known.

Unless they are spontaneous (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/spontaneousDivineCasters.htm).

[ShurikVch]

Unless they are spontaneous (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/spontaneousDivineCasters.htm).
And what's you will say about Spirit Shaman?

[nedz]

This really does look like one of those things where 3.5e fans invented a dysfunction that wasn't even there.

A lot of people going on about precise wording in the rules being important to third edition while also having really, really bad reading comprehension created probably the greatest set of problems for this entire edition and I am really, really tired of it.

That's basically why I stopped updating the Completely Dysfunctional Handbook. Threads 1-7 were generally fine, but then it started getting silly with just lists of strange rule readings.

[ShurikVch]

That's basically why I stopped updating the Completely Dysfunctional Handbook. Threads 1-7 were generally fine, but then it started getting silly with just lists of strange rule readings.
Pity :smallfrown:
Not all of mentioned stuff may be good, but even one dysfunction per thread is worth mentioned - if it's the "real deal" rather than mere "questionable reading"

[Scots Dragon]

That's basically why I stopped updating the Completely Dysfunctional Handbook. Threads 1-7 were generally fine, but then it started getting silly with just lists of strange rule readings.

Even just a quick glance reveals stuff like the 'phylactery must be located and destroyed' thing which is really just a 'you can't usually destroy something without locating it' situation.

Actual naturalistic reading of the rules as if they were written in English and not some weird alien legalese solves like 90% of supposed rules issues.

[RandomPeasant]

A number of other dysfunctions are just things where the rules are perfectly functional, but just produce dumb results. Something like drown healing isn't really "dysfunctional". The rules work just fine and do the exactly the thing they say they do, it's just that it's a dumb thing to have the rules do. "Dysfunctional" is something like the Utterance that removes the penalties for a condition that does not impose penalties.

[ShurikVch]

Excuse me for self-quoting, but how about this? -

I don't sure if it was mentioned, but there is this funny part about certain Wondrous Architecture in Stronghold Builder's Guidebook:

Desecrated Shrine: The entire stronghold space is desecrated, as per the spell. All Charisma checks to turn undead suffer a –6 penalty. Undead in the space gain a profane +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls and saves. Undead cannot be created within nor summoned into this space. Undead summoned or created in this space gain +2 hit points per HD.
The desecrated shrine must contain an altar, shrine, or other permanent fixture dedicated to the creator's chosen higher power.
A consecrate spell negates the effect of the desecrated shrine for the duration of the consecrate spell. After that, the effects of the desecrated shrine return.
Caster Level: 3rd; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, fixture dedicated to chosen higher power, desecrate;
Market Price: 3,000 gp.
IMHO, it's the example of undiluted dysfunction

[Scots Dragon]

Excuse me for self-quoting, but how about this? -

IMHO, it's the example of undiluted dysfunction

It's not a dysfunctional rule, it's an editing error. Basically they copy/pasted and edited the notes on the immediately-prior Consecrated Chapel, given the inverted function, and forgot to properly replace the text of that sentence with the notes on undead being given bonus hit points.

You just need to pay some basic attention to figure out what the actual problem and solution is.

[nedz]

Pity :smallfrown:
Not all of mentioned stuff may be good, but even one dysfunction per thread is worth mentioned - if it's the "real deal" rather than mere "questionable reading"

The threads also got quite fractious and we had capture almost 1000 dysfunctions.

I have found it quite useful when rules issues have come up in actual games — to go and check out the discussions.

[ShurikVch]

It's not a dysfunctional rule, it's an editing error. Basically they copy/pasted and edited the notes on the immediately-prior Consecrated Chapel, given the inverted function, and forgot to properly replace the text of that sentence with the notes on undead being given bonus hit points.

You just need to pay some basic attention to figure out what the actual problem and solution is.
Well, firstly - didn't you just Oberoni there?

That aside - how about this? -

Magic of Incarnum have this text:

Meldshapers cannot give a meld to someone else, or shape one on anyone other than themselves. Shaped soulmelds cannot be removed from the meldshapers body.
Now, description of Incarnate Weapon soulmeld:

Your incarnate weapon cannot be sundered or otherwise destroyed (except by effects that unshape soulmelds). If your incarnate weapon leaves your hand for any reason, it returns to your grasp at the beginning of your next turn. If that is impossible, it falls at your feet (but attempts to return again on your next turn). Any other creature attempting to wield your incarnate weapon gains none of its special benefits (but can wield it as a normal weapon of that kind).
So, cannot be removed?.. Cannot give to someone else?.. :smallconfused:
What's this - one more editing error?

Or this? -

One and the same character can have both True Believer and Heretic of the Faith feats

Or this? -

Saving Throw (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow):

(object)
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level.
Well, Glass Strike have "Saving Throw: Fortitude negates" - no (object)
But it's just the tip of the iceberg: many many spells - which are supposed to be able to affect object - are lacking it too
Say, Fireball haven't it - thus, you can use it even at smokepowder storage without fear of explosions
Or Animate Objects lacking it too, which mean - does absolutely nothing...

[Zanos]

It's not a dysfunctional rule, it's an editing error.
I agree that this is a case where the intent and mistake are pretty obvious, but an editing error can create dysfunctional rules, no? In fact, many rule dysfunctions are the result of editing errors.


I do agree with the general vibe though that a lot of people are really scraping at the bottom of the barrel to come up with "new" dysfunctions that are really the result of just forgetting that the rules are meant to be parsed by human beings with a moderate proficiency in English.

[Scots Dragon]

Well, firstly - didn't you just Oberoni there?

No, because it's not a 'the GM can fix this', it's 'this is clearly an editing error if you look at the damn page'. Anyone can fix it if they're paying attention, to the point that it's not even fixing a broken rule, it's using your brain and reading comprehension for five seconds rather than getting caught up on pointless minutia.

Admittedly the entire idea of an Oberoni fallacy feels like one of those things that gets misapplied almost as often as the Stormwind fallacy. Along with the Tier list I'd like to personally invent a whole new layer of Baator for all three of them to burn in.

As to the other examples;

The Incarnum Blade thing is probably a dysfunctional rule. I'd have to care more about Incarnum to go into more detail on that. And I don't, so I won't.
The saving throws and whether a spell affects an object is an editing error. Those spells clearly say in the text that they affect objects, and not having the '(object)' element in the saving throw line is an oversight that's easily solved by paying attention for five seconds.



I do agree with the general vibe though that a lot of people are really scraping at the bottom of the barrel to come up with "new" dysfunctions that are really the result of just forgetting that the rules are meant to be parsed by human beings with a moderate proficiency in English.

My patience for it has been slowly eroded over the entire lifespan of my being a D&D player. I think my breaking point was a few weeks ago on this very forum when someone tried to claim that XP components didn't count as spell components due to the absence of some wording in the Rules Compendium.

EDIT: This thread, specifically. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?640835-anti-dweomerkeeper-propaganda)

[nedz]

I do agree with the general vibe though that a lot of people are really scraping at the bottom of the barrel to come up with "new" dysfunctions that are really the result of just forgetting that the rules are meant to be parsed by human beings with a moderate proficiency in English.

Actually, IIRC, it was mainly just one guy. :smallsmile:

[Biggus]

Actual naturalistic reading of the rules as if they were written in English and not some weird alien legalese solves like 90% of supposed rules issues.



Admittedly the entire idea of an Oberoni fallacy feels like one of those things that gets misapplied almost as often as the Stormwind fallacy. Along with the Tier list I'd like to personally invent a whole new layer of Baator for all three of them to burn in.


Completely agree about the first three, I'm curious what the issue with the tier list is though?

[Scots Dragon]

Completely agree about the first three, I'm curious what the issue with the tier list is though?

