FrankTrollman wrote:[
What we did is back-figured the changes in Spell Resistance from those creatures which do stack spell resistance (some SR stacks, others does not in the basic rules), and then made a couple of best-fit curves and used the one which was least broken mechanically. Once we had a relatively non-broken curve we fiatted that it should simply work like that every time you had multiple sources of SR.
Mmmm, nice. Science: I like science!
By that logic, only a map can be turned into a treatise on burning ebony walking sticks. It's an example.
Actually, having now read the original spell text rather than the garbled SRD description I posted, I agree. Sorry to waste your time on that one...
Not that it matters of course, since you can layer secret pages on the same page. If you seriously required a spellbook page to make a spellbook page you could still take the one page of mend and cast secret page on it over and over again so that multiple command words could cycle it through the entirety of cloudkill.
"You are able to reveal the original contents by speaking a special word. You can then peruse the actual page, and return it to its secret page form at will."
The command word reveals "the original contents", not any other Secret Page spells that may have been layered, and you can then peruse "the actual page", not "another Secret Page".
Of course, this means that Secret Page is an automatic counter for Secret Page, because if you layer it over another caster's casting, saying your own command word will reveal the original contents, not the other caster's Secret Page.
Hmmm... how silly.
Actually, again, I've just noticed that this is a discrepancy between the SRD copy I'm holding locally and the PHB spell text, which says:
"The caster is able to reveal the original contents by speaking a command word, perusing the actual page, and then returning it to its secret page form. The caster can also remove the spell by double repetition of the command word."
This is entirely different to my first quote and I wholeheartedly both retract my objection and curse whoever did the transcription of the copy of the spell I was using.
You can argue a number of things. It is quite true that the statement "A Wizard can only cast spells she knows" is not logically equivalent to the statement "A wizard can cast spells she knows."
Heheh...
However, having the spell appear on the Wizard spell list is not actually a requirement of preparing or casting spells - which is why a Wizard can research new spells that do not appear on any list.
No, a Wizard can research new spells that don't appear on any list because the rules specifically state that a Wizard can do that. Whether or not the Wizard can then *cast* a spell that has been researched is not described, but we assume s/he can or they wouldn't have bothered. Whether or not that spell then appears on "the Sorceror/Wizard spell list" is another question and you can likewise assume anything you like because the rules don't describe it...
Making the assumption that the character can't do something because the rules don't say they can is not functionally the same as assuming that a character can do something merely because the rules don't say they can't! I tend to be more wary of the latter than the former.
You are choosing to assume that Wizards can use this ability to learn and cast Cleric spells, which is fine, but it doesn't say that they can in the rules. It doesn't say they can't either, true enough. It seems to me *more* reasonable to say that a Wizard can learn and cast a spell they have researched even though that spell doesn't appear on any list than to say that they can learn and cast a Cleric spell from a divine scroll: a spell that exists but explicitly does not appear on the Wizard list. However, that's how it seems to me; the rules don't actually say that you can or can't do either!
The rules do explicitly say that Wizards cast arcane spells. The rules do not say that Wizards can cast divine spells, and they don't even suggest that spells copied from divine scrolls become arcane spells.
I think if I have trouble with your otherwise marvellous posts and great advice, it's that I sometimes (note:
sometimes) find it difficult to tell from the text whether you're:
1) making a definitive assertion on something that's explicitly written into the rules/FAQ/errata/official clarification, or;
2) you've calculated or extrapolated something yourself that's implicitly in the rules and logically *must* be there somewhere (vide the spell resistance metric), or;
3) you're making assumptions that make sense to you and are logically consistent with the rest of the picture you present but aren't necessarily supported by the rules, or;
4) you are deliberately and with intent flatly contradicting the rules in order to replace them with something better and more consistent
That said, I'm entirely prepared to believe that it's just me, and that my language comprehension skills have been rotted away by years of reading corporate drivel!
Anyway, whether any criticism I have made is even remotely justified or not, my general feeling is:
EDIT: It occurs that the entire point of the "nomicon" series might be to spell it out like it should be rather than how it is, in which case that last set of comments is pretty redundant