PDA

View Full Version : RAW Sorcerer hack for spells known.



Doc Roc
2009-06-01, 09:07 PM
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18702511&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.


Recaster: This prestige lets you pick up two spells of any flavor. Period. It's also a great PrC.
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 spellbookís particular ciphers and notations. This procedure is sometimes referred to as becoming attuned to the spellbook (although itís 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
2009-06-01, 09:36 PM
...getting the spell on your known list as a sorcerer is legal and doable, just a little difficult.
Care to elaborate?

ZeroNumerous
2009-06-01, 09:38 PM
Recaster. Chameleon. Etc.

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

Doc Roc
2009-06-01, 09:38 PM
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
2009-06-01, 09:46 PM
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
2009-06-01, 10:00 PM
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
2009-06-01, 10:09 PM
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
2009-06-01, 10:20 PM
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
2009-06-01, 10:33 PM
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
2009-06-01, 11:17 PM
Wizard spells means any spell that is on the wizard list. Which is... Good.

olentu
2009-06-01, 11:21 PM
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 spellcasterís book is deciphered, the reader must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spellís 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
2009-06-01, 11:25 PM
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 Sorcererís or Bardís 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
2009-06-01, 11:26 PM
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
2009-06-01, 11:30 PM
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
2009-06-01, 11:31 PM
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
2009-06-01, 11:33 PM
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
2009-06-01, 11:34 PM
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
2009-06-01, 11:34 PM
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
2009-06-01, 11:37 PM
Rather. It is powerful. Quite, in fact. It's just not monstrously so.

Goatman_Ted
2009-06-01, 11:41 PM
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
2009-06-01, 11:42 PM
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
2009-06-01, 11:44 PM
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
2009-06-01, 11:45 PM
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
2009-06-01, 11:56 PM
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
2009-06-02, 12:01 AM
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
2009-06-02, 12:10 AM
Let me clarify that I am enjoying this debate, I just tend to be very sardonic.

Goatman_Ted
2009-06-02, 12:19 AM
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
2009-06-02, 12:24 AM
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
2009-06-02, 12:42 AM
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
2009-06-02, 01:16 AM
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.

Doc Roc
2009-06-02, 01:22 AM
:: nods :: Yes, I'm not sure I'd use it either, but I like having it there. Clever tricks are like guns. You hope you don't need them, but sometimes your characters carry them just in case. :)

That said, I think there's enough ways that a sorcerer could get a spell book in some fashion that I'm not going to consider that the primary stumbling block. The big issue is that you burn a spell slot or an action or eight hours of rest to restore your spell slots for the sake of subverting your limitations in a structurally questionable way. Better to just try and get wish as an SLA, and easier as well, if you seek the pure and practical optimum. The only way to cheat the system is the ever-questionable earth-spell\sanctum-spell\arcane-thesis+heighten unholy triumvirate or something of that nature.

First post has been editted with some more compelling in-favor-of material

Jack_Simth
2009-06-02, 06:44 AM
Only if you are a Wizard. Since it isn't a Sorcerer spell, it isn't on the Sorcerer spell's list. Furthermore:

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.

Funny thing, that... see, the Sorcerer is the only Core caster that's not limited to his spell list. With the Sorcerer, the Spells line goes:
"Spells: A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below)." ([u]Emphasis[u] added, specific text taken from the SRD, Sorcerer entry)

With every other caster in the SRD, it is "which are drawn from" - no primarily involved. By RAW, the Sorcerer is not limited to just the Sor/Wiz list for spells. Theoretically, a Sorcerer could take a Druid, Cleric, Ranger, Paladin, Bard, or Wizard spell.


I wouldn't allow it, simply due to extreme abusability.
Well, yes, but that's not the point of this particular discussion.

Heighten Spell + this = every spell in the game.
Not every spell - you still have to find a copy somewhere.



Furthermore:

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

double-furthermore:
Yeah. So we'll just have to keep up with Limited Wish duplicating Psychic Reformation under transparency, and letting Psychic Reformation (under transparency) change out spells known just like powers known, and the Mage of the Arcane Order PrC for others. Of course, as the feat in question includes the phrase "just as a wizard does" it could be argued that the feat actually requires you to find a spellbook somewhere to borrow....

Fixer
2009-06-02, 07:06 AM
Funny thing, that... see, the Sorcerer is the only Core caster that's not limited to his spell list. With the Sorcerer, the Spells line goes:
"Spells: A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below)." ([u]Emphasis[u] added, specific text taken from the SRD, Sorcerer entry)

With every other caster in the SRD, it is "which are drawn from" - no primarily involved. By RAW, the Sorcerer is not limited to just the Sor/Wiz list for spells. Theoretically, a Sorcerer could take a Druid, Cleric, Ranger, Paladin, Bard, or Wizard spell.That theory breaks down entirely when you go through the DMG and it actually specifies how Sorcerers can learn spells not on the Wizard/Sorcerer list. It gives a description of a sorcerer learning spells from a coatl, if memory serves. Alas, I don't have my DMG here at work, but I do know it is specified in the same section as how to research new spells. I know of one prestige class from a Dragon Magazine that allowed a sorcerer to take spells on other class spell list but that didn't mean the sorcerer was casting druid spells or bard spells, they simply added those spells to the sorcerer's spells known list. They were still Sorcerer spells after that.

The original spell says "Wizard" because only Wizards can cast it and gain any benefit from it. While a sorcerer can OWN and POSSESS a spellbook, and that spellbook can have spells written within it, it is not the "sorcerer's spellbook" because sorcerers do not require spellbooks to prepare spells. You can try to argue that ownership and possession indicate it being the "sorcerer's spellbook" but it doesn't create any requirement that the sorcerer actually needs or can use the spellbook at all. There is no link between the two other than ownership and possession, unlike a wizard's spellbook which actually requires some greater degree of familiarity to actually USE.

Gaiyamato
2009-06-02, 07:37 AM
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.

This does not mean that the spellbook is a source of spells. In fact this defeats the entire purpose of the limitations on a Sorcerer.
Else you could just walk around and pick up spellbooks and add the spells from it to your "spells known" and cast them spontanteously.

ALL of the rules involving Sorcerer quite strongly imply and on occasions outright state that they cannot learn spells from a spellbook or scroll.

Arcane preparations says that you may prepare a known spell, not any spell available. So you cannot prepare a spell from a scroll or spellbook using that feat. There is no way using these methods to gain access to spells from a stolen or borrowed wizards book.



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

Actually it states that you improve your existing method of adding new spells to your spellbook. So unless you can already use a spellbook and can already prepare spells you cannot make use of the spellbook class feature.
Interestingly if you cannot access a spellbook you don't gain the free spell you gain at level 1 of the prc either. :P



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 spellbookís particular ciphers and notations. This procedure is sometimes referred to as becoming attuned to the spellbook (although itís 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.

It specifically states Wizard. Unless you are a Wizard you cannot do this. No other caster in the game has this ability RAW.



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.

Which is the same list as the sorcerer list (as has already been pointed out).
But it makes no difference, because to access a spellbook you need to be a Wizard. :P

---------

There is however ONE way to sort of do this!!

Corrupt Arcana (Heroes of Horror)

Should you be lucky enough to find a spellbook full of corrupt spells it actually states:

CORRUPT ARCANA [TAINTED]
You can prepare and cast corrupt spells.
Prerequisites: Spontaneous arcane or divine caster, mild depravity.
Benefit: If you have access to a corrupt spell in written
formóon a scroll, in a spellbook, or in a tome of forbidden
loreóyou can prepare it in the same way that a wizard or
cleric would. The prepared corrupt spell remains in your
mind and occupies one of your daily spell slots until you cast
it or change it. A prepared corrupt spell uses a spell slot of
the spellís normal level, and you must pay corruption costs
as normal for casting the spell.
Any corrupt spells you prepare by using this feat do not
count against your total spells known, just your spells
per day.

------------------

You could then argue that if you have a spellbook of just corrupt spells written by you (scribing a spell into a new spellbook, so memorised from a scroll then written down into the book) that it is YOUR spellbook. You even memorise them like a Wizard. However this would only apply to corrupt spells.
However note that they do not count as known spells, so are of no use still in effectively becoming a "Wizard". There is no way other than actually being a Wizard to qualify a Sorcerer as being a Wizard. lol.
But he can pretend to be a Wizard.

J.Gellert
2009-06-02, 07:41 AM
Even though I am not 100% sure I understood this idea, it looks like too much trouble.

You can just be a Wizard with 1-level dip in Hathran - voila, instant sorcery. If your DM is bothered by fluff, you do the acorn (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040710a) trick, in which case the only thing left for him to do is ban the character. Granted, that's Forgotten Realms only, but if Red Wizards of Thay are generic enough to make it in the Dungeon Master's Guide...

Doc Roc
2009-06-02, 02:03 PM
Yeah. So we'll just have to keep up with Limited Wish duplicating Psychic Reformation under transparency, and letting Psychic Reformation (under transparency) change out spells known just like powers known, and the Mage of the Arcane Order PrC for others. Of course, as the feat in question includes the phrase "just as a wizard does" it could be argued that the feat actually requires you to find a spellbook somewhere to borrow....

I don't think most people here know about the PsyRef trick. I mean, this is a good, clean, and elegant way of getting access to spells. In fact, any spells you can find scribed. It, unlike a lot of other tricks, has meaningful costs, and can't be done mid-battle. The PsyRef trick? Yeah. That can. Solo is famous for that.

However, this wasn't a discussion of if you'd allow it due to power-level concerns. This was about Do You Think It Is Legal By RAW? As far as I can see, there's nothing that suggests a sorcerer with scribe scroll can't just keep his own spellbook. Sure, it's normally useless to him, but he can as far as I can see make one. I'm not implying he can use it normally. But it's pretty well-known that late in life the sale of a spellbook can produce some serious gold.

This specific spell, however, suggests that you just need a spellbook in your hand. Nothing says you had to make it, it just has to be yours now. I understand if you feel it's a gray area. So do I. But my leaning is that this is probably okay.

Jack_Simth
2009-06-02, 06:08 PM
That theory breaks down entirely when you go through the DMG and it actually specifies how Sorcerers can learn spells not on the Wizard/Sorcerer list. It gives a description of a sorcerer learning spells from a coatl, if memory serves. Alas, I don't have my DMG here at work, but I do know it is specified in the same section as how to research new spells. I know of one prestige class from a Dragon Magazine that allowed a sorcerer to take spells on other class spell list but that didn't mean the sorcerer was casting druid spells or bard spells, they simply added those spells to the sorcerer's spells known list. They were still Sorcerer spells after that.

Okay, looks like I need to fully spell it out. Let's see... I've already covered the initial line in the Spellcasting section, and how it's different from all the others. There's actually considerably more support. I'll continue, then.

There's an additional clause in the Sorcerer's spell entry that none of the other Core casters has - using the 3.5 PHB, at the top-right section of page 54, there's a sentance: "or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study". Under "Adding spells to a Sorcerer or Bard's Repertoire" (page 179 in the 3.5 PHB), there's the phrase "With the DM's permission, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of (see Spells in the sorcerer description, page 54)" - meanwhile, for Wizards and Divine casters, that clause isn't included - instead, it points you to spell research in Chapter 2 of the DMG.

There's no actual mechanics listed for it, mind, and it still can't let you bypass the spells known restriction, but as written, the Sorcerer (and to a lesser extent, the bard) are not limited to their class spell list.


The original spell says "Wizard" because only Wizards can cast it and gain any benefit from it. While a sorcerer can OWN and POSSESS a spellbook, and that spellbook can have spells written within it, it is not the "sorcerer's spellbook" because sorcerers do not require spellbooks to prepare spells. You can try to argue that ownership and possession indicate it being the "sorcerer's spellbook" but it doesn't create any requirement that the sorcerer actually needs or can use the spellbook at all. There is no link between the two other than ownership and possession, unlike a wizard's spellbook which actually requires some greater degree of familiarity to actually USE.
I'm having a little trouble figuring out exactly what you're attempting to address by this section of your post. Can you clarify?







I don't think most people here know about the PsyRef trick. I mean, this is a good, clean, and elegant way of getting access to spells. In fact, any spells you can find scribed. It, unlike a lot of other tricks, has meaningful costs, and can't be done mid-battle. The PsyRef trick? Yeah. That can. Solo is famous for that.

Both can be done mid-battle. The Psychic Reformation trick costs you 300 xp and a 7th level spell slot as a standard action. The Rary's Arcane Conversion trick costs a 6th level spell slot, a feat choice, 1 full round, and requires that you have the spell in a spellbook in your possession. Which is better? Eh, depends on the circumstances. Limited Wish is safer if you're in the middle of a battle (you're not painting a target on yourself), Rary's Arcane Conversion is like casting Summon Monster - you're suddenly a target as everyone knows you're casting something strong enough to need a little more delay.


However, this wasn't a discussion of if you'd allow it due to power-level concerns. This was about Do You Think It Is Legal By RAW? As far as I can see, there's nothing that suggests a sorcerer with scribe scroll can't just keep his own spellbook. Sure, it's normally useless to him, but he can as far as I can see make one. I'm not implying he can use it normally. But it's pretty well-known that late in life the sale of a spellbook can produce some serious gold.

Scribing a spell into a spellbook, if you check the Spellcraft skill description, is flagged as "Wizard only".



This specific spell, however, suggests that you just need a spellbook in your hand. Nothing says you had to make it, it just has to be yours now. I understand if you feel it's a gray area. So do I. But my leaning is that this is probably okay.
Possibly. It is subject to some DM interperation. Of course, Rary's Arcane Conversion is listed as Wizard-only to begin with, so you may need to spend a feat on it, or use limited wish to duplicate it, to make it work (depending on the DM, anyway).

Doc Roc
2009-06-02, 08:15 PM
Getting it on-list is not a terribly hard thing to do. I have five or six ways to do that, two of which are in the original post. I'm still chewing on how to move the ownership of a spellbook into solidly RAW ground. I think geometer + corrupted arcana can do it, but I'm unsure. Opinions?

Doc Roc
2009-06-03, 01:05 AM
Spock
Changeling
Lawful Neutral

"My usual farewell would seem... oddly self-serving."

Sorc 5/ Tainted 3/ Cham 2/Halruaan5/SCM 5
1 Able Learner
3 draconic heritage
6 heighten
9 earth sense
12 arcane preparation
15 racial emulation
18 earth spell

Corrupt Arcana from Tainted Sorcerer
Floating feat for extra spell shenanigans or metamagic. We can actually move around our second dose of adroit casting thanks to the way it is written, so this is... a curiously flexible build. As it should be.

Working build. Lets you have a spellbook, borrowed, for your casting as a chameleon. If that's not then "your spellbook" I don't know what you want from me, particularly since we can explicitly prepare from it using corrupt arcana. Admittedly for a limited subset, but Rary's does the rest.
We use some hacks involving the wording of signature spell on halruaan elder to know Rary's as a chameleon (we can't cast it, but we can know it) and then make it a signature spell, putting it on our list as though it were a spell known proper. Complaints, critiques, etc. PEACH though, please, as this does seem to be in RAW order. I've left some details out.


Features:
Any spell in the game with a little prep time and some cheese.
Incredibly powerful interactions with psychic reformation thanks to signature spell and adroit casting.
Tainted casting gives us a monstrous amount of juice to work with, MAD free.

olentu
2009-06-03, 01:36 AM
Spock
Changeling
Lawful Neutral

"My usual farewell would seem... oddly self-serving."

Sorc 5/ Tainted 3/ Cham 2/Halruaan5/SCM 5
1 Able Learner
3 draconic heritage
6 heighten
9 earth sense
12 arcane preparation
15 racial emulation
18 earth spell

Corrupt Arcana from Tainted Sorcerer
Floating feat for extra spell shenanigans or metamagic. We can actually move around our second dose of adroit casting thanks to the way it is written, so this is... a curiously flexible build. As it should be.

Working build. Lets you have a spellbook, borrowed, for your casting as a chameleon. If that's not then "your spellbook" I don't know what you want from me, particularly since we can explicitly prepare from it using corrupt arcana. Admittedly for a limited subset, but Rary's does the rest.
We use some hacks involving the wording of signature spell on halruaan elder to know Rary's as a chameleon (we can't cast it, but we can know it) and then make it a signature spell, putting it on our list as though it were a spell known proper. Complaints, critiques, etc. PEACH though, please, as this does seem to be in RAW order. I've left some details out.


