RAW Sorcerer hack for spells known.

[Doc Roc]

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.p...&postcount=279
Cross-posting here for some more lively discussion. I'm curious. It's clear that a spellbook you happen to own counts as your spellbook, and getting the spell on your known list as a sorcerer is legal and doable, just a little difficult. Opinions on breadth of viability and degree of lulz?

Clarifications:

Rather than be opaque, let me explain the two leading ways of getting this spell on your list.

1. Recaster: This prestige lets you pick up two spells of any flavor. Period. It's also a great PrC.
2. Drakehelms: Again, spells of any flavor. No loss of caster level, and fun-happy times. Very expensive, slightly obscure splat, limited to four spells at any time added to your list.

Next:
Spellbooks can at least be carried around by sorcerers. In fact, nothing suggests you can't actually scribe your spells to paper just to keep them around. It's a fairly famous trick used by many-many sorcerers. There are some differences between having a spell book and it being a spellbook you made, but it's not clear by RAW that they are actually significant in terms of if a spellbook you're holding counts as yours. I like to imagine that the english language and the precedent of general-over-specific trumps here.


Also:
Two-dip geometer to get the book of geometry ability, but will require a particular take of Arcane Preparation.

Finally:
Mastering a Foreign Spellbook, comp arcane pg 140
Instead of laboriously copying each spell of interest from a found spellbook into his own, a wizard might instead make a dedicated effort to master the spellbook’s particular ciphers and notations. This procedure is sometimes referred to as becoming attuned to the spellbook (although it’s a matter of time and study, not a mystical process). Mastering a spellbook requires a successful Spellcraft check (DC 25 + the level of the highest-level spell in the book) and takes one week plus one day per spell contained within. If the wizard succeeds, he can use the foreign spellbook as his own, requiring no further Spellcraft checks to prepare or copy spells from it. If he fails, he cannot attempt to master that spellbook again until he gains at least 1 more rank in Spellcraft.




Next:
The general understanding that I operate off of, and the general precedent is that while getting this spell is going to be troublesome, the phrase wizard spells refers to anything on the wizard spell-list.

[Goatman_Ted]

...getting the spell on your known list as a sorcerer is legal and doable, just a little difficult.

Care to elaborate?

[ZeroNumerous]

Recaster. Chameleon. Etc.

Just some prepared spellcaster who happens to be able to learn spells from scrolls.

[Doc Roc]

Recaster, for example, will work perfectly well. A couple of other methods exist, such as drake helms, but mostly they've slipped my mind.

[Goatman_Ted]

Oh, right. I was thinking Recaster was Transmutations only, for some reason.

Aside from shenanigans with a stolen Archivist's spellbook, I'm not seeing this being so incredible.

I guess it makes the Sorcerer a little less gimped compared to every other core caster, but it still looks abusive.


edit: Where are Drake Helms? A search through the MIC's turning up nothing.
If there's a way to get this spell without losing caster levels, it's probably a solid bet.

Without that, I'm not so sure. A casting-focused Sublime Chord is the only place I'd consider it a sure deal.

[Doc Roc]

Sorcerers are actually pretty even, in general, with their more classically inclined counter-parts if you allow a fair spread of books.

At least this is the standing opinion on Gleemax. They suffer some compared to wizards, though not much.

Drake Helms are from the Explorer's handbook. A familiar name was involved in it. :)

[Goatman_Ted]

Sorcerers are actually pretty even, in general, with their more classically inclined counter-parts if you allow a fair spread of books.

Fair enough, but the ways I see them matching Wizards (Summons, Planar Bindings, Shadow spells, Polymorph effects) essentially give them this ability at lower action cost without the same questionable legality.

Each has problems of its own, but I assume a Sorcerer using them is making at least a basic effort to do so well.

Drake Helms are from the Explorer's handbook. A familiar name was involved in it. :)

Thanks, I'll look into those.

edit:
Neat. Without losing caster levels, this is definitely a good find.

[Doc Roc]

One other way they match up is that they now can use quickened spells, celerity AND a crucial line (well, pair) of sorcerer-only spells called Arcane fusion, which allow them to break action economy. And in highly optimized play, a big limiter is how much you can do per turn. There's a few other similar spells, like arcane spell-surge, which are basically money in the bank. Those three are the biggies though, off the top of my head.

Remember, while this is a hack of sorts, it's only abusive if people get hurt in the process, by which I mean that this is just another tool for building towards the power level of your group. If it would push you way past it, don't use it.

Why do I consider it okay?
It's basically MotAO in a carry-away bag, since you can do these swap shenanigans the day before. That's really very good, but not overwhelming. After all, the GM controls what precisely you can get into that pretty little spellbook the hack relies on. There's a lot of opportunity for control and moderation here, as well as a large chance for Right Action. I consider this a win.

[Goatman_Ted]

Why do I consider it okay?
It's basically MotAO in a carry-away bag, since you can do these swap shenanigans the day before. That's really very good, but not overwhelming. After all, the GM controls what precisely you can get into that pretty little spellbook the hack relies on. There's a lot of opportunity for control and moderation here, as well as a large chance for Right Action. I consider this a win.

My apprehension isn't about it being overpowered; the Archivist, Cleric, Druid and Wizard were doing this since they came out.
It's the way different groups will interpret the terms "Wizard spells" and "your Spellbook."
I don't expect universal acceptance with this and, while definitely a nice effect to have, I didn't think it was worth an Expanded Knowledge slot.

But looking up the Drake Helms, I can see the appeal.

[Doc Roc]

Wizard spells means any spell that is on the wizard list. Which is... Good.

[olentu]

Well since I can not remember the term your spellbook being defined anywhere I would say that unless a definition can be provided it appears that the legality of this trick depends on the DM of the particular game.


However if I had to rule on this as a DM I would say that it does not work. This passage from the SRD is what influenced me to say it does not work

"Wizard Spells and Borrowed Spellbooks
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.)"

While it does not define what "your spellbook" is it seems to say that there is a difference between a wizards own spellbook and a spellbook that the wizard owns.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Wizard spells means any spell that is on the wizard list. Which is... Good.

Only if you are a Wizard. Since it isn't a Sorcerer spell, it isn't on the Sorcerer spell's list. Furthermore:

Rary's arcane conversion allows you to
exchange a prepared wizard spell for
another spell of equal or lower level.

bolded for emphasis.

You aren't a wizard. You don't have wizard spells, you have sorcerer spells. Most of which happen to also be wizard spells, and vice versa, which is why they generally use the same list.

I wouldn't allow it, simply due to extreme abusability. Heighten Spell + this = every spell in the game.

Furthermore:

Sorcerers and bards cast arcane spells, but they do not have spellbooks and do not prepare their spells.

. The feat Arcane Preparation allows them to prepare spells, but does not let them have a spellbook.

double-furthermore:

Adding Spells to a Sorcerer’s or Bard’s Repertoire

A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time he attains a new level in his class and never gains spells any other way.

[Doc Roc]

I believe that a sorcerer can in fact keep his own spell-book, he just doesn't need to. Can someone check this? I can never find the stuff on this in the SRD.

[Doc Roc]

Only if you are a Wizard. Since it isn't a Sorcerer spell, it isn't on the Sorcerer spell's list.

Um, we just went over how you would get this. I'll clarify the OP so that it's more visible.

My comment referred to the phrase "any wizard spell" which you bolded, not the list the spell was on.
Classically, spells count as the type they began as, changing only when explicitly noted.

EG: Prestige paladin lets you cast paladin spells. They remain paladin spells even if you are not a paladin. This is, in any case, the going consensus.

Likewise, spells cast by an archivist from the adept list are still adept spells.

[Chronos]

OK, so we're supposed to be looking at something about this Rary's Arcane Conversion spell. What? What's the trick here supposed to be? Really all this amounts to, so far as I can tell, is that a sorcerer with the Arcane Preparation feat and some sort of gimmick to get a wizard-only spell can use that spell to get some other spell. You're basically doing the same thing a wizard does, except you needed to spend two feats to do it, and it costs you two spell slots to cast every spell you use this trick on.

[Doc Roc]

Yes. It's really not that powerful. It's just a way to get at some other spells that you might need without having to be a MotAO.

[olentu]

Furthermore:

Quote:
Sorcerers and bards cast arcane spells, but they do not have spellbooks and do not prepare their spells.

Well apparently I should have kept reading as I would say that is a better supporting quotation then mine.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

OK, so we're supposed to be looking at something about this Rary's Arcane Conversion spell. What? What's the trick here supposed to be? Really all this amounts to, so far as I can tell, is that a sorcerer with the Arcane Preparation feat and some sort of gimmick to get a wizard-only spell can use that spell to get some other spell. You're basically doing the same thing a wizard does, except you needed to spend two feats to do it, and it costs you two spell slots to cast every spell you use this trick on.

Basically, he's cheezing using this spell as a sorcerer to cast any spell in the game.

He knows this spell, which can be turned into any other spell. Not simulated, as with the Shadow Gnome, ANY SPELL. EVER. Duplicated. So all he has to do is 'prepare' NOTHING but this spell (or heightened versions of this spell in higher level slots), and he is LITERALLY a Schrodinger Caster, able to cast any spell in existence of 6th level and above (theoretically, any spell below that as well, however that becomes extremely inefficient of spell slots). It completely removes the limited spells known restriction from the Sorcerer. You don't need any spells of 6th level and over anymore, this is all of them.

[Doc Roc]

Rather. It is powerful. Quite, in fact. It's just not monstrously so.

[Goatman_Ted]

He knows this spell, which can be turned into any other spell. Not simulated, as with the Shadow Gnome, ANY SPELL. EVER. Duplicated.

Except he'd never use this in combat, so it's effectively just like any other prepared caster.

[huttj509]

Um, it looks like that spell, when cast, allows you to change ANOTHER spell you have prepared to a THIRD spell that you could have prepared in its place.

Now, for a wizard, this lets them have a huge library, use a 6th level spell + another slot, and have that other slot be flexible based on what they have in their library.

For a sorcerer...huh?

[afroakuma]

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't let someone get away with it if I were DMing. I'd have to see the wording on every component, though.

[Doc Roc]

Yes, without some powerful mojo, this is not really a combat trick. And there are some other things I'd rather do with my mojo in combat. Like end combat.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Ahh, I found the limitation:

The replacement spell must be
one already scribed in your spellbook.

In other words, since Sorcerers don't have spellbooks (although, with the right feat, they can prepare spells they already know, metamagiced, to avoid extra time casting, just like Wizards can prepare spells from OTHER spellbooks, as long as it is scribed into THEIR spellbook), they cannot take advantage of this.

[Doc Roc]

If we're to be pedantic, it never says that you must be the one who scribed it, actually. As such, I recommend dominating a wizard, either by spell or with your 40 cha.

[Doc Roc]

Let me clarify that I am enjoying this debate, I just tend to be very sardonic.

[Goatman_Ted]

I guess my question is this: if you're going to do this, why be a Sorcerer in the first place?

You lose feats, delay spell advancement and since you're jumping through hoops to add spells from other classes anyway, why not just be a Wizard?
Even a Wyrm Wizard dip would leave you at same progression as the Sorcerer, but with more feats and a better casting stat.

...This is all unless you're primarily casting spontaneously anyway. And if that's the case, I'm not sure what the point of this spell is.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I guess my question is this: if you're going to do this, why be a Sorcerer in the first place?

You lose feats, delay spell advancement and since you're jumping through hoops to add spells from other classes anyway, why not just be a Wizard?
Even a Wyrm Wizard dip would leave you at same progression as the Sorcerer, but with more feats and a better casting stat.

...This is all unless you're primarily casting spontaneously anyway. And if that's the case, I'm not sure what the point of this spell is.

The point of the spell is to spontaneously cast any spell in the game. Unfortunately, it doesn't work, because you already have to have the spell scribed into your spellbook. Since you don't have a spellbook, as a sorcerer, it doesn't work.

[Doc Roc]

I guess my question is this: if you're going to do this, why be a Sorcerer in the first place?

You lose feats, delay spell advancement and since you're jumping through hoops to add spells from other classes anyway, why not just be a Wizard?
Even a Wyrm Wizard dip would leave you at same progression as the Sorcerer, but with more feats and a better casting stat.

...This is all unless you're primarily casting spontaneously anyway. And if that's the case, I'm not sure what the point of this spell is.

The point is that it'd be mighty nice, some days, to have that spell when you need it. A lot of characters I play are not combat-oriented. The other point is simply that I find it very interesting to dig up things like this. As for why a sorcerer, check out the guide this post was attached to. Sorcerers have a LOT going for them, in my opinion.

[Goatman_Ted]

The point of the spell is to spontaneously cast any spell in the game.

You realize the Sorcerer's casting two spells for every 1 that actually does something?

It's spontaneous casting, but it only pushes its caster ahead in a very particular semi-pressured circumstance (not enough pressure for blowing a spell action too be a significant loss, too much pressure for 15 minutes of spell prep to be viable and a situation where none of the Sorcerer's other spells -- almost certainly chosen for versatility -- to function).

And assuming one side of an unclear DM call (is a spellbook belonging to a Sorcerer the Sorcerer's spellbook?) to be the correct one without room for disagreement is a bit forward.

I can see it either way, even if I prefer to err on the conservative side of this kind of ruling.

The point is that it'd be mighty nice, some days, to have that spell when you need it. A lot of characters I play are not combat-oriented. The other point is simply that I find it very interesting to dig up things like this.

Oh, definitely. I can't disagree with you there.
It's not something I'd use and it's not something I'd consider a must-have, but I definitely see its merits.