Wizard scribing prepared artificer spells?

[Silpharon]

How would you DM a multi-class artificer/wizard who wants to add some artificer spells (that are also wizard spells) to their spellbook?

Think absorb elements, feather fall, and false life.

RAW, the PC could create spell scrolls as an artificer, then as a wizard they could copy those spell scrolls into their spellbook. It seems like an unnecessary extra step to make the scroll though, could they scribe the scroll directly into the spellbook?

[Sigreid]

I would rule that the scroll has to be made. My rational would be that he's got to make it more universal than his weird theories.

[Burley]

A wizard can scribe any spell they have slots for, as long as they've got the time and golden ink to do so. Why would I have to scribe it into a scroll first? Especially if I already know how to cast the spell?

The bit about copying a spell doesn't specify that you copy if from another book/scroll; that's just one option for spells to show up in front of you. As a wizard, I can watch the cleric cast Absorb Elements and say "Ah-ha," then go scribe it into my book. I must practice the spell before I scribe it, though. That will take time and effort, which is represented by the 2 hours and 50gp per spell level. Scribing Absorb Elements doesn't take 2 hours; practicing the forms takes two hours and then I write my notes in my spellbook.

If I already know a spell, I've already mastered sounds and gestures required. The time and money is figuring out how to cast the spell without the Artificer's Tools, like your magic hammer or the herbs you use or whatever canon you flavor-blasted your character with.

Edit: A scroll is a more complex project than a spellbook entry. Spellbooks are personal and scrolls are impersonal. Copying a spell you know into your book should be much easier, because you can use your own shorthands and eccentricities.

[Dork_Forge]

You have to scribe into a scroll first to remove the class tag from the spell.

You can add whatever fiction to that you want, but I would adhere to it, besides being RAW, it's also a balancing point. There's power in something being a class spell, it makes features work with it, that is not an intended consequence of multiclassing and so the additional time/cost of scribing a scroll is a reasonable balancing point (though I'd rather it went further).

[Keltest]

You have to scribe into a scroll first to remove the class tag from the spell.

You can add whatever fiction to that you want, but I would adhere to it, besides being RAW, it's also a balancing point. There's power in something being a class spell, it makes features work with it, that is not an intended consequence of multiclassing and so the additional time/cost of scribing a scroll is a reasonable balancing point (though I'd rather it went further).

This is where I stand too. You could copy them directly to the book as per the "replacing your spellbook" rules if they came from the Eldritch Knight subclass or anything else that explicitly learns stuff as a wizard spell, but the Artificer's spells do not count as such.

[Silpharon]

This is where I stand too. You could copy them directly to the book as per the "replacing your spellbook" rules if they came from the Eldritch Knight subclass or anything else that explicitly learns stuff as a wizard spell, but the Artificer's spells do not count as such.

Yeah, I'd buy that.

Thanks everyone for your feedback. I think there's probably a middle ground in there somewhere, as the artificer/wizard wouldn't need to write a neat spell scroll anyone can read. He'd just write out and iterate on enough notes to get the gist before he writes it neatly to the spellbook. The rules on spell scroll creation cost are not consistent anyway, so maybe a discounted and faster creation cost suffices (and normal costs apply for then writing it to the spellbook).

[Mastikator]

Making a scroll costs gold and takes time. Scribing from a scroll costs gold and takes time. You'd basically be paying a lot to expand your spellbook.

As far as I know spell scrolls are just spell scrolls, if it's on your list then you can cast it, even if it was made by a different class. A wizard can scribe mage armor into a scroll and a sorcerer can cast it just fine. Same should work for artificer scribing a scroll and a wizard using it by casting from the scroll or scribing it into their spell book.

[Chronos]

I'd rule that you don't need to make the scroll. Is Absorb Elements a wizard spell? Yes; it's on the wizard spell list. The fact that it's also an artificer spell is irrelevant. You might cast it as an artificer spell, but we're not asking about casting it.

[Keltest]

I'd rule that you don't need to make the scroll. Is Absorb Elements a wizard spell? Yes; it's on the wizard spell list. The fact that it's also an artificer spell is irrelevant. You might cast it as an artificer spell, but we're not asking about casting it.

Sure, but it's not prepared as a wizard spell either. This is an important distinction. A bard's magical secrets are the obvious example, but if you, for example, have wizard and druid levels, both can prepare the spell, but counting it against one list or the other affects how many more of each classes spells you can prepare.

[Burley]

But, if you know the spell well enough to make a scroll, why not just scribe it directly into your book? It's a pointless and expensive middle-step just to "remove the class tag," which is not a rule.

The rules say that, if it's on your spell list and you spend the hours and gold to scribe it, you scribe it. It takes half the time and resources if its your preferred spell school, and you get two for free each level. Those are the rules and forcing your players to spend twice the time and thrice the gold to move a spell from their brain to their book is unnecessary and maybe vindictive.