Mostly it's treated as a shackle on things and is treated as a set of inflexible objective facts rather than a set of guidelines since they don't really take into account different playstyles, choices, builds, etc. and it reinforces a certain set of beliefs such as 'Tier 3 is objectively best' that ultimately creates an at times difficult environment for actually discussing the game without someone suggesting that you should play a warblade 10/eternal blade 10 rather than the elven fighter you wanted to play.


I of course have similar problems with character optimisation as a concept in general. I remember a rather infamous dragonborn fire grey elf elven generalist domain martial wizard/ruathar/shadowcraft mage/fatespinner/archmage someone came up with in order to make an 'optimal' generalist wizard.

And I'm not even joking. (http://bg-archive.minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=9738.0)

[Biggus]

Mostly it's treated as a shackle on things and is treated as a set of inflexible objective facts rather than a set of guidelines since they don't really take into account different playstyles, choices, builds, etc. and it reinforces a certain set of beliefs such as 'Tier 3 is objectively best' that ultimately creates an at times difficult environment for actually discussing the game without someone suggesting that you should play a warblade 10/eternal blade 10 rather than the elven fighter you wanted to play.


Oh OK, I've not really noticed the "inflexible objective facts" part much. I have however seen numerous examples of people asking for advice about a particular class and the first five replies being "don't play that, play this instead", which drives me nuts. It's one thing to suggest alternatives, but in some cases they act like you're an idiot for wanting to play what you want to play, which is just rude.

[RandomPeasant]

I think it depends on context to some degree. If you say "I want to play a blaster", and the build you're presenting is a Cleric, it's pretty reasonable for people to ask "why not play a Warmage instead". Certainly people can be rude about it, and you're allowed to want to do something suboptimal, but it's not uncommon for people to try to do things with the tools they know rather than with the right tools.

As far as the tiers go, the thing that really grinds my gears is the way they get applied in context where they aren't really useful. The tiers are a ranking of class power as it exists in 3.5. That's a fine thing to do, and they do it well. But a statement like "the game should be balanced to T3" doesn't really make sense, because "T3" is "the classes that are in this specific cohort of relative power", and if you balance the game differently different classes will be at that point. If the game was balanced, you wouldn't have tiers, because tiers are a measure of imbalance. It also tends to crowd out more nuanced discussions like "what are the specific balance points this class is capable of playing at" or "what are the abilities that are likely to derail campaigns" or "how difficult is it to build/play this class at a standard power level".

[Zanos]

Mostly it's treated as a shackle on things and is treated as a set of inflexible objective facts rather than a set of guidelines since they don't really take into account different playstyles, choices, builds, etc. and it reinforces a certain set of beliefs such as 'Tier 3 is objectively best' that ultimately creates an at times difficult environment for actually discussing the game without someone suggesting that you should play a warblade 10/eternal blade 10 rather than the elven fighter you wanted to play.
It's very badly misapplied, yeah. The original intent is noble I think, and even calls out that Player>Build>Class, and I agree with most of its judgements about what classes can solve what ranges of problems. But building effective D&D characters is such a multi-varied analysis that I think it fails to provide much of practical use, and is used as a hammer more often than not. A wizard is certainly better than a fighter; but that doesn't change the fact that in practice there are many wizards who underperform fighters. Is there any real use to saying "Tier 1s and Tier 2s are banned in my games" when a fireball wizard or enchanter sorcerer aren't really causing any problems at your table?

In my experience the biggest causes of problems that make D&D unfun are people not classes or builds. I find banning anything to be largely unnecessary when I play with people who I like. But I suppose a tier list of people would be much more difficult to put together.



I of course have similar problems with character optimisation as a concept in general. I remember a rather infamous dragonborn fire grey elf elven generalist domain martial wizard/ruathar/shadowcraft mage/fatespinner/archmage someone came up with in order to make an 'optimal' generalist wizard.

And I'm not even joking. (http://bg-archive.minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=9738.0)
I honestly have played with multiple DMs who wouldn't even mind this. But even if your DM goes "that's ridiculous", I think it's still a useful catalog of features to choose to get more out of a specific character archetype.

Although in my opinion fatespinner and ruathar are far from optimal. :smalltongue: