The Archivist = Broken?

[User3]

The WotC optimizers are talking about it
[counturl=25]here.[/counturl]

The link to the preview of this new core class is
[counturl=26]here.[/counturl]

What's your opinion? Looks highly abuseable to me. With PrC's, you can gain everything a cleric can and have even more. crazy!

[User3]

It really isn't any more broken than anything else. Why care?

Basically it is just another argument against having seperate divine and arcane spellcasting classes.

[User3]

With Anyspell / Gr. Anyspell, Divine Bards, Shugenjas, and a host of other game mechanics that bridge the divide of arcane and divine, that's true.

one thing that makes no sense whatsoever is why this class has a good fortitude save. this is a freakin' librarian for goodness sake! rogues should have stronger fort saves than this guy.

[Username17]

It sucks. Honestly, anyone who is going to let you learn Lightning Bolt because it's on the Shugenja list is going to let your wizard use the literal wording of their spell scribing power which allows them to learn any spell - arcane or divine - so long as they decipher the text. So all the crap about how OMG this class is supposed to be is done by the ignorant. Anything, and I mean anything that an Archivist can do was already an available trick for Wizards out of the core rules.

The best, and in fact only decent and new trick of this whole class is the ability to daze creatures with a move action starting at 11th level. But they also get Planar Ally at this level, so I honestly don't give a damn.

-Username17

[User3]

continuing Frank's point, it looks like in the latter part of the linked thread, a debate ensues on the whole confusion and manipulation of the the arcane/divine divide. especially in relations to scroll creation and what have you

Still, there's no question the Archivist is leagues better than the wizard. Putting him right under the cleric and druid as the most powerful class in the game

[Username17]

Still, there's no question the Archivist is leagues better than the wizard. Putting him right under the cleric and druid as the most powerful class in the game

I think that's completely open to question. The archivist's big selling point - that it can learn any divine spell that it finds a scroll of, is just a subset of the wizard's big selling point that it can scribe any spell that it ever finds on a scroll anytime in its whole life.

The fact that the archivist casts Divine Spells is an advantage, and the fact that it eventually gets some special Lore abilities that make any difference at all is pretty sweet. But at its core it's a Wizard with a more limited and therefore inferior spell list.

I would put it just under a wizard, truth be told.

-Username17

[User3]

No way. The Arch trumps the wizard in a number of core mechanics. 2 good saves, d6 HD, 4 skills/level (including Search), better armor proficiencies, divine spellcasting superiority regarding armor, Dread Secrets that can stun deities .. and are only move-actions to use (!!), and a host of other misc. class mechanics that embarrass the wizard's bonus feat progression.

Add on to that, using ranger, paladin, adept (a rocking divine spell list), shugenja, divine bard (UA), & druid spells at their lower listed level [assuming appropriate scroll acquisition] - and you have a class that ownz wizards.

Add in easy access to Sacred Exorcist PrC, and you now have clerical turning for divine metamagic insanity. Contemplative and a host of other PrC's gives access to domain-only spells. And the Domain Spontaneity feat (CD) for the ultimate in flexibility.

The class already is a Mystic Theurge without wasting any spellcaster levels.

Being able to MEA a Dark Knowledge: Stun along with a Standard Action spellcast is strong multitasking coming right out of the box.

While not a broken core class, it's already on par with cleric for a number of reasons. Because it's easy to pick up the cleric's core schtick with fairly minimal investment effort.

Not sure why the archivist has d6 HD or 2 good saves (fort & will) when all he does is sit his fat ass down in a library all day. My guess is that errata will change those crazy Dark Secret abilities to standard actions too.

[Username17]

No way. The Arch trumps the wizard in a number of core mechanics. 2 good saves, d6 HD, 4 skills/level (including Search), better armor proficiencies, divine spellcasting superiority regarding armor, Dread Secrets that can stun deities .. and are only move-actions to use (!!), and a host of other misc. class mechanics that embarrass the wizard's bonus feat progression.

Actually, no they don't trump the wizard's bonus feat progression. Noone is ever going to take more than 6 levels of Wizard, hey're going to PrC out by then (and so is the Archivist). And at that point they get Scribe Scroll and Craft Wondrous Item. Then they prestige out. While an Archivist has "no empty levels", and is thus a laudable step in the right direction, at that point they've picked up some flavor abilities. The Knowledge Powers you get at this point don't even matter (puisance and tactics are a joke). So you're basically looking at Still Mind and a +2 bonus to a knowledge skill to go with your Scribe Scroll. Honestly? I'd rather have Craft Wondrous.

