yes it must be arcane, wizards cast arcane spells. So they can not learn or cast cleric spells for example. Any spells they learn must come off the wizard list. Which is arcane.
A wizard can not learn spells from a bards or summoners list, unless it is also on the wizards list. In that case it uses the wizard list level not the bard or summoner level.
...Uh, I'm pretty sure that this is the exact opposite of Archivists, and incidentally the exact opposite of what made Archivists so awesome.
I believe that, while that might be one interpretation of the rules, that the intent of the rules is that if you find a scroll of a scroll with a summoner spell (at a lower level than available on the wizard spell list), that you learn it at the standard wizard level. You don't get it at the lower level.
Eh I am not seeing anything that even implies ya can learn spells of a lower level. Can you point out what I am missing?
Eh I am not seeing anything that even implies ya can learn spells of a lower level. Can you point out what I am missing?"A Wizard can only learn spells that belong to the Wizard spell lists."
That is the controversial statement by the RAW. If "belong to" means "part of" the Wizard spell list, then hold person is a level 3 Wizard spell. Clerics, however, get it as a level 2 instead of a level 3 spell. Hold person is assumed to be a level 3 spell, but could be seen by a creative player as being part of the Wizard list at the lowest level.
I would suggest that they are being overly creative by adding "at the lower level" to how spells are learned. While the wording could always be reexamining, I would suggest that the intent is relatively clear that learning spells at a lower level is not what was intended.
I think that it is controversial in a similar manner to a player trying to learn wish as a 0-level spell via the independent research rules. While that section doesn't specify that one would learn a duplicated spell at the same level, I believe that the intent is that you would learn the researched spell at the same level as it appears on the wizard spell list.
This ignores the innumerable PrCs that grant spells also appearing on the Wizard list but at a lower level.
There's also no explicit mention of a spell a Wizard learns needing to be arcane. Wizards cast arcane spells, but does learning plane shift from a divine scroll make the spell arcane for spellbook purposes?
I would assume it is intended to be limited to arcane spells because this appears in the "Arcane Spells" section and the "Arcane Magical Writings" subsection as opposed to a generic section (or the divine sections).
In my game, I probably would allow it just so a wizard doesn't have to keep looking if they only find divine scrolls of plane shift. I just don't think that it would be entertaining to have to find a specific version of a scroll out there.
The 2nd level hold person is not an arcane spell, and not the spell on the wizards list, so there for he can not lear a 2nd level cleric hold person
Also if it is on his list he learns it at his level, say if another arcane class had a 2nd level hold person, while he could learn it from an arcane scroll he could only learn it at 3rd level
Front of the chapter states wizards cast arcane spells, ya can't learn what ya can't cast. So the 2nd level cleric hold person is out.
Eh I am not seeing anything that even implies ya can learn spells of a lower level. Can you point out what I am missing?"A Wizard can only learn spells that belong to the Wizard spell lists."
That is the controversial statement by the RAW. If "belong to" means "part of" the Wizard spell list, then hold person is a level 3 Wizard spell. Clerics, however, get it as a level 2 instead of a level 3 spell. Hold person is assumed to be a level 3 spell, but could be seen by a creative player as being part of the Wizard list at the lowest level.
This ignores the innumerable PrCs that grant spells also appearing on the Wizard list but at a lower level.
There's also no explicit mention of a spell a Wizard learns needing to be arcane. Wizards cast arcane spells, but does learning plane shift from a divine scroll make the spell arcane for spellbook purposes?
...Yeah, no. Those aren't wizard spells.
That's how archivists work. Archivists can learn any divine spell, thus why archivists have such huge spell lists and can take such lower level spells.
Wizards are limited to, ready for this, wizard spells. Not spells that also happen to be on the list of wizard spells, but just wizard spells.
Indeed Hold Person is a level two cleric spell. However, it's not a level 2 wizard spell. It's a level 3 wizard spell.
This isn't creativity, this is "Hah hah look at what happens when you just ignore the rules!"
Wizards are limited to, ready for this, wizard spells. Not spells that also happen to be on the list of wizard spells, but just wizard spells.Got it in 2 sentences.
Agreed that pretty much covers it
This is just silly. Anyone who want to force this on their GM should be hit over the head with a Core Rulebook for 1d10 damage.