[Keltest]

But, if you know the spell well enough to make a scroll, why not just scribe it directly into your book? It's a pointless and expensive middle-step just to "remove the class tag," which is not a rule.

The rules say that, if it's on your spell list and you spend the hours and gold to scribe it, you scribe it. It takes half the time and resources if its your preferred spell school, and you get two for free each level. Those are the rules and forcing your players to spend twice the time and thrice the gold to move a spell from their brain to their book is unnecessary and maybe vindictive.

Frankly, wizard spells are the strongest in the game. The last thing a wizard needs is getting easy access to even more spells because they multiclassed to a class that just has a decent chunk of your class list as prepared spells. If youre going to cheese the deliberate balancing factor on the wizard like that, be prepared to pay up.

[Mastikator]

But, if you know the spell well enough to make a scroll, why not just scribe it directly into your book? It's a pointless and expensive middle-step just to "remove the class tag," which is not a rule.

The rules say that, if it's on your spell list and you spend the hours and gold to scribe it, you scribe it. It takes half the time and resources if its your preferred spell school, and you get two for free each level. Those are the rules and forcing your players to spend twice the time and thrice the gold to move a spell from their brain to their book is unnecessary and maybe vindictive.

The artificer doesn't know it as a wizard spell, their spell casting is different from wizard spell casting. A spell shared between artificer and wizard has different material components. When an artificer casts disguise self they add a tool as a material component which you must be proficient in to use.

And artificers can't scribe spells into spellbooks, that's specifically a wizard feature. A wizard can scribe a spell into their spellbook if they have access to the spell, this process takes time and money as they reverse engineer the spell. An artificer is no more able to put spells into a wizard spellbook than a bard or sorcerer.

[Burley]

The artificer doesn't know it as a wizard spell, their spell casting is different from wizard spell casting. A spell shared between artificer and wizard has different material components. When an artificer casts disguise self they add a tool as a material component which you must be proficient in to use.

And artificers can't scribe spells into spellbooks, that's specifically a wizard feature. A wizard can scribe a spell into their spellbook if they have access to the spell, this process takes time and money as they reverse engineer the spell. An artificer is no more able to put spells into a wizard spellbook than a bard or sorcerer.

Ok. So, look.

Being an artificer doesn't matter, at all. Regardless of them knowing the spell as an artificer, if the wizard wants to scribe a wizard spell into their book and they pay the cost, they can. The wizard part of this character can scribe spells from the wizard list. It still takes 2 hours and 50gp for Absorb Elements. That's the "research" necessary to do so. It doesn't matter if the wizard "researched" the spell from another spellbook, from watching another caster, reading a scroll, or knowing it from another class.

If a wizard spends the time and money, they scribe the spell. Those are the only rules applicable. Don't make up silly rules to punish multiclass characters, who are already weaker than their soloclassed counterparts.

[Keltest]

Ok. So, look.

Being an artificer doesn't matter, at all. Regardless of them knowing the spell as an artificer, if the wizard wants to scribe a wizard spell into their book and they pay the cost, they can. The wizard part of this character can scribe spells from the wizard list. It still takes 2 hours and 50gp for Absorb Elements. That's the "research" necessary to do so. It doesn't matter if the wizard "researched" the spell from another spellbook, from watching another caster, reading a scroll, or knowing it from another class.

If a wizard spends the time and money, they scribe the spell. Those are the only rules applicable. Don't make up silly rules to punish multiclass characters, who are already weaker than their soloclassed counterparts.

Heres the thing. If they dont have it in scroll form, it isnt a wizard spell. Period. Its an artificer spell. They know it as an artificer spell, they cast it as an artificer spell, its an artificer spell. And since it's an artificer spell for them, its not a wizard spell, ergo they cant copy it.

And it does in fact matter where theyre getting the wizard spell from, because that affects the time and cost to scribe the spell, so that distinction is already in the rules.

[Yakk]

Ok. So, look.

Being an artificer doesn't matter, at all. Regardless of them knowing the spell as an artificer, if the wizard wants to scribe a wizard spell into their book and they pay the cost, they can. The wizard part of this character can scribe spells from the wizard list. It still takes 2 hours and 50gp for Absorb Elements. That's the "research" necessary to do so. It doesn't matter if the wizard "researched" the spell from another spellbook, from watching another caster, reading a scroll, or knowing it from another class.

If a wizard spends the time and money, they scribe the spell. Those are the only rules applicable. Don't make up silly rules to punish multiclass characters, who are already weaker than their soloclassed counterparts.

Wait, why do you think a wizard can copy a cleric casting absorb elements?



Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a spell level you can prepare and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.

Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.

For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.
The rules repeatedly talk about "finding a wizard spell", "the wizard who wrote it", "deciphering the notation", etc.

There is nothing in these rules that even vaguely imply that you can watch a cleric, using divine magic, cast a spell that is also a wizard spell, then write it down in their spellbook. And a lot that implies you cannot; there is no "wizard who wrote it" here, and there was no "wizard spell of 1st level or higher" that was "found" (which implies finding an object in this context).

...

I mean, nothing goes super wrong if you allow wizards to scribe spells from other classes, but it isn't what the rules are saying in the scribe spells rule.

[Burley]

Wait, why do you think a wizard can copy a cleric casting absorb elements?
Because Absorb Elements is ONE spell that lives on multiple spell lists. There aren't separate entries for the spells per class; it's the same spell, available to the different classes.




The rules repeatedly talk about "finding a wizard spell", "the wizard who wrote it", "deciphering the notation", etc.

There is nothing in these rules that even vaguely imply that you can watch a cleric, using divine magic, cast a spell that is also a wizard spell, then write it down in their spellbook. And a lot that implies you cannot; there is no "wizard who wrote it" here, and there was no "wizard spell of 1st level or higher" that was "found" (which implies finding an object in this context).

...

I mean, nothing goes super wrong if you allow wizards to scribe spells from other classes, but it isn't what the rules are saying in the scribe spells rule.
I think they refer to all the wizard stuff because class entries don't reference other classes. Ever, maybe?
Could I learn a spell by watching another wizard? Or, only if I can read her spellbook?

So, what about the two spells you get for free each level? The spells you don't have to research or pay gold for? Do I still need to pull them from another book or scroll, but I can just scribe them for free?
Obviously not, right? Because of the research you're conducting throughout your previous level. I can watch the Storm Cleric casting Thunderwave and say "Oh, I want Thunderwave, too."

Why can't you spend the research time (2hours per level) watching how another person casts the spell and then scribe it? It's a spell that is on both of your lists, not two different spells. The source of power may be different, but it's still the same spell, with same somatic, verbal and material components. Why must it be read in a book, but never watching the practical use of the spell? Why can't research be practical? If Wizards can only learn from books, they'd never adventure. They'd just go from library to library.

[Yakk]

I think they refer to all the wizard stuff because class entries don't reference other classes. Ever, maybe?
Could I learn a spell by watching another wizard? Or, only if I can read her spellbook?
Yes, you must have access to the spell written down.

So, what about the two spells you get for free each level? The spells you don't have to research or pay gold for? Do I still need to pull them from another book or scroll, but I can just scribe them for free?
Obviously not, right? Because of the research you're conducting throughout your previous level. I can watch the Storm Cleric casting Thunderwave and say "Oh, I want Thunderwave, too."
No, those do not require the research.

"The spells that you add to your spellbook as you gain levels reflect the arcane research you conduct on your own, as well as intellectual breakthroughs you have had about the nature of the multiverse. "


Why can't you spend the research time (2hours per level) watching how another person casts the spell and then scribe it? It's a spell that is on both of your lists, not two different spells. The source of power may be different, but it's still the same spell, with same somatic, verbal and material components. Why must it be read in a book, but never watching the practical use of the spell? Why can't research be practical? If Wizards can only learn from books, they'd never adventure. They'd just go from library to library.
Are you unclear what the rules say?

Or are you objecting to the rules?

You are free to learn absorb elements as one of the 2 spells you gain when you level up and explain it as watching the cleric cast it. But the cleric casting it was not instrumental to you learning that spell.

I mentioned you are free to ignore the rules here, and nothing really horrible would happen. Wizards 2 spells/level is enough for an optimizer to have a really wide selection of spells, more than enough to have prepared for most situations. So the balance impact of access to more spells is not that big.

But the rules are really clear that it must be a wizard spell, written down, that you copy. And that copying a scroll is different than copying from another wizards spellbook.

And nothing whatsoever in any of the wizard spell rules references copying by watching someone cast a spell.

I mean, feel free to let that happen.

[Mastikator]

Ok. So, look.

Being an artificer doesn't matter, at all. Regardless of them knowing the spell as an artificer, if the wizard wants to scribe a wizard spell into their book and they pay the cost, they can. The wizard part of this character can scribe spells from the wizard list. It still takes 2 hours and 50gp for Absorb Elements. That's the "research" necessary to do so. It doesn't matter if the wizard "researched" the spell from another spellbook, from watching another caster, reading a scroll, or knowing it from another class.

If a wizard spends the time and money, they scribe the spell. Those are the only rules applicable. Don't make up silly rules to punish multiclass characters, who are already weaker than their soloclassed counterparts.
The rules explicitly say you need to have the spell, that is actually the big requirement. The wizard doesn't have the artificer's spells just because he's buddy with the artificer. It gives scrolls and other wizard's spellbooks as examples. It does not give a sorcerer knowing a spell as an example.
It has never been the case that a sorcerer can teach a wizard a spell

[sambojin]

Just saying "no" also stops stuff like ritual hording.

Say you never learnt Detect Magic as a wizard, never found a scroll of it, or anything like that. Then you multiclassed with one level of Druid. One day (and only one), you prepare Detect Magic as a part of your Druid allotment, scribe a scroll/ put it into your wizard book, and now you can cast it as a ritual for free forevermore. You'll never have to prepare it as part of either a class again.

Since wizards really don't need the help when it comes to spell and ritual diversity, I wouldn't give it to them.

[Silpharon]

Just saying "no" also stops stuff like ritual hording.

Say you never learnt Detect Magic as a wizard, never found a scroll of it, or anything like that. Then you multiclassed with one level of Druid. One day (and only one), you prepare Detect Magic as a part of your Druid allotment, scribe a scroll/ put it into your wizard book, and now you can cast it as a ritual for free forevermore. You'll never have to prepare it as part of either a class again.

Since wizards really don't need the help when it comes to spell and ritual diversity, I wouldn't give it to them.
On the flip side, if that druid was a different PC, it sure seems useful for the wizard to learn detect magic so that the druid could prepare other higher level spells.

I would think a ritual hording wizard is quite useful for the other people in the party.

[Psyren]

I would definitely require them to make a scroll and then scribe it into the book. The spell being in the book is an advantage (for rituals etc) and Wizards don't need the help of having no cost to doing so.

[Burley]

So, I haven't changed my mind, but I think I want to revise my argument:

I think the Wizard should be allowed to scribe the spell into their book without a scroll because they already know the spell. Spells don't have one "class tag" at a time. A spell exists and it can be on multiple spell lists. If I open the spell in D&DB, or turn to the page in the PHB, there isn't an Absorb Elements entry for each class. It's one spell that has multiple class tags attached.
So, I think the argument that there needs to be a scroll to remove the class tag is backwards: The spell has both class tags, as well as three others.

The artificer spell list isn't that big and I don't think that being able to scribe the shared spells is game breaking or even game damaging. It gives you access to a more spells for your spellbook, but it doesn't let you prepare or cast more spells per day. Really, it's more like "I can prepare a few more Artificer spells per day, by not preparing my (arguably better) Wizard spells." You still need to spend time and resources to scribe them, spellbooks still have a page limit, it's mostly utility spells and the action economy isn't affected.

All on top of being a whole spell level behind a single classed caster.

[Dork_Forge]

So, I haven't changed my mind, but I think I want to revise my argument:

I think the Wizard should be allowed to scribe the spell into their book without a scroll because they already know the spell. Spells don't have one "class tag" at a time. A spell exists and it can be on multiple spell lists. If I open the spell in D&DB, or turn to the page in the PHB, there isn't an Absorb Elements entry for each class. It's one spell that has multiple class tags attached.
So, I think the argument that there needs to be a scroll to remove the class tag is backwards: The spell has both class tags, as well as three others.

Pointing out that irl systems aren't extremely redundant doesn't help your in-game rules argument.

You can know the same spell, from multiple sources, they will have different class tags.

This is important, this is a point of balance. This prevents, or at least makes more difficult, to have spells interact with features they were never intended to interact with.



The artificer spell list isn't that big and I don't think that being able to scribe the shared spells is game breaking or even game damaging. It gives you access to a more spells for your spellbook, but it doesn't let you prepare or cast more spells per day. Really, it's more like "I can prepare a few more Artificer spells per day, by not preparing my (arguably better) Wizard spells." You still need to spend time and resources to scribe them, spellbooks still have a page limit, it's mostly utility spells and the action economy isn't affected.

All on top of being a whole spell level behind a single classed caster.

Why do you want to do this?

Because it benefits you.

It saves your character time and money, whilst freeing the Artificer prep spells to be used for spells the Wizard doesn't have access to.

You want this because it benefits your character, and you want to argue your way to that despite it being clearly pointed out to you there are mechanical reasons for this.

We aren't your DM. The thread agreeing with you doesn't make it happen in your game, unless you're seeking to gain support to show to your DM. You encountered resistance and didn't like, but you don't just want this 'because it makes sense,' you want this because it will benefit you compared to the RAW/RAI rules.

What you're advocating for is Wizard-relating power creep by literally changing the rules. That might be great for your game, but I don't think you'll find an abundance of support for it here.

[Burley]

Pointing out that irl systems aren't extremely redundant doesn't help your in-game rules argument.

You can know the same spell, from multiple sources, they will have different class tags.

This is important, this is a point of balance. This prevents, or at least makes more difficult, to have spells interact with features they were never intended to interact with.




Why do you want to do this?

Because it benefits you.

It saves your character time and money, whilst freeing the Artificer prep spells to be used for spells the Wizard doesn't have access to.

You want this because it benefits your character, and you want to argue your way to that despite it being clearly pointed out to you there are mechanical reasons for this.

We aren't your DM. The thread agreeing with you doesn't make it happen in your game, unless you're seeking to gain support to show to your DM. You encountered resistance and didn't like, but you don't just want this 'because it makes sense,' you want this because it will benefit you compared to the RAW/RAI rules.

What you're advocating for is Wizard-relating power creep by literally changing the rules. That might be great for your game, but I don't think you'll find an abundance of support for it here.

Hey, so, can you calm down? You're assuming A LOT of me here and it feels aggressive. It's not even my thread, dude.

Point to the rule that says I can't, rather than the fluff that doesn't say I can't, and I'll stop arguing.

[Keltest]

Hey, so, can you calm down? You're assuming A LOT of me here and it feels aggressive. It's not even my thread, dude.

Point to the rule that says I can't, rather than the fluff that doesn't say I can't, and I'll stop arguing.

Well, I brought up the Bard example earlier. Characters learn spells as class-specific spells, even when they overlap with another class' list. Among other things, this determines the stat they use for casting the spell. When a Bard learns a spell via Magical Secrets, it becomes a Bard spell for them even if it isnt normally. Its also important among multiclassed prepared casters because learning it as one spell versus the other affects the number of spells from each class you can prepare, even if they use the same casting stat like ranger/cleric. And speaking of Clerics, domain spells are another good example. The Arcana domain in particular pulls spells from the cleric spell list and turns them into Cleric spells, not Wizard spells.

[Psyren]

Point to the rule that says I can't, rather than the fluff that doesn't say I can't, and I'll stop arguing.

"The rules don't say I can't" is typically seen as a weak justification for being able to do something.

What the rules do say is that wizards add spells to their book from three sources - gaining levels in the wizard class, spell scrolls, or another written source like another wizard's spellbook. There is no provision for being able to add spells to their spellbooks directly via multiclassing, even if you're multiclassing into something that shares spells in common with wizards on their list.

You might be able to finagle something using the "replace a lost spellbook" rules though.

[Burley]

Well, I brought up the Bard example earlier. Characters learn spells as class-specific spells, even when they overlap with another class' list. Among other things, this determines the stat they use for casting the spell. When a Bard learns a spell via Magical Secrets, it becomes a Bard spell for them even if it isnt normally. Its also important among multiclassed prepared casters because learning it as one spell versus the other affects the number of spells from each class you can prepare, even if they use the same casting stat like ranger/cleric. And speaking of Clerics, domain spells are another good example. The Arcana domain in particular pulls spells from the cleric spell list and turns them into Cleric spells, not Wizard spells.

I guess my counter to that would be referencing Wizard/Warlock spell interactions. I can cast a prepared Wizard spell using my Warlock slot, but I'd have to use my Cha-based save DC/attack bonuses. So, I think class dependent stats and effects are tied to the spell SLOT, not the spell. The artificer/wizard could still not prepare a non-wizard spell into their wizard slots, nor could they prepare any wizard spell (even if they know it as an artificer) unless it is prepare from their spellbook.
The Arcane Cleric you mention gets spells added to their spell list, but those spells are also on the Wizard spell list. So, if I learn the spell as a Cleric, I'm "finding a wizard spell" that I can spend GP/time to put in my spell book.

And, if the argument is still "spells are one class at a time," then why would a scroll remove the tag? In the Absorb Elements Artificer/Wizard example, wouldn't the Artificer's scroll still be the Artificer-only version of the spell, rather than having all 5 class tags on it? If it can be written down as a tag-less spell, why not written directly into the spellbook with no tag?
Actually, looking at the entry for Spell Scrolls: "If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible." So, here, we're seeing that spells, regardless of who scribed them, are usable by any class whose list contains that spell. So, scrolls aren't tagless, they are tagfull.

Also, I just found this line: "A wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied just as spells in spellbooks can be copied. When a spell is copied from a spell scroll, the copier must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the spell's level. If the check succeeds, the spell is successfully copied. Whether the check succeeds or fails, the spell scroll is destroyed."
So, by with my opposition's ruling, if ArtiWizarficer knows the spell, they must spend time and resources (16 hours and 25gp) to write it down on a scroll that anybody can read, then they must succeed on an (luck dependent) Arcana check to decipher their own spell, spending time and resources again (2hrs and 50gp per spell level), or lose the scroll. Restarting a MINIMUM 18 hour and 75gp process, just to prepare Absorb Elements into a different spell slot.

Dark_Forge's accusation that I'm seeking power-creep by changing rules is facile. Not only am I not changing rules (because there's no actual rule on this, hence the discussion), I'm pointing toward the logical absurdity of this middle step that is a drain on resources and time to keep a wizard from having more 1st level spells. The most min-maxed thing in the ArtWiz combo would be a handful of level 3 spells? Maybe 4th level spells if you're a 20th level character (Art13/Wiz7) now maxing out at one 4th level slot from each class. Rather than 9th level Wizard spells. :sigh:

In my opinion, the power-creep doesn't exist here. It's a severely weaker character. Forcing this scrolling step to keep the wizard from being too powerful? C'mon, be real. It seems like a reactionary judgement to hamper the Wizard's versatility based on the notion that Wizards are too strong because their defining class feature is versatility.


"The rules don't say I can't" is typically seen as a weak justification for being able to do something.
I wasn't trying to make that justification. I was refuting the accusation that I was changing the rules by asking to be pointed to the rule I was changing.
And, I saw the "Replacing the Book" bit, but I'm already being accused of powercreep and that bit would actually make my way cheaper.

[Keltest]

I guess my counter to that would be referencing Wizard/Warlock spell interactions. I can cast a prepared Wizard spell using my Warlock slot, but I'd have to use my Cha-based save DC/attack bonuses.

I dont believe this is correct, actually. If you cast a wizard spell with a warlock spell slot, you cast it at the level of the spell slot, but you still use your wizard spellcasting bonuses/DCs.

[Psyren]

I dont believe this is correct, actually. If you cast a wizard spell with a warlock spell slot, you cast it at the level of the spell slot, but you still use your wizard spellcasting bonuses/DCs.

This is correct:

"Each spell you know and prepare is associated with one of your classes, and you use the spellcasting ability of that class when you cast the spell. Similarly, a spellcasting focus such as a holy symbol can be used only for the spells from the class associated with that focus."

[Burley]

I dont believe this is correct, actually. If you cast a wizard spell with a warlock spell slot, you cast it at the level of the spell slot, but you still use your wizard spellcasting bonuses/DCs.

Not that D&DB is the end-all-be-all, but I think that's how it worked when I clicked the buttons on my character. I'll fiddle around, though. I'll admit I could be wrong here, but I don't think that weakens the rest of my argument.
Edit: Psyren, you got me.

[Dork_Forge]

Hey, so, can you calm down? You're assuming A LOT of me here and it feels aggressive. It's not even my thread, dude.

Point to the rule that says I can't, rather than the fluff that doesn't say I can't, and I'll stop arguing.

Who the OP is is irrelevant, I quoted you because I was replying to you.

And regardless how my post clearly came across to you I'm not angry or anything else towards you, I use short clipped statements to emphasise a point, not to express emotion that I didn't have.

And the burden here is not on the people saying you can't, it's on you, the one that seems to think they can. The Wizard's entry tells you how you can add to your book outside of level up, and it's 'finding spells' with the examples being a scroll and a 'duty tome.' You are attempting to extend logic to extrapolate the effects of multiclassing.

When the game tells you what you can do, tacking on what you may think to be sound logic to get to a result you want outside of what the rules says is not a recipe for RAW/RAI. but let's address your concerns and what you've labeled as facile, shall we?


I guess my counter to that would be referencing Wizard/Warlock spell interactions. I can cast a prepared Wizard spell using my Warlock slot, but I'd have to use my Cha-based save DC/attack bonuses. So, I think class dependent stats and effects are tied to the spell SLOT, not the spell. The artificer/wizard could still not prepare a non-wizard spell into their wizard slots, nor could they prepare any wizard spell (even if they know it as an artificer) unless it is prepare from their spellbook.

This has already been shown to be a fundamental misunderstanding of spellcasting.


The Arcane Cleric you mention gets spells added to their spell list, but those spells are also on the Wizard spell list. So, if I learn the spell as a Cleric, I'm "finding a wizard spell" that I can spend GP/time to put in my spell book.

You are getting spells from the Wizard list. Here's something you're skirting around. The Arcana Cleric, Bard, and all examples of class/subclasses that hand you cross list spells explicitly call out that they are making those spells X spells, where X is your actual class. Class tags are how we explain it, because it makes sense, but it is a very real aspect of the game that is evident any time the game crosses the lists.

When you multiclass you have to cast with whatever the DC and stat of where you learned it is, because when you multiclass you treat spells you learn/prepare as if you were single-classed in that class.

Here is where you are falling into a another fundamental understanding, you are regarding 'Wizard spell' as a spell from the Wizard's spell list. If that is what the game meant it would say that. I'm going to assume you'll want an example, so look at the Divine Soul Sorcerer:

'Your link to the divine allows you to learn spells from the cleric class. When your Spellcasting feature lets you learn or replace a sorcerer cantrip or a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher, you choose the new spell from the cleric spell list or the sorcerer spell list. You must otherwise obey all the restrictions for selecting the spell, and it becomes a sorcerer spell for you.'

It explicitly refers to the list. It doesn't just say you learn 'cleric spells' and leave it there, the closest it gets is at the beginning, which is typically where WotC shoves flavorful descriptions before more specific rules text.

Why does it say Sorcerer spell? Because that matters.

If you were a Red Dragon Sorcerer and you took a level in Wizard to learn Burning Hands, would you assume your Elemental Affinity feature would apply? Even though the spell is on both classes' spell lists?


And, if the argument is still "spells are one class at a time," then why would a scroll remove the tag? In the Absorb Elements Artificer/Wizard example, wouldn't the Artificer's scroll still be the Artificer-only version of the spell, rather than having all 5 class tags on it? If it can be written down as a tag-less spell, why not written directly into the spellbook with no tag?
Actually, looking at the entry for Spell Scrolls: "If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible." So, here, we're seeing that spells, regardless of who scribed them, are usable by any class whose list contains that spell. So, scrolls aren't tagless, they are tagfull.

It's about how you learned the spell that gives it a tag. If you've created a scroll, then it exists outside of your character, it is the spell in isolation, and if you want to you can then learn that spell in a different manner to accommodate your multiclass.

If you want a fluffy way of thinking about this, or just a different way to understand it: As an Artificer you understand it as casting the spell through method X, when you scribe a scroll you do it in method Y, and a Wizard must understand that fully and recode it into method Z in order to put it in there book.

There is a big difference between being able to cast a spell once through a magic item and actually learning that spell and being able to cast it with your own slots. It's kind of like saying you know how to speak French because you can use a translator app. That doesn't mean you actually know how the French language works and can deploy it independently of your aid.


Also, I just found this line: "A wizard spell on a spell scroll can be copied just as spells in spellbooks can be copied. When a spell is copied from a spell scroll, the copier must succeed on an Intelligence (Arcana) check with a DC equal to 10 + the spell's level. If the check succeeds, the spell is successfully copied. Whether the check succeeds or fails, the spell scroll is destroyed."
So, by with my opposition's ruling, if ArtiWizarficer knows the spell, they must spend time and resources (16 hours and 25gp) to write it down on a scroll that anybody can read, then they must succeed on an (luck dependent) Arcana check to decipher their own spell, spending time and resources again (2hrs and 50gp per spell level), or lose the scroll. Restarting a MINIMUM 18 hour and 75gp process, just to prepare Absorb Elements into a different spell slot.

I bolded that part because it's important, I'm not sure if that's you explaining what you mean muddily, or if it relates to your misunderstanding with spells being tied to slots, not how you learned them. In case it's the former:

Yes, that's how that works, you need to make a check because you're copying it from a single use item, a volatile disposable source, rather than something more stable like another Wizard's spellbook.

You treat this as ridiculous, but it's part of the game's balance. There are very, very real benefits to just being able to scribe directly. This MC would already allow you to cast Absorb Elements, wanting to do so as a Wizard spell is seeking to bend that balance and increase the power of the MC.


Dork_Forge's accusation that I'm seeking power-creep by changing rules is facile. Not only am I not changing rules (because there's no actual rule on this, hence the discussion), I'm pointing toward the logical absurdity of this middle step that is a drain on resources and time to keep a wizard from having more 1st level spells. The most min-maxed thing in the ArtWiz combo would be a handful of level 3 spells? Maybe 4th level spells if you're a 20th level character (Art13/Wiz7) now maxing out at one 4th level slot from each class. Rather than 9th level Wizard spells. :sigh:

In my opinion, the power-creep doesn't exist here. It's a severely weaker character. Forcing this scrolling step to keep the wizard from being too powerful? C'mon, be real. It seems like a reactionary judgement to hamper the Wizard's versatility based on the notion that Wizards are too strong because their defining class feature is versatility.


I wasn't trying to make that justification. I was refuting the accusation that I was changing the rules by asking to be pointed to the rule I was changing.
And, I saw the "Replacing the Book" bit, but I'm already being accused of powercreep and that bit would actually make my way cheaper.

I took the liberty of editing your quote to correct the spelling of my username.

What you want to do is not how the game works, there is a consensus on that in this thread. The game is not super clear on how it delivers the rules sometimes, so multiple members have tried to point out that what you want is very much against how the rules work, and in addition, not how they're intended to work.

You see it as illogical because you're only thinking of it as 'my character already knows this spell' with no thought for in universe differences for how the same spell is cast differently by different casters. This MC is the starkest example:

Knowing how to craft a wrist-mounted, spring-loaded energy shield out of spare parts doesn't teach you how to create the same effect by extorting arcane forces and bending the Weave to your whim.