Of course, the Archivist gets bonuses to Fort Saves and some extra hit points. But he actually has less spells per day as his bonus spells are based off of Wisdom and he is otherwise an Int caster.

Add on to that, using ranger, paladin, adept (a rocking divine spell list), shugenja, divine bard (UA), & druid spells at their lower listed level [assuming appropriate scroll acquisition]

No you don't. The Wizard can scribe all of those scrolls into his spell book too! This isn't a unique power of the Archivist, the Wizard can learn any of those spells, and the Wizard can learn spells from Nar Demonbinder, Dread Necromancer, Hex Blade, Corupt Avenger, Assassin, Bard, and of course Wizard scrolls on top of that! A Wizard can learn from any piece of magical writing she can decipher, not any piece of magical writing she can activate. A wizard can only activate arcane scrolls of spells on the wizard spell list - but she can decipher any scroll off of any spell list.

So a Wizard can sit around with a couple of levels of Geometer and an Artificer Cohort and just Amenuensis any desired spell from any spell list into her spell book for 50 GP a shot. An Archivist has to actually find a divine scroll written by an actual Divine Spellcaster of any particular spell he wants, and scribe it for full cost.

Add in easy access to Sacred Exorcist PrC

Wizards already have easy access to Sacred Exorcist. It requires 2 knowledge skills and a spell off the Wizard Spell list. They don't have to do anything funky at all. The only requirement is not taking Abjuration as a barred school.

Contemplative and a host of other PrC's

Technically, Contemplative is way better if you are not a Divine Spellcaster than if you are. The prereqs can be achieved with your friend casting Imbue with Spell Ability, and if you get into the class without any divine spellcasting classes, you add your Contemplative Class Levels to an existing spellcasting class, and you get Clerical spellcasting on top of that equal to your Contemplative level. It's not a big deal by the time you can get it, but that is an "and", not an "or".

The class already is a Mystic Theurge without wasting any spellcaster levels.

No it isn't. The Wizard, if you want her to be, can mystic theurge with her own class features alone. The Archivist is just a Cleric who trades being massively less helpful at low levels for the ability to half-way mimic some of the Wizard's most awesome and abusive tricks at high levels. That makes it better than a Cleric at high levels, but not better than a Wizard at any levels.

---

Remember, a Wizard is pulling her weight from day one. At first level, she's coming right out of the box with Sleep and Color Spray, laying the Save-or-Die on enemies left and right. At first level an Archivist can prepare a couple of spells off the Cleric Spell List, and has no meaningful close or distant combat ability. Unless you are starting at high level, it's a gimped class.

In the long run, the Archivist will be pulling his weight in spades, but he still can't actually do anything that a Wizard can't duplicate at least as well. It's just not an impressive class. In the long run, it's better than a Sorcerer, but that's as far as I'll go. The Dread Necromancer is better than a Sorcerer in the long run as well. Heck, the DN is better than the Archivist as well.

-Username17

[Oberoni]

1128917910[/unixtime]]It sucks. Honestly, anyone who is going to let you learn Lightning Bolt because it's on the Shugenja list is going to let your wizard use the literal wording of their spell scribing power which allows them to learn any spell - arcane or divine - so long as they decipher the text.

-Username17

You know, I don't have my books nearby, since I'm not at my home computer, but I don't see why this is relevant.

I don't give a flip about what a wizard can scribble into their book, just what they can cast, and I'm getting this from the SRD:

A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).

This is from the "spells" class feature of the wizard, of course. It seems to be pretty clear that the spells have to be:

1. Arcane, and
2. Drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list.

I don't see anything that allows you to cast spells that are not arcane, or not drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or both. I haven't found a quote that says "a wizard can cast any spell he's deciphered," although, without a book, I won't say that it's not there.

However, until I see such a quote, I don't even see how you can begin to have a discussion on the subject. Not arcane? Not on your list? Not castable.

[Username17]

A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).

Actually, the restriction that it has to be on the spell list applies to spells that you learn for free. All of your spells are arcane when you cast them regardless of where you got them from. If you decipher a divine scroll of Protection from Arrows and put it in your spell book, it is still going to be an arcane spell when you cast it.

So really, neither of those are restrictions at all - just signifier of what happens when the character casts spells. Any spell you know is by definition on your list, as is every spell on your class list. So since a wizard can only prepare spells she knows, every spell she casts is by definition an arcane spell on the Wizard list when it comes out of her mouth (regardless of what it is the rst of the time).

-Username17

[Crissa]

Oberoni believe that Mages can't create new spells, ever?

-Crissa

[Oberoni]

1129939013[/unixtime]]

A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).

Actually, the restriction that it has to be on the spell list applies to spells that you learn for free.

Ok, what makes you say that?

So really, neither of those are restrictions at all - just signifier of what happens when the character casts spells. Any spell you know is by definition on your list, as is every spell on your class list.

Or what about that? It seems quite possible to have deciphered a spell that still isn't on your list (as your earlier example shows).

Oberoni believe that Mages can't create new spells, ever?

-Crissa

Why, no, that actually has nothing to do with what I said. Where did you get that, exactly?

I can find rules that say "oh yeah, you can research new spells."

I can't find rules that say "you deciphered a scroll of Cure Light Wounds you got from the Artificer, congrats, you can cast that spell now."

So, I reckon that Frank must have found somethin' that says you can, but I haven't seen it, yet. I'm just seeing stuff that says "you can decipher spells" which isn't the same thing.

So, any rules linkage that you're using that at least quasi-explicitly says "You can cast any spell you've deciphered into your spellbook, even if it's not arcane" or something?

[Murtak]

I believe the passage Frank refers to is this:

Spells Copied from Another’s Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard’s spellbook. No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above).

Ok .... wizard spellbooks and any scrolls whatsoever. This is supported by the lack of a qualifier before "magic scrolls" and by "no matter the spell's source". On the other hand it refers to "see arcane magical writings". Still, I can see how one could argue that a wizard may indeed scribe a spell from any scroll.

Of course I am not sure if you could then cast the spell by a literal reading of the rules since "A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list.". So you could scribe the spell, prepare the spell, but not cast it.



Of course this is using the SRD, as I do not own a 3.5 Player's Handbook. Those passages might well be written differently in the original text.

[User3]

I agree with Murtak's take on it. The wizard can indeed scribe & prep non-wizard spells into his spellbook per core RAW.

But I see no specific ruling that allows the wizard to actually cast[/i] those spells that are not on his spell list.

You cant extrapolate that these non-wizard spells are castable just because they are scribed in his spellbook.

[Username17]

First, it does not say that a wizard can only cast arcane spells, it says that the wizard casts arcane spells. The first means that the wizard can't cast a spell that isn't arcane - but it doesn't say that. The second says that a spell the wizard casts is arcane - and that is what it actually says.

As to arcane magical writings, same thing. If you copy a spell into your spellbook, it's arcane at that point. It doesn't matter if the scroll you copied it from is arcane or not. The definitions run the opposite direction from the way Oberoni and Bran are attempting to run them.

Anything a Wizard writes down or casts is arcane. There is not a restriction that a Wizard can only copy from an arcane scroll. There is a restriction that a Wizard can only activate an arcane scroll, but again that's different.

The requirements to activate a scroll are:

1. Must decipher the scroll.
2. Must have spell on your spell list (at any level).
3. Must be appropriate arcane/divine version.

The requirements to learn a spell from a scroll are:

1. Must decipher the scroll.

That's it. And yes, once you know a spell you can fvcking well cast it. That's why prestige classes that add spells to your spells known work at all. Otherwise the Sand Shaper, which causes you to know Heat Metal, wouldn't do dick.

I know that many people don't want Wizards to be able to learn spells from Cleric and Druic scrolls. I honestly have no idea why that would be the case, and enforcing that is a house rule on their part.

A implies B does not mean B implies A! The Wizard casts Arcane Spells does not mean that a Wizard cannot learn from a non-arcane source.

-Username17

[Oberoni]

1130004959[/unixtime]]First, it does not say that a wizard can only cast arcane spells, it says that the wizard casts arcane spells. The first means that the wizard can't cast a spell that isn't arcane - but it doesn't say that. The second says that a spell the wizard casts is arcane - and that is what it actually says.