Features:
Any spell in the game with a little prep time and some cheese.
Incredibly powerful interactions with psychic reformation thanks to signature spell and adroit casting.
Tainted casting gives us a monstrous amount of juice to work with, MAD free.

Well leaving aside the corrupt arcana as I have yet to investigate it, a DM might have a problem with using the chameleon Arcane Focus to make a spellbook count as your spellbook for the spell based on this

"You canít use any abilities gained from your aptitude focus,
ability boon, or mimic class feature abilities to qualify for a
feat, prestige class, or other option."

As one could say that the build is using the ability to prepare spells from a spellbook gained from the Arcane Focus option of the Aptitude Focus to qualify as a character that could change one prepared spell for another as that can clearly be considered an option presented by the spell that the character does not qualify for if the character does not have a spellbook that is counted as "your spellbook."

Fishy
2009-06-03, 01:49 AM
Don't think you can take Draconic Heritage after 1st level, sadly.

Doc Roc
2009-06-03, 01:54 AM
Well leaving aside the corrupt arcana as I have yet to investigate it, a DM might have a problem with using the chameleon Arcane Focus to make a spellbook count as your spellbook for the spell based on this

"You canít use any abilities gained from your aptitude focus,
ability boon, or mimic class feature abilities to qualify for a
feat, prestige class, or other option."

As one could say that the build is using the ability to prepare spells from a spellbook gained from the Arcane Focus option of the Aptitude Focus to qualify as a character that could change one prepared spell for another as that can clearly be considered an option presented by the spell that the character does not qualify for if the character does not have a spellbook that is counted as "your spellbook."

It was never clear that you could NOT count it as your spellbook in the first place. This, I think, establishes ownership of a book being used that contains spells. Either this or corrupt arcana should work. Both together cover it fairly thoroughly, in my opinion. Sorry if I am frustrated, but I never really grokked the specific view that owning a spell book didn't make it yours.

As a result, I tend to feel that though you can only use the book while in aptitude focus, the possession of it is not tied to that class feature directly. It's certainly a little gray, but there's no RAW to suggest it is not your spellbook one way or another now. Besides, we have corrupt arcana, which lets us explicitly use a spell book. For a single specific purpose, but we can use it, and we can own it.


Also, it appears you can take draconic heritage after first level.

<uncalled for rant>
Just once on this forum, I would like to be told something is really neat and works instead of lambasted for trying.
</uncalled for rant>

olentu
2009-06-03, 02:47 AM
It was never clear that you could NOT count it as your spellbook in the first place. This, I think, establishes ownership of a book being used that contains spells. Either this or corrupt arcana should work. Both together cover it fairly thoroughly, in my opinion. Sorry if I am frustrated, but I never really grokked the specific view that owning a spell book didn't make it yours.

As a result, I tend to feel that though you can only use the book while in aptitude focus, the possession of it is not tied to that class feature directly. It's certainly a little gray, but there's no RAW to suggest it is not your spellbook one way or another now. Besides, we have corrupt arcana, which lets us explicitly use a spell book. For a single specific purpose, but we can use it, and we can own it.


Also, it appears you can take draconic heritage after first level.

Well after looking at the corrupt arcana feat it does not say it makes the spellbook yours anymore then anything else. It also would only remove the restriction on preparing spells of a specific variety rather then all spells and so would not allow a wizard count the book as his own and thus can still be considered in the same category as a spellbook that you own rather then your own spellbook and so leaves it up to DM ruling as it normally would be.

However as there is clearly a disjunction between the sides and their knowledge of the other sides arguments I suppose I will try to explain the argument that I am making.

First due to my lack of knowledge of there being a specific definition of the term "your spellbook" anything that uses that term requires a DM to rule and thus there is no absolutely RAW way of ruling the spell.

Taking that in to account if I was to rule I would say that it does not work. The reasoning is that in various places where the rules talk about a wizards own spellbook and that the two terms seem to have roughly analogous meanings in my mind.

Additionally the rules seem to make a point that a spellbook that the wizard owns is not necessarily the same as a wizards own spellbook. This comes from the section on wizard spells and borrowed spellbooks as one can only prepere spells from borrowed spellbooks after a spellcraft check and only if the spell is one known to the wizard and recorded in the wizards own spellbook. Since the requirement on hiving the spell recorded in the wizards own spellbook would make no sense if a borrowed spellbook counted as a wizards owns spellbook since the spell is obviously recorded within the borrowed spellbook.

Also the section in complete arcane on mastering a foreign spellbook allows a wizard to use the spellbook as his own, removing the checks and such. However when I read this section I interpret it as implying that the reason why the checks are removed is because the wizard can use the spellbook as his own.

So taking your spellbook to be roughly the same as a wizards own spellbook it follows that just owning a spellbook does not make it your own spellbook or your spellbook.

In addition there is also the section that says that a sorcerer or bard does not have a spellbook. This makes little sense to me if taken to mean just owning a spellbook and as such I interpret it as meaning or at least heavily implying that the sorcerer or bard does not have the ability to have a spellbook that counts as their own spellbook. The implication being that to qualify as having a your spellbook they would need to acquire that ability in some way such as by taking a level in something like wizard or wu jen (I think they are the one that has a spellbook).

Well I will not speak for others that seems to me to be my take on the situation and the reasoning behind why I would rule the spell in the way that I would.

Doc Roc
2009-06-03, 03:01 AM
That fairly well articulates the counter-case. Thank you for spending so much time on that!

My opinion is that probably a chameleon could reasonably go about mastering a spellbook, since they are given to cast precisely as wizards do. Also, the ownership of their spellbook isn't tied directly to the aptitude focus then. Would you find this satisfactory?

The corrupt arcana bit is mostly there to justify possessing a single specific spellbook, as it does allow you to prepare an admittedly small subset of spells out of it. If you feel it is extraneous, the blooded metamagic secret would do this build wonders. I personally feel it adds some RAI verisimilitude to the build, but I understand that I did tag this RAW. However, we're a little outside of the RAW now, so I'm just laying out as many little burnt offerings as I can, in some respects.

Do you feel I am being unreasonable?

olentu
2009-06-03, 03:58 AM
That fairly well articulates the counter-case. Thank you for spending so much time on that!

My opinion is that probably a chameleon could reasonably go about mastering a spellbook, since they are given to cast precisely as wizards do. Also, the ownership of their spellbook isn't tied directly to the aptitude focus then. Would you find this satisfactory?

The corrupt arcana bit is mostly there to justify possessing a single specific spellbook, as it does allow you to prepare an admittedly small subset of spells out of it. If you feel it is extraneous, the blooded metamagic secret would do this build wonders. I personally feel it adds some RAI verisimilitude to the build, but I understand that I did tag this RAW. However, we're a little outside of the RAW now, so I'm just laying out as many little burnt offerings as I can, in some respects.

Do you feel I am being unreasonable?

Well I would say that one would be trying to use the aptitude focus ability to prepare and cast as a wizard to qualify for the option of Mastering a Foreign Spellbook and thus would not work. I say this because I would not allow a non chameleon non wizard (and possibly non wu jen but I am not going to look it up as it does not seem relevent) to Master a Foreign Spellbook and since the relevant difference seems to be the arcane focus I would interpret that to be what would qualify them if one could use it to qualify.

Having the corrupt arcana feat would not really influence me either way.

I would not say that you are being unreasonable as I can see how your position might follow from a different set of premises.

Doc Roc
2009-06-03, 04:00 AM
Would a one dip of wizard satisfy you?

olentu
2009-06-03, 04:22 AM
Would a one dip of wizard satisfy you?

Yes I think it would since I can not currently see any problems with it. If course something might change my mind in the future but with the rules I can remember right now I would say it would work.

Doc Roc
2009-06-03, 09:40 AM
So then, what is your opinion of spock, presuming chameleon is dropped? It frees up two feats and technically I believe also unlocks our race and gives us a caster level back. So I guess it frees up three feats, really.

olentu
2009-06-03, 03:01 PM
So then, what is your opinion of spock, presuming chameleon is dropped? It frees up two feats and technically I believe also unlocks our race and gives us a caster level back. So I guess it frees up three feats, really.

Well from the quick overview given and trying to incorporate the change presented it looks like a build that one could have fun with. It seems to be of a reasonably powerful level and the fact that it can get around some of the limitation on sorcerer spell selection without setting XP on fire gives it versatility that I would be much more likely to use in an everyday situation.