One more analogy just in case it avoids any more of this:

A speakeasy can have different passwords depending on a person's profession. All passwords open the door, but learning one from your lawyer colleagues doesn't automatically tell you the password your college alumni use. You could find that password out, you are alumni after all, but you'd have to put the effort in to find out (learn that spell as Wizard).

Now, let's address the fallacy this isn't powercreep:

The Wizard's thing is spell versatility. That does not entitle them to learning spells from other classes in ways the book does not give them.

Doing it this way makes it quicker, cheaper, and more reliable to convert spells. This allows them to work with any relevant class features, such as ritual casting without preparing, but it also frees up your Artificer half to prepare spells that the Wizard wouldn't get the opportunity to learn, like Sanctuary.

Just because your opinion of the multiclass is low, though I'm not sure why, it's a potent one, doesn't change the fact that increasing power (particularly for no good mechanical reason) is power creep. Power creep that Wizard of all classes certainly doesn't need.

Edit: Oh, and your post comes across as if the only thing to optimizing this MC is spells. A Wizard gains a lot from MCing into Artificer besides spells, something you should consider when wanting to change things.

[Burley]

Thanks, Dork. I guess I'm wrong.

Another great conversation in the books.

[Monster Manuel]

I think the strongest argument for this kind of thing working is in the description of "Replacing your spellbook". It says: "If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook". It does not specifically say "the WIZARD spells you have prepared". So, the argument could go, since you have an ability, through multiclassing, to prepare spells from various class lists, any spell you have prepared could be copied into a "replacement" spellbook.

I don't think this argument actually flies, because it does dictate that it uses the SAME procedure as previously described, and that procedure was specifically for wizard spells. On top of that, there is still the stipulation that a multiclass character still prepares spells as a specific class, and they follow the rules for that class, and you can't scribe non-wizard spells into your spellbook. It's an interesting thought experiment, and frankly, it really doesn't break anything to allow it (I've done so in my games), but RAW I think it's a no.

[Silpharon]

I think the strongest argument for this kind of thing working is in the description of "Replacing your spellbook". It says: "If you lose your spellbook, you can use the same procedure to transcribe the spells that you have prepared into a new spellbook". It does not specifically say "the WIZARD spells you have prepared". So, the argument could go, since you have an ability, through multiclassing, to prepare spells from various class lists, any spell you have prepared could be copied into a "replacement" spellbook.

I don't think this argument actually flies, because it does dictate that it uses the SAME procedure as previously described, and that procedure was specifically for wizard spells. On top of that, there is still the stipulation that a multiclass character still prepares spells as a specific class, and they follow the rules for that class, and you can't scribe non-wizard spells into your spellbook. It's an interesting thought experiment, and frankly, it really doesn't break anything to allow it (I've done so in my games), but RAW I think it's a no.

Yeah, that line the RAI is pretty clearly "the wizard spells that you have prepared". And if you were trying to go RAW, you'd have to lose your spellbook before attempting this procedure. :)

I'm settled on this not being RAW/RAI, but that DM sentiment may lead to reduced time and/or cost. I'd likely reduce time primarily, as I think spell scroll creation time is a bit too high to begin with and in this case the spell scroll needs only to be read by the author. I liken this to scratch notes before copying the spell into the spellbook.

[diplomancer]

It's definitely not RAW or RAI, but it really doesn't break anything. You usually don't want to use your wizard preparation slots to prepare your Artificer spells; quite the contrary, one advantage of the multiclass is using your Artificer preparations to cover your first-level bases, freeing up more higher level Wizard preparation slots.

The one exception is rituals. Copying the first level Artificer ritual spells into your spellbook not only greatly expands your utility (which, to be fair, is more of a party wide benefit, so I'm personally fine with that), but also frees up your first 8 Wizard spells (from your Wizard 1 and 2 levels), so that you're not using any of those for Rituals, except those Rituals that are not Artificer spells (notably, Find Familiar). That's definitely an increase in the Wizard's power, but it's more relevant at tier 1 than later (as you won't be preparing many 1st level Wizard spells anyway, using your Artificer spells for those slots- except, naturally, for those clutch spells not in the Artificer list, like Shield), and I really don't think Wizards are overpowered in Tier 1.

[Tanarii]

Definitely need to make the scroll first.

That's translating it from an artificer known spell into the magic language of scrolls, which anyone with it on their spell list can read and cast. Which takes time and money.

Then they scribe it into their book as a Wizard spell, translating it into the wizard notes they need to prepare and cast it as a wizard spell. Which also takes time and money.

They can't just skip the first step, it's necessary before they can take the second. Known or prepared as a non-wizard spell that happens to be on the wizard spell list as well isn't the same thing as generic spell scroll castable by anyone with it on their spell list.