You know, I recall someone--you, I believe--once positing that arguing from between the cracks is not kosher. I think your example was something akin to "the rules don't say that you don't summon a red dragon every time you swing your sword, but that doesn't mean it happens."

Your point, of course, is that rules list what you're allowed to do. The absense of a forbiddance is not an allowance.

I will claim that this is in effect here. The wizard stuff just says "A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below)."

That's it. That's how it describes the "spells" feature of the wizard.

Now, exceptions abound in D&D, right? However, they're usually stated. The PHB lists the exception "oh yeah, you can research new spells." One of those Complete books (Arcane, I believe) lets you add the spells from a domain to your spellbook, and cast them.

So that's cool. Rules are all about exceptions. However, if an exception isn't stated, I tend to believe it isn't there.

And I'm not seeing this exception that "wizards can cast any old thing they scribe into their book" even implied. I totally agree that they can scribble the spell down, but you haven't presented the link that says "well, since you scribbled it down, you can now cast it as if it's on your spell list."

And that's what I'm asking for, really. If that link isn't in the rules, then wizards can't do what you think they can do.

[Oberoni]

Also...

As to arcane magical writings, same thing. If you copy a spell into your spellbook, it's arcane at that point.

Anything a Wizard writes down or casts is arcane.

I'm curious, why do you keep stating this? If it's in the rules somewhere, do tell. After all, it'd halfway prove what you're stating (the other half being that the spell would somehow have to qualify for being on the sorcerer/wizard list, or have some sort of exception listed).

[Username17]

I'm curious, why do you keep stating this?

Because it's true. It's the way the implication goes in the statement that keeps getting quoted. "A wizard casts arcane spells" means "If a wizard casts a spell, then that spell is arcane". It does not mean "A wizard may cast a spell only if it is arcane".

The section on Arcane Magical Writing says:

ARCANE MAGICAL WRITINGS
To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical force involved in the spell.

which is admittedly confusing. Based on that comma, it could either mean that a wizard needs an arcane spell to place into her spellbook, or it could mean that writing the spell into the spellbook makes it arcane.

The rules do not at any point explicitly state that a wizard "knows" all of the spells in her spellbook. The rules do say that writing a spell into a spellbook is something which is done with spells that the wizard "understands", and I am willing to submit that a spell which is understood is in this case considered to be a spell "known".

Further, researching a new spell just says:

A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one.

It's actually under the section that lets you add a spell to your spellbook because you deciphered a scroll. If adding a spell to your book under those circumstances is insufficient in your mind to cast that spell, you can't cast newly researched spells either, because it's the same rule that lets you do both things.

---

Essentially, what you are asking the rules to say "Wizards can cast any spells in their spellbooks, dumbass!" isn't actually in the book. It says you can't cast a spell unless it is in your spellbook, and it says that wizard "chooses which spells to prepare", but that's as far as it goes.

But you're going to have to take the leap of faith that when it says that wizards cast spells they prepare, and that they prepare spells out of their spellbooks, and they choose which spells to prepare, and that they need spells in written form to prepare them, that when it also says that they can put a spell into their spellbook that it also means that they can prepare and cast it. Otherwise they can't do anything, because that one last crucial rule that wizards actually can cast these spells is completely missing from the rules and merely implied by some sloppy writing that tells us every single other fact about this setup.

Yes, whether wizards can cast their spells is left an open question, and scholars with way too fvcking much time on their hands can debate it endlessly if that's what they want to do. They are, however, splitting hairs to the point wher eI don't care any more.

---

A more compelling argument, actually, is that wizards can scribe spells directly out of the spellbooks of non-wizard classes like archivists. There are no rules in the PHB that pertain to spellbooks generally, only to Wizard spellbooks (because in the PHB there is only one class that has spellbooks). Any other character that maintains a spellbook is thus game mechanically maintaining a spellbook as a wizard - which means that it's "another wizard's spellbook" from the perspective of the rules that allow wizards to learn spells from spellbooks.

-Username17

[Murtak]

I am not sure if a divine spell scribed into a wizard spellbook would be arcane or divine. That is besides the point though. It is not on the wizard spell list and since a wizard casts spell from that list he can not cast it. Your counter to this seems to be "but that can not be the intention - otherwise other class features of other classes do not work at all".

Well, you have to decide - either you want to look at the problem using common sense - in which case it is a judgement call as to whether the game designers intended wizards to be able to scribe cleric spells or whether or not it is too powerful to allow them to do so. Or you can argue the rules as written - in which case they can not cast the spells. But you don't get to switch back and forth from common sense to RAW.

