Wizard Spellbook: Where is all the space?

[Ruethgar]

So Wizards are supposed to start with a Spellbook that has every Wizard Cantrip in it plus some first level spells, but there are more than 100 Cantrips using just official material which exceeds the limit of a Spellbook even before you get to your first level spells. Is that first book just all kinds of special or am I missing something?

[Fayd]

I think that rule was in place when there were only a few Wizard Cantrips; In my games I limit them to Core + Advanced Player's Guide, because it only adds one. (I DM more Pathfinder than 3.5) Personally, I'd say if you want more than the "standard" set, you've got to find them on your own.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Nothing says you can't have two spellbooks? You start with a college-required Mordenkainen^®'s Ol' Book o' Cantrips^©®, and then you have your fresh new just-graduated spellbook with first-level spells.

[Bakkan]

I'm only counting 28 cantrips in my spreadsheet of official 3.5 spells, 19 in the Player's Handbook and 9 in the Spell Compendium. Am I missing almost 75% of the cantrips? If so, where are they from?

[Malimar]

I'm only counting 28 cantrips in my spreadsheet of official 3.5 spells, 19 in the Player's Handbook and 9 in the Spell Compendium. Am I missing almost 75% of the cantrips? If so, where are they from?

I thought OP might be referring to PF material, but the PFSRD also only lists 28 official cantrips.

The PFSRD offers 94 third-party cantrips, for a total of 122. OP might be confusing third-party material with "official" material? Seems unlikely.

[prufock]

I'm only counting 28 cantrips in my spreadsheet of official 3.5 spells, 19 in the Player's Handbook and 9 in the Spell Compendium. Am I missing almost 75% of the cantrips? If so, where are they from?

Dragon 324, Dragon 326, Complete Arcane, Book of Vile Darkness, Underdark, Magic of Faerun, Ghostwalk web enhancement, adds up to 44 total by my count. Still far shy of the 100 listed in the OP.

There are others from sources like Book of Eldritch Might and SeanKReynolds.com, but I don't think these are published by WotC, so they wouldn't be considered "official."

Source: IMarvinTPA spell filter

[Ruethgar]

14 more in Dragon #301 for 58, then start adding spell templates and that number gets multiplied.

Furthermore, all first level sanctum spells fall under the definition of Cantrips even if you can't cast them without the feat and they take up a higher slot.

[Âmesang]

I attempted to update one of Ed Greenwood's 1st-level 2nd Ed. spells, runefinger (from "The Wizards Three: The Night it Wailed Wizards"), as a 0-level universal spell.

DRAGON #302 also had a list of 14 cantrips along with this note:

These 0-level spells also offer an easy way to represent differences in training that apprentice spellcasters undergo. Instead of beginning play with all of the cantrips in the Player's Handbook in their spellbooks, wizards can select sixteen cantrips to put in their spellbook for "free." Clerics start by choosing a list of twelve orisons, and druids start with thirteen.

[Troacctid]

14 more in Dragon #301 for 58, then start adding spell templates and that number gets multiplied.

You mean spell templates from Dragon #311? You don't get those unless you take the appropriate feat, and they don't take up extra space in your spellbook.

Furthermore, all first level sanctum spells fall under the definition of Cantrips even if you can't cast them without the feat and they take up a higher slot.

Metamagic versions of spells also do not take up extra space in your spellbook.

[ericgrau]

I believe they only start with the core cantrips. A long time ago the PHB spells were the "normal" spells and the splatbook spells were the "unusual" spells that you had to find by adventuring and did not get automatically. Much like homebrew spells and custom spells researched by the character. This leads to confusion with a few other rules too where they seem to assume the reader knows this.

In any case this makes a lot more sense than assuming that "all the cantrips" means every cantrip ever conceived of by a wizard, including all the long forgotten ones, possibly numbering in the thousands . Since every custom spell a wizard might invent exceeds what is in all the random splatbooks.

[Ruethgar]

You mean spell templates from Dragon #311? You don't get those unless you take the appropriate feat, and they don't take up extra space in your spellbook.


Metamagic versions of spells also do not take up extra space in your spellbook.

Except that they are Cantrips and you get ALL Cantrips in your book with no qualifiers. All.

I am inclined to go with Dragon #302 as Amesang mentioned for my games, though as an alternate rule if does not apply to default rules which would still have you up to 72 Cantrips now before templates and sanctum spell.

Do note that apart from the Dragon #311 spell templates, there are also Living Spells(which for some reason never seem to have had their functionality as scribe-able spells revoked) and Sanctum War spells.

[Extra Anchovies]

First off, dragmag content isn't official content. It's WotC-endorsed 3PP.

A sanctum spell has an effective spell level one level higher than normal if cast in your sanctum (see Special, below)--but if not cast in the sanctum, it has an effective spell level one level lower than normal. All effects dependent on spell level (such as save DCs or the ability to penetrate a minor globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the adjusted level. A sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level, modified by any other metamagic feats.

"Sanctum _____" is not a different spell from "_____". If it were, the last sentence would say "A sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the unmodified spell's normal level", which it does not. A wizard can't scribe a Sanctum Magic Missile as a cantrip, in the same way that a sorcerer can't learn Sanctum Magic Missile as a cantrip. "Is a cantrip" is a quality of the spell akin to "belongs to the Transmutation school" or "has a Target entry in its description". It's not an effect of the spell, so it's outside the range of what Sanctum Spell modifies.

[Ruethgar]

First off, dragmag content isn't official content. It's WotC-endorsed 3PP.



"Sanctum _____" is not a different spell from "_____". If it were, the last sentence would say "A sanctum spell uses a spell slot of the unmodified spell's normal level", which it does not. A wizard can't scribe a Sanctum Magic Missile as a cantrip, in the same way that a sorcerer can't learn Sanctum Magic Missile as a cantrip. "Is a cantrip" is a quality of the spell akin to "belongs to the Transmutation school" or "has a Target entry in its description". It's not an effect of the spell, so it's outside the range of what Sanctum Spell modifies.

Cantrip, as defined by the WotC D&D Glossary and PHB is "An arcane 0-level spell." Until a Sanctum level one wizard spell is cast in a Sanctum, it is an arcane 0-level spell. Weather or not the wizard can actually scribe the spell is irrelevant, they start with a book with ALL arcane 0-level spells within. Also, I consider WotC licensed material to be official content which much of Dragon Magazine falls into.

[Extra Anchovies]

Cantrip, as defined by the WotC D&D Glossary and PHB is "An arcane 0-level spell." Until a Sanctum level one wizard spell is cast in a Sanctum, it is an arcane 0-level spell.

I very much disagree. A Sanctum first-level spell is a first-level spell, occupying a first-level spell slot, until it is cast, at which point its effects are "calculated" as if it were either 2nd- or 0th-level, depending on the caster's location. Spell level is not a calculated effect of a spell, it is a prescribed quality of a spell.

Whether or not the wizard can actually scribe the spell is irrelevant, they start with a book with ALL arcane 0-level spells within.

Is your position honestly "this spell can't be written down, and every wizard begins play with this spell written down in their spellbook"? I'm pretty sure there aren't printed rules governing whether books can contain written text that cannot be written, so (as with all things that have real-world counterparts) we default to how it works in our world, i.e. things that cannot be written down, tautologically, cannot be written down.

[Zweisteine]

This list has 64 cantrips, if I counted correctly (they don't all seem to be official spells, but the website is generally reliable in my experience).

[PaucaTerrorem]

That rule was written with the PHB Cantrips being the only Cantrips. Then splat came out and no one considered this rule when writing new spells. I feel it should be one of two things.

1) You start with the PHB cantrips.

2) You start with as many Cantrips as the PHB had just from any source.

My 2 bits.

[Psyren]

First off, dragmag content isn't official content. It's WotC-endorsed 3PP.

This. Paizo published it, not WotC, and not for PF either.

Is your position honestly "this spell can't be written down, and every wizard begins play with this spell written down in their spellbook"? I'm pretty sure there aren't printed rules governing whether books can contain written text that cannot be written, so (as with all things that have real-world counterparts) we default to how it works in our world, i.e. things that cannot be written down, tautologically, cannot be written down.

Also this.

Things can be made a lot simpler when we're not actively trying to complicate them.

[Âmesang]

As far as I can tell (admittedly based on very little research of my own) the licensing only applies to issues published between 2002 and 2007, so the 2000-2001 issues would have been published under Wizards of the Coast, and Tactical Studies Rules before that; that didn't stop a number of later issues to be branded with the phrase "100& Official Dungeons & Dragons^® Content," and besides, how do you have an "official magazine for Dungeons & Dragons" if nothing in it is really official? Wouldn't that be false advertising?

Why did they transfer rights to Paizo, anyway? My own guess was that Hasbro/WotC probably wanted to save money by transferring the bulk of the work to others since D&D isn't their primary concern.

[Ruethgar]

I very much disagree. A Sanctum first-level spell is a first-level spell, occupying a first-level spell slot, until it is cast, at which point its effects are "calculated" as if it were either 2nd- or 0th-level, depending on the caster's location. Spell level is not a calculated effect of a spell, it is a prescribed quality of a spell.

Except that is not the wording of Sanctum spell. Until it is cast in a sanctum, it is one spell level lower.

Is your position honestly "this spell can't be written down, and every wizard begins play with this spell written down in their spellbook"? I'm pretty sure there aren't printed rules governing whether books can contain written text that cannot be written, so (as with all things that have real-world counterparts) we default to how it works in our world, i.e. things that cannot be written down, tautologically, cannot be written down.

I already said what I would do, just use the Dragon #302 suggestion, the continuation of this banter is merely to determine unmodified RAW, which is quite obviously dysfunctional.

[Bohandas]

I'm only counting 28 cantrips in my spreadsheet of official 3.5 spells, 19 in the Player's Handbook and 9 in the Spell Compendium. Am I missing almost 75% of the cantrips? If so, where are they from?

I count 42 in my list (though a couple, maybe up to a half dozen, might be the same spells under different names). There's a few from BoVD and Dragon Magazine that didn't make the 'Compendium

[Zanos]

Don't cantrips also only take half a page?

[Extra Anchovies]

Don't cantrips also only take half a page?

I could've sworn that was the case, but when I checked a few days ago I found that the PF and 3.5 rules both said otherwise:

Even a 0-level spell (cantrip) takes one page.

[Âmesang]

Come to think of it… is there any reason why a wizard couldn't just write out his spells really, really small?

[Troacctid]

Come to think of it… is there any reason why a wizard couldn't just write out his spells really, really small?

It takes special training to scribe spells that way, but it is possible, according to Complete Arcane.

[Rijan_Sai]

Come to think of it… is there any reason why a wizard couldn't just write out his spells really, really small?

Relevant link

[Eisfalken]

Except that is not the wording of Sanctum spell. Until it is cast in a sanctum, it is one spell level lower.

Wow. You really don't know how metamagic works, huh? That's funny as hell.

Please, go to here and read very, very carefully how metamagic works.

You don't know any spell as a "Sanctum X". You know spell X. It's level in your spellbook absolutely doesn't change, because you don't apply Sanctum to every spell you learn, end of statement. You apply Sanctum either A) when you memorize it for the day (prepared spellcasting) or B) when you cast the spell (spontaneous spellcasting). You can not learn any 1st-level spell as a 0-level spell with any form of metamagic.

Relevant quotes from the SRD:

"During preparation, the character chooses which spells to prepare with metamagic feats (and thus which ones take up higher-level spell slots than normal)."

Sanctum Spell works exactly like this, only instead of an increase of spell level, it is a decrease. But it doesn't take effect until you actually memorize the spell.

"In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description."

Metamagic is a modifier of a spell. It is not a different spell. You do not learn metamagic spells differently from their regular versions (with notable exceptions for specific classes; I believe sorcerers have a variant in UA for this).

I already said what I would do, just use the Dragon #302 suggestion, the continuation of this banter is merely to determine unmodified RAW, which is quite obviously dysfunctional.

No, there is nothing dysfunctional here. You literally do not know the game rules. I don't know how you completely failed to grasp the way metamagic works, but I feel very sorry for any players about to get into arguments with your ignorance of RAW.

Because the way I have described metamagic is RAW. If you can't understand that, then no, no further productive conversation can be had here.

[Ruethgar]

"During preparation, the character chooses which spells to prepare with metamagic feats (and thus which ones take up higher-level spell slots than normal)."

Sanctum Spell works exactly like this, only instead of an increase of spell level, it is a decrease. But it doesn't take effect until you actually memorize the spell.

"In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description."

Sanctum does not change the spell slot, only the spell level. Very few effects change the spell level, the majority of metamagic does not. From the second paragraph I quoted you appear to have a slight misunderstanding there.

The third paragraph is a general rule, trumped by the specific of Sanctum spell.

I am fully aware that metamagic versions of spells cannot be recorded or learned by the rules of the wizard and how metamagic is applied(though a Spellhoarding dragon might be able to do it). However, the starting spellbook contains all arcane zero level spells with no qualifiers limiting it such as 'all scribe-able cantrips' or similar. Logic would dictate that a spell would need to be able to be scribed to be written(as stated above) and that would be a perfectly reasonable house rule, but as the text stands that is not the case.

[BowStreetRunner]

Sanctum does not change the spell slot, only the spell level. Very few effects change the spell level, the majority of metamagic does not.

Per the description of Sanctum Spell, a sanctum spell keeps its original slot. So a 1st level sanctum spell takes up a 1st level spell slot. I think we are all good there.

Now, per the rules regarding Metamagic Feats (PHB 88): "In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell...The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user." So a 1st level metamagic spell, regardless of the level at which it is prepared and cast, is still a 1st level spell. It only becomes a 2nd level spell when cast in a sanctum, or a 0 level spell when cast outside a sanctum.

[Melcar]

So Wizards are supposed to start with a Spellbook that has every Wizard Cantrip in it plus some first level spells, but there are more than 100 Cantrips using just official material which exceeds the limit of a Spellbook even before you get to your first level spells. Is that first book just all kinds of special or am I missing something?

With craft bookbinding, you can make your own spellbook contain thousands of pages. Or be of a size that would allow more than one spell per page. The PHB "spellbook" is a generic pocket spellbook, where you can place a few relevant for "on the road" spells.

It’s not the Grimoires of the Arch Mage. Larloch has a cube of pure magic where all his spells are hidden in a form of Rubik’s Cube of spells. It has infinite space! Use your imagination!!!

[Malimar]

Sanctum does not change the spell slot, only the spell level. Very few effects change the spell level, the majority of metamagic does not. From the second paragraph I quoted you appear to have a slight misunderstanding there.

The third paragraph is a general rule, trumped by the specific of Sanctum spell.

I am fully aware that metamagic versions of spells cannot be recorded or learned by the rules of the wizard and how metamagic is applied(though a Spellhoarding dragon might be able to do it). However, the starting spellbook contains all arcane zero level spells with no qualifiers limiting it such as 'all scribe-able cantrips' or similar. Logic would dictate that a spell would need to be able to be scribed to be written(as stated above) and that would be a perfectly reasonable house rule, but as the text stands that is not the case.