The Archivist = Broken?

[User3]

fbmf,

Nope. This is "The Reg". Wren is not even in country right now. You'll find a lot of my posts here. They've always been good from a participation and contribution perspective. Apparently, up until now.

But since you find my posts to be so discomforting, I'll cease posting here from now on. Feel free to "flex your muscle" and edit this post to accomodate your needs.

[Lago_AM3P]

Josh, that post from the SRD has completely convinced me that wizards can cast any spells they find in scroll form.

However:

With the vast majority of DMs, they're going to plug their fingers into their ears even with this solid evidence. I think that while it was against the intent of the game designers once upon a time, it also plainly points out their hypocrisy and stupid legacy mechanics. The spell research guidelines state things about caps for damage and wizards not getting healing spells, which are completely and intentionally blown away in sourcebooks written by the same people who wrote these original spell guidelines!

The people who invented 3rd edition have all at one point or another written rules that have completely blown away their own vague guidelines, the psychological barrier that stops us from wizards casting cleric spells. If they don't believe in the whole 'wizards shouldn't have cleric spells', then why do they write so many PrCs, spells, monsters and feats that do just that?

The theory that wizards can't cast and learn 'cleric spells' goes against design intent, a strict interpretation of the rules, and theories of game balance. The only reason to enforce such a screwjob ruling is your 'feelings' on what D&D 'should be'.

And if you enforce this ruling and yet at the same time allow any of the above feats or PrCs that break the guidelines into your game, well, then you're just a hopeless, mewling retard.

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]

Reg, you are welcome to post here. You are welcome to disagree with me or any of the posters here as long as you do so cordially.

Flaming and trolling, such as what I quoted above, are not tolerated. Anonymous flaming and trolling is certainly not tolerated. I will use my Administrator powers to "out" anyone who does it.

Having said that, Wrenfield is the only registered member that posts from your IP address. I assumed it was him. My apologies to Wren for falsely accusing him.

If you wish to discuss this further, PM me (this would require you to register) or send an email to the address in my profile.

[/TGFBS]

[fbmf]

Another point of view.

Game On,
fbmf

[RandomCasualty]

1130805059[/unixtime]]
And if you enforce this ruling and yet at the same time allow any of the above feats or PrCs that break the guidelines into your game, well, then you're just a hopeless, mewling retard.

I wouldn't go that far. I mean honestly, spending an ability (whether by taking a feat or taking a PrC) to expand your spell list is different from just getting power for nothing.

Wizards are one of the most powerful classes in the game. They really don't need a power boost by letting them cast cleric spells too.

I mean before I go tacking on more power to the wizard class, somebody has to show me why they need more power. Bards or monks can come to me for a "free power" handout, but I'm a bit skeptical if a wizard does it.

[Lago_AM3P]

I mean before I go tacking on more power to the wizard class, somebody has to show me why they need more power. Bards or monks can come to me for a "free power" handout, but I'm a bit skeptical if a wizard does it.

It's an unintended consequence of them not looking over their own crap thoroughly.

The design intent, the literal ruling, and the game balance issues are all in place--if their design intent was that a wizard has to jump through hoops to get the cleric spells (with feats and PrCs) then how is it possibly different than just finding the scrolls?

DMs actually have to place scrolls of cleric spells in the game, barring a cleric in your party with scribe scroll feat. That actually makes it less preferrable than a PrC or a feat to get clerical spells, because you're relying on outside forces to make it happen.

It's like designing a character based around the idea that you'll find a staff of the magi. I don't find this un-game balanced at all.

If you're trying to argue that a scroll method is still too cheap, then tough titty. D&D in this or any incarnation is all about finding the best effect for the cheapest price.


Regardless, I'm curious about which spells you find on the cleric list that aren't already broken in themselves that are abusive in the hands of a wizard? Even staples like divine power and spikes are just kind of... crap for a wizard.

[RandomCasualty]

1130838273[/unixtime]]
If you're trying to argue that a scroll method is still too cheap, then tough titty. D&D in this or any incarnation is all about finding the best effect for the cheapest price.

