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

Quote Originally Posted by Anthrowhale View Post
I disagree here. My reading is that scroll-making rules implicitly expand the scope to allow prepared casters to make scrolls.

Still disagree, based on the wording of the text:

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

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

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

Quote Originally Posted by Anthrowhale View Post
I'm ambivalent here. It's not normal english to have 'another' refer to the first agent, but allowing that as a possibility when another refers to a role rather than a specific agent is allowable. "To fly the plane, you need a pilot and another acting as a navigator." Can the pilot act as a navigator? Maybe yes, if they have the additional skills/knowledge. Here, 'another' is referring to roles which could possibly be filled by the same agent.
I don't think I have ever heard 'another' used in this context, and it seems a bit tortured to me. Do you have any good examples?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote Originally Posted by Anthrowhale View Post
I'm not sure what to think. Spells are often as-written broken. Consider False Vision which is a 40' radius emanation with range touch. Since range constrains area of effect that's pretty broken. My best guess would be that when said 'know' they really meant 'know or prepared' as I'm currently understanding scribe scroll.
I accept that spells can be poorly worded, but doesn't the same also apply to abilities? Setting aside our academic discussion about whether Divine casters can 'know' spells (which is still a useful discussion), isn't it reasonable to assume the drafters of the Hathran class intended Rashemi Spirit Magic to be able to be used by a pure Cleric that entered the class?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote Originally Posted by Anthrowhale View Post
The 3.0 Hathran suggests that 'arcane spell she knows' and 'divine spell on her spell list' can not be consolidated as 'spell she knows' (inline with my understanding).
However, it makes it clear that the intent was allowing any divine spell on list (inline with your? understanding).
Agree on the first limb above, though it could just be clumsy wording. For example, the intention could be that:

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

On the second limb, I think we both agree?

Quote Originally Posted by Anthrowhale View Post
However2, the rules for "Place Magic" and "Rashemi Spirit Magic" in the 3.5 Hathran incarnation are clearly contradictory, since "Rashemi Spirit Magic" says: "...even if it is not on the same spell list as the substituted one." while 3.0-3.25 "Place Magic" only allows spontaneous casting within type (arcane or divine).
I don't disagree with the underlined, but I do think it is irrelevant. The Durthan (3.25) description of Place Magic provides:

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

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