[Username17]

Wizards can research spells. Those spells are not on the Wizard spell list, and presumably Wizards are supposed to be able to cast them.

A rule that wizards can't cast spells that are not on the wizard list is conspicuously absent from the rules. And unlike the other rule that people commonly assume where wizards can actually cast their fvcking spells, it is not necessary to operate the wizard as intended.

In fact, since implementing such a rule would invalidate the whole concept of spell research - implementing such a rule would be retarded. So no, I refuse to accept that that was the intent.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

While you may be able to scribe a spell into your book through some crazy rules lawyer style interpretation, I still have no idea how you'd prepare a spell that isn't on your spell list.

I'd think scribing a spell that isn't on your list would be a cool way to burn 100 gp per spell level for absolutely no practical gain.

[Username17]

While you may be able to scribe a spell into your book through some crazy rules lawyer style interpretation, I still have no idea how you'd prepare a spell that isn't on your spell list.

The same way that you'd be able to benefit from taking a level of Sand Shaper:

Desert Insight: As a memeber of this class, you gain knowledge of additional spells (see list below).

Does it say you gain spells to your spell list? Hell no! It just says that you gain them as spells known. That list has all kinds of crap that isn't on the Wizard list, and yet knowing the spell is obviously plenty enough to let you cast it anyhow. Speak with Animals? Heat Metal? No problem.

And you know why? Because the rule that you can only cast spells from the Wizard list does not exist. The rule is that you can only cast spells from your spellbook, followed by another rule that the free spells in your spellbook can only come from the Wizard List. So unless you find a way to get CLW into your spellbook, you can't cast it, and no amount of level gain is going to put CLW in that book for you. But you can jolly well pay a fat stack of money and transform a CLW scroll into a page in your spellbook and then you can prepare all the cures you want. Which would probably be zero, but the point is that it is an option.

-Username17

[Murtak]

Maybe you missed it when I first quoted it, but the following sure looks like "wizards cannot cast anything not on the wizard list" to me.

A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list.

Does that mean some class features (like that sandshaper ability) will not work? Yep. Is that retarded? Yep. So what? We are using a literal reading of the rules, right?

[Username17]

Maybe you missed it when I first quoted it, but the following sure looks like "wizards cannot cast anything not on the wizard list" to me.

No. I didn't miss it, the implicataroy statement runs the other way. The sentence:

"Frank eats oranges which are underripe" does not mean that I can't eat food that isn't underripe. It doesn't mean that I can't eat apples. It just means that at least one thing that I eat is an orange which is underripe.

That statement doesn't literally say much of anything, since it is an inclusionary statement. However, if you wanted to make it a "strong" statement, all it would do is make the spells you cast into arcane wizard spells, it wouldn't actually require that the spells start that way before you cast them.

Remember, the statement:

"Things Frank touches are Poison which you should avoid." does not mean that I am only capable of touching poisonous things, it means that anything I have touched should be avoided.

Does that mean some class features (like that sandshaper ability) will not work

No. It doesn't mean that at all. The statement "X verbs Y which is Z" does not restrict X to verbing Ys or Zs. That's an entirely different statement "X only verbs Y which is Z". A statement with an explicit or implied "if" is not the same as a statement with an "only if", those mean almost completely opposite things.

-Username17

[User3]

Just playing the devil's advocate here, but I've got to say it.

Wizards cast spells from the Sor/Wiz spell list. OK. Wizards may or may not cast spells from other spells lists (the rules are more or less silent).

Because wizards gain no specific ability to cast spells not on the Sor/Wiz spell list, they can't (just like they can't spontaniously cast Miracle at will with no XP component).

If some other ability specifically grants them the ability to cast spells not on the Sor/Wiz list (or the ability to spontaniously cast Miracle at will), they can. But not unless they get that ability.

The Sandshaper class feature is just really poorly writen. "Gains knowledge of"? I have "knowledge" of all those spells, but I sure as hell can't cast them. Most wizards probably have "knowledge" of Cure Light Wounds, but that doesn't mean that they can cast it.



When a wizard researches a spell, they research that spell onto the Sor/Wiz list.

So, while wizards could in theory research any spell from any class list onto their own, that is totally up to the DM.