Wizard Spell Learning

[Rycke]

If a Wizard is in a party with a Druid and assuming the Druid is willing to discuss her spells with the wizard, can the wizard attempt to add primal spells up to their current spell level to his spell book? According to the rules for learning a spell, all you need to do is spend an hour per spell level in conversation with a person who knows the spell, so I believe this would work.

[Kyrone]

In Learn a Spell:

Quote:

If you’re a spellcaster, you can use the skill corresponding to your magical tradition to learn a new spell of that tradition.

No you can't, it needs to be of your magical tradition.

[Rycke]

OK, so even though the spell is on both lists, an arcane caster can only learn spells from either a scroll, an arcane spell book, or another arcane caster. I guess that makes sense, but I was hoping it wasn't the case.

[Gisher]

The exception would be using the Adapted Cantrip and Adapted Adept human ancestry feats.

[caps]

The wizard could learn spells that are on both the arcane and primal spell list from the druid, though.

[SlackC]

caps wrote:

The wizard could learn spells that are on both the arcane and primal spell list from the druid, though.

That's helpful to hear. Is it safe to assume that spells with the same name are always the same spell, when they appear in multiple lists?

[First World Bard]

Rycke wrote:

OK, so even though the spell is on both lists, an arcane caster can only learn spells from either a scroll, an arcane spell book, or another arcane caster. I guess that makes sense, but I was hoping it wasn't the case.

I don't believe this is true. In your first post asked if the wizard can learn Primal spells. In general, no. If they are both Primal and Arcane, I believe the answer is yes. Though perhaps there is some disagreement here.

[Abyssalwyrm]

If spell both arcane and primal - then maybe.
However it goes to how different spellcasters understands their spells.
Wizards on that matter are like scientists. They tries to apply hard logic on how whole spellscasting works.
Clerics and druids have understanding of spells more through philosophy of multiverse being.
Sorcerers (and other innate spellscasters) simply understands then intuitively (it's in their blood).

So attempt of druid teaching wizard a spell likely will just ended up on long, but fruitless debate on how things are.

[thenobledrake]

Abyssalwyrm wrote:

However it goes to how different spellcasters understands their spells.

That's not supported by the rules.

The rules clearly state that talking with someone that knows the spell and making a successful check with the skill relevant to your own tradition is just as good for learning the spell as anything else is.

There's no increased chance of not "getting it" because you're learning from a druid instead of another wizard.

[Abyssalwyrm]

thenobledrake wrote:

Abyssalwyrm wrote:

However it goes to how different spellcasters understands their spells.

That's not supported by the rules.

The rules clearly state that talking with someone that knows the spell and making a successful check with the skill relevant to your own tradition is just as good for learning the spell as anything else is.

There's no increased chance of not "getting it" because you're learning from a druid instead of another wizard.

And once again, Pathfinder is not a ARPG, with lore been just an optional supplement.

The goal of game is not to "win", but to provide immersive story telling.

[thenobledrake]

Abyssalwyrm wrote:

And once again, Pathfinder is not a ARPG, with lore been just an optional supplement.

The goal of game is not to "win", but to provide immersive story telling.

You say these things like they are in disagreement with what I have said, and they aren't.

We're not talking about you have "lore" and I don't - we're talking about the "lore" I have actually matches what the rules say because it is based off of them, and you have "lore" that alters the rules because it has nothing to do with the rules and is also being allowed to take priority.

In my "immersive story telling" it doesn't matter who is telling the wizard about the spell they know - it only matters that the wizard is having the spell explained by someone that knows it, and is figuring out how to do it for themself in the process.

Your story isn't any more "immersive" just because you have arbitrarily decided to make it harder for the wizard to understand the workings of a spell because someone of another tradition is explaining it to them.

[Grankless]

Please remember this is a game with rules first and foremost that we use to tell stories, not an accurate simulation of a fantasy world.

You want to make it a thing? Roleplay it out. But don't change rules in the name of "immersion".