Can a wizard learn a spell from a cleric?

[Timeshadow]

Learn a Spell:

"You can gain access to a new spell of your tradition from someone who knows that spell or from magical writing like a spellbook or scroll. If you can cast spells of multiple traditions, you can Learn a Spell of any of those traditions, but you must use the corresponding skill to do so. For example, if you were a cleric with the bard multiclass archetype, you couldn't use Religion to add an occult spell to your bardic spell repertoire."

So can a Wizard be taught a spell that is shared between divine and arcane lists by being taught by a cleric? For example can a cleric teach a wizard fear if the cleric has it prepared?

Can a bard teach a Witch or a Sorcerer teach a Cleric?

[Perpdepog]

I don't see why not. Spells seem to be tradition-agnostic, other than what spell lists they appear on, until they're cast, so in theory it should work?

[WatersLethe]

Let's see:

"The fundamental building blocks of magic are the magical traditions and the schools of magic. The four traditions are arcane, divine, occult, and primal. A spell’s magical tradition can vary, because many spells can be cast using different traditions."

So this does imply that a specific spell can have a tradition associated with it. So a Cleric's Light spell is Divine, and thus would not be equivalent to a Light [Arcane], and thus wouldn't be an appropriate target for learning.

I don't think that the above reasoning is bulletproof, since it cites a descriptive text and is up to interpretation.

I strongly believe the intention is that you can't learn spells across traditions, mostly for flavor reasons. For example, if the Wizard's best and most reliable means of obtaining new spells is consulting with the party cleric and druid, then I think quite a lot of the Wizard class fantasy is harmed.

[Kelseus]

WatersLethe wrote:

Let's see:

"The fundamental building blocks of magic are the magical traditions and the schools of magic. The four traditions are arcane, divine, occult, and primal. A spell’s magical tradition can vary, because many spells can be cast using different traditions."

So this does imply that a specific spell can have a tradition associated with it. So a Cleric's Light spell is Divine, and thus would not be equivalent to a Light [Arcane], and thus wouldn't be an appropriate target for learning.

I don't think that the above reasoning is bulletproof, since it cites a descriptive text and is up to interpretation.

I strongly believe the intention is that you can't learn spells across traditions, mostly for flavor reasons. For example, if the Wizard's best and most reliable means of obtaining new spells is consulting with the party cleric and druid, then I think quite a lot of the Wizard class fantasy is harmed.

Counterpoint- most staffs do NOT have a tradition tag, even if some spells on the staff are only one one list. Take the animal staff: Magic Fang is a primal only spell, but the staff is just [magical]. That means that it doesn't matter who is casting it or what tradition they use, as long as the spell is also on your spell list.

See also Counter spelling and scrolls.

[Loreguard]

WatersLethe wrote:

Let's see:

"The fundamental building blocks of magic are the magical traditions and the schools of magic. The four traditions are arcane, divine, occult, and primal. A spell’s magical tradition can vary, because many spells can be cast using different traditions."

So this does imply that a specific spell can have a tradition associated with it. So a Cleric's Light spell is Divine, and thus would not be equivalent to a Light [Arcane], and thus wouldn't be an appropriate target for learning.

I don't think that the above reasoning is bulletproof, since it cites a descriptive text and is up to interpretation.

I strongly believe the intention is that you can't learn spells across traditions, mostly for flavor reasons. For example, if the Wizard's best and most reliable means of obtaining new spells is consulting with the party cleric and druid, then I think quite a lot of the Wizard class fantasy is harmed.

While it is not unreasonable to bring up the point you mention about there being different traditions, and them representing different ways about casting the spell, it is also true that items don't have traditions, they cast the spell according to the caster.

If the cleric made a scroll of the spell and handed it to the wizard, if the spell was something within the Arcane tradition, they could learn it from the scroll. So how hard is it to imagine that the Cleric could spend the time with the wizard personally discussing the aspects of the light spell as they know it, and the wizard eventually getting the same 'lightbulb' moment where they figure out how to trigger it from their tradition.

While I don't see it impossible to accept a generalized rule in a campaign universe that says, no it doesn't 'generally' work to have different traditions talk over a spell to learn it, that rule could easily be bypassed via crafting if available.

Otherwise, the world would need to house-rule every item having a hard-fast tradition tied to it as well. Again, feasible, but I don't believe the default assumption of the game.

There is also implications that there are shared aspects, and reason for collaborations between magical traditions. Which I think supports this conclusion. You have a good point that a Wizard having a friend whom is a cleric or druid who automatically knows numerous spells, is certainly a boost to their power/flexibility, potentially making spell growth much cheaper than 'by the book'. Which of course cuts even further at the balance between a Wizard and Sorcerer in the long game.

[Blave]

I say you can. The rules for Learning a Spell just say you need someone who knows the spell. A cleric knows Light and can teach it to anyone else, regardless of Tradition.

Otherwise, you have the same stupid situations like in PF1 where a Wizard couldn't use a divine Dispel Magic scroll to cast the spell.

Luckily, PF2 got rid of such distinctions.

[WatersLethe]

Loreguard wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Let's see:

"The fundamental building blocks of magic are the magical traditions and the schools of magic. The four traditions are arcane, divine, occult, and primal. A spell’s magical tradition can vary, because many spells can be cast using different traditions."

So this does imply that a specific spell can have a tradition associated with it. So a Cleric's Light spell is Divine, and thus would not be equivalent to a Light [Arcane], and thus wouldn't be an appropriate target for learning.

I don't think that the above reasoning is bulletproof, since it cites a descriptive text and is up to interpretation.

I strongly believe the intention is that you can't learn spells across traditions, mostly for flavor reasons. For example, if the Wizard's best and most reliable means of obtaining new spells is consulting with the party cleric and druid, then I think quite a lot of the Wizard class fantasy is harmed.

While it is not unreasonable to bring up the point you mention about there being different traditions, and them representing different ways about casting the spell, it is also true that items don't have traditions, they cast the spell according to the caster.

If the cleric made a scroll of the spell and handed it to the wizard, if the spell was something within the Arcane tradition, they could learn it from the scroll. So how hard is it to imagine that the Cleric could spend the time with the wizard personally discussing the aspects of the light spell as they know it, and the wizard eventually getting the same 'lightbulb' moment where they figure out how to trigger it from their tradition.

While I don't see it impossible to accept a generalized rule in a campaign universe that says, no it doesn't 'generally' work to have different traditions talk over a spell to learn it, that rule could easily be bypassed via crafting if available.

Otherwise, the world would need to house-rule every item having a hard-fast tradition tied to it as...

Well, crafting a scroll takes some time and investment (skills, feats, money) over and above directly copying the spell and could be construed as the cleric taking the time to translate their god's spells into a more generalized form.

It certainly would be an easier pill to swallow for those who want to play a genius master of Arcane knowledge without constantly asking Druids and Clerics to do their homework.

[Perpdepog]

I was also basing my rationale off the fact that items use the Magical trait, rather than specific tradition traits, yeah. Spells from those items only become Arcane, Divine, etc. when they are cast, not inside the item.

And, as a reminder, we have expressly inter-school precedend in the setting in the form of the Magaambya, which freely mix arcane and primal magic.

I also don't think it'd be at all unreasonable to require that the people learning the spell take a circumstance penalty to translating from one tradition to another, however, since methodologies for spellcasting are still obviously different beasts. Otherwise there wouldn't be any traditions at all.