A Wizard automatically learns 2 free spells of any level he can cast every time he gains a Wizard level (or 3 + his INT modifier at Wizard level 1). If these spells had focuses, expensive material components, or exotic components, the Wizard ignores these costs. If he is a specialist Wizard, at least 1 of these spells must be from his specialty school.
Not only are you wrong about everything else, but what the heck did you pull the bolded section from? Where does it say a wizard can cast any spells without the material components or foci?
... you have *got* to be kidding...
Mr. Fishy laughed at that too. Should, priceless, Mr. Fishy's thinks it should read "Mr. Fishy Rules".
3rd printing? Paizo team you see this? The book should read "Mr. Fishy Rules!"
This seems like a stretch to me.
I'm not gonna call you names for digging up an ambiguity in the rules, but if you're going into this level of lawyering I am positive you will find worse abuses in print. (in the CRB even!)
It simply would not be allowed at my table, and good luck finding a GM who would accept this reading.
That dog won't hunt, monsignor.
Normally, when a creature gains a Wizard level, he gets 2 spells for free. Normally, buying a scroll of a spell with an expensive component (simulacrum, for example) requires paying the formula price for a scroll (CL 13 * SL 7 * 25) plus the expensive material price (at least 500). If he learned simulacrum at level 13 as one of his free spells, he would add this spell to his spellbook automatically.
I claimed that quote is how the text should read. I never claimed a Wizard can normally ignore expensive or exotic components. I see how you were confused.
Buying the scroll has absolutely 0% to do with adding those spells to his spellbook for free so why even mention it?
I think he just didn't post exactly what he meant meatrace.
Normally when a wizard wants to add spells to his spell book he needs to find a copy of the spell somehow (either paying to look in another person's book or buy a scroll) and then pay to scribe it.
I think he was just pointing out that for the two per level that the wizard gains he doesn't have to go through all of that -- he simply gets to add them completely for free (which we all knew so it seems odd that he is mentioning it).
This is asinine, if a player tried to pull out some crap like this in the 2E days, we would have torn his character sheet to shreds while giving him a swift kick in the ass out the door on his way to his new group. I love 3.5/Pathfinder, but it crops up ridiculous stuff like this far too often.
It;s not the system, so much as the new mind set of "find the bug" You can never make a system worded in such a way it's imposable to find a way to try and exploit the way things are worded.
Unless it's 20'000 pages long and reads like a set of contracts
The only reason this worked for Archivists is that Archivists had no spell list of their own. Their mechanic explicitly gave them the spell at whichever level the scroll they were learning it from was at.
Wizards do have their own spell list. They learn spells on their spell list at the level that their spell list says it's at.
|
This is asinine, if a player tried to pull out some crap like this in the 2E days, we would have torn his character sheet to shreds while giving him a swift kick in the ass out the door on his way to his new group. I love 3.5/Pathfinder, but it crops up ridiculous stuff like this far too often.
2e wouldn't fare any better. The problem is with the level of scrutiny the rules get due to internet. The difference is as you say in 2e if there were two ways to read things you ran with the version that made the most sense. Most groups run Pathfinder this way also.
This is asinine, if a player tried to pull out some crap like this in the 2E days, we would have torn his character sheet to shreds while giving him a swift kick in the ass out the door on his way to his new group. I love 3.5/Pathfinder, but it crops up ridiculous stuff like this far too often.2e wouldn't fare any better. The problem is with the level of scrutiny the rules get due to internet. The difference is as you say in 2e if there were two ways to read things you ran with the version that made the most sense. Most groups run Pathfinder this way also.
I will agree with you on your point about the internet increasing scrutiny and most groups playing with common sense. However the biggest factor in 2E was the level of DM fiat, both 1E and 2E reinforced the idea that the DM ran and controlled the game, all rules and decisions were ultimately up to him, there is even a great quote in the 1E DMG which states:
"It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER."
Now I am not saying that a DM cant make rulings regarding whats allowed in his game in 3.5/Pathfinder, but the spirit of this has changed. Now players have feelings of entitlement in many regards, for an example of what I mean take a look at the rules for acquiring and/or making magical items in 1st or 2nd edition vs how it is handled in 3E/Pathfinder.
...they rewrote it to fix this age-old issue and they still didn't fix it. -_-
Except they did fix it.
Have you not read a single post other then the OP? He was shot down hard and fast.