Hardly when it involves deliberately going against the spirit of the rules. If wizards were intended to cast cleric spells, they'd have put them on their list. It's really that simple. When people start arguing to me about how the rules secretly allow wizards to have cleric spells through backdoor loopholes because of crap like missing or misplaced commas and breaking down the grammar of fucking game designers... well I just block out my ears right there.

I mean if the argument is that complex and requires all kinds of crap, it's pretty obvious it's nothing but an attempt to pull a fast one and shouldn't be allowed anyway unless it actually serves game balance (which this doesn't).

Regardless, I'm curious about which spells you find on the cleric list that aren't already broken in themselves that are abusive in the hands of a wizard? Even staples like divine power and spikes are just kind of... crap for a wizard.

There aren't many. But mainly the divinations are good. Augury, Find the path, Divination, Commune. Also they may find a few decent spells now and then.

I don't think it makes a huge difference, but wizards are already one of the most powerful core classes in the game. They don't need more power. Even if just one out of those 100 spells actually helps, that's still too much extra power IMO.

Why make an already overpowered class more powerful?

[Username17]

1130825304[/unixtime]] Another point of view.

Game On,
fbmf

Right.

So first he goes and makes a strawman out of people supposedly claiming that the statement that Wizards couldn't prepare spells that were not in their spellbook meant that wizards could prepare spells out of their spellbook. I've certainly been pretty careful about that shit, the only argument I've made is that the inverse is a bare requirement for Wizards to be able to do anything at all. It is an assumption so inherent in the game at all levels that Prestige Classes, Feats, and in fact the Core Mechanics of the class rely upon it. While it at no time says that Wizards can prepare the spells in their spellbook, all other statements about the Wizard are completely meaningless without that leap of faith.

And then he finds the text that states that Divine Spellcasters can make a sacred text that teaches other divine spellcasters how to make a spell, and then claims that this is evidence that Wizards can't learn from scrolls. If you make a sacred text, then another cleric can learn the spell does not even mean that a non-cleric can't learn the spell. That leap of logic is just puzzling. He's making exactly the same error in proof and analysis that he was earlier attributing to others, does he not pay any fvcking attention at all?

Sphendule is a moron, and if I never get directed to his verbal diarrhea again, it will be too soon.

-Username17

[Lago_AM3P]

Hardly when it involves deliberately going against the spirit of the rules. If wizards were intended to cast cleric spells, they'd have put them on their list. It's really that simple. When people start arguing to me about how the rules secretly allow wizards to have cleric spells through backdoor loopholes because of crap like missing or misplaced commas and breaking down the grammar of fvcking game designers... well I just block out my ears right there.

I don't think it makes a huge difference, but wizards are already one of the most powerful core classes in the game. They don't need more power. Even if just one out of those 100 spells actually helps, that's still too much extra power IMO.

Why make an already overpowered class more powerful?

That's too bad, because the people who brought you this delicious game (the people who had the 'bright' idea to separate the lists in the first place) have already decided that wizards should be able to get clerical spells--so far the cheapest price that most people have agreed on is that of a single feat.

There isn't any spirit of the rules anymore. If there was a spirit of the rules, they'd be way more firm on the whole transparency issue. The only possible objection someone could have is that the rules don't support it--but shit, man, it clearly does.

Are you going to try to tell me that you can see through a shit-ton of counterexamples and hypocrisy on the part of the game designers and tell me this separation is what they clearly wanted? Maybe, but only because 2nd edition has rotted peoples' brains. If this was the first edition of D&D ever, no one would even care.

There isn't any disagreement anymore that wizards shouldn't be able to cast cleric spells. Shit, man, limited wish already completely blows this line of reasoning away; it's cheap and it's core, too. And it lets you cast all of the abusive cleric spells you put on your wish already.

They put in rules for the game that allows you to cast imaginary spells, they put in rules that let you cast spells you don't even know from the cleric list if you roll high enough, they put in rules that completely blew away the arcane/divine transparency, they put in rules that allow you to have divine spells as arcane (core, too)--and as if this wasn't enough, they put in rules for the non-believers that let you get cleric spells just by taking levels in a PrC or having a feat.

Scrolls from other people in this game are basically DM fiat. If you accept THAT and you also accept every other method ever printed for getting clerical spells, why don't you accept the idea that wizards get a rather minor price-saving effect (compared to the asston of circumventions in the CORE RULES) for acquisitioning clerical spells?

[RandomCasualty]

1130844381[/unixtime]]
That's too bad, because the people who brought you this delicious game (the people who had the 'bright' idea to separate the lists in the first place) have already decided that wizards should be able to get clerical spells--so far the cheapest price that most people have agreed on is that of a single feat.

Sure, you can pay feats or take special PrCs to get clerical spells, and that pretty much tells you that it's against the spirit of the rules to hand them out for nothing. If your fighter asked for the benefits of the weapon focus feat for free without taking the feat, you'd laugh at him. The same should be done to wizards trying to gain this free advantage. Nobody is going to pay a feat for arcane disciple if you can just get the spells for free.

There isn't any spirit of the rules anymore. If there was a spirit of the rules, they'd be way more firm on the whole transparency issue. The only possible objection someone could have is that the rules don't support it--but shit, man, it clearly does.

The rules support it if you take feats or PrCs to do it. The rules don't support giving it to wizards for nothing, at least not unless you're pulling some "let me parse the commas and misinterpret rules text to suit my purposes" rules bullshit. And seriously, it's bullshit. We all know you're not supposed to be able to cast cleric spells without paying anything. We all know that the game designers aren't masters of the english language.

While I have little doubt that the argument for it probably works out. It's clear it's just a designer mistake.

Are you going to try to tell me that you can see through a shit-ton of counterexamples and hypocrisy on the part of the game designers and tell me this separation is what they clearly wanted? Maybe, but only because 2nd edition has rotted peoples' brains. If this was the first edition of D&D ever, no one would even care.

The spells aren't on the wizards spell list. I don't need any other counterexamples or hypocrisy to prove intent. It's really that fucking simple. If they wanted the wizard to cast it, it'd be on his spell list. So we turn to the wizards spell list, see it's not there, now we know what they intended. If you want to get around that through legalese, you are subverting the intention.

Now, it's ok if you think the designers are smoking crack and wizards should be able to cast cleric spells for balance purposes. If you want to *change* the rules, fine. But trying to come up with some crack ass explanation of why it's actually legal is rules lawyering of the worse kind.

We know perfectly well that wizard's aren't supposed to do that. It has nothing to do with sacred cows or any of that crap. It was a decision made for third edition. You ain't getting something for nothing. If you want to pay a feat for the ability, then sure, but you ain't getting it for free, not without a direct use of rule 0.

[Josh_Kablack]

1130805059[/unixtime]]Josh, that post from the SRD has completely convinced me that wizards can cast any spells they find in scroll form.

Glad it helped somebody decide something. This debate has pretty much mystified me, but that seemed to be the only tangent that nobody from here, Nifty or WotC had mentioned yet.

[Zherog]

It's clear it's just a designer mistake.

No it's not. It could also be a developer or editor mistake.

[erik]

1130887147[/unixtime]]
The spells aren't on the wizards spell list. I don't need any other counterexamples or hypocrisy to prove intent. It's really that fvcking simple. If they wanted the wizard to cast it, it'd be on his spell list.

Yeah, that jives perfectly with this:

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

It doesn't say duplicating "an existing wizard spell," as that would be stupid, since the rules for learning wizard spells are already covered by then. So what other existing spells could there be to be researched? Hrm.

I really can't find much stock at all in the notion that the core designers or whomever all definitely thought that wizards could only ever ever ever cast wizard spells. There may have been a few writers who were of that mind, but it seems pretty damn clear that whoever left in the text that wizards can research other existing spells or entirely new ones that aren't on any list wasn't too skittish about wizards getting to learn non-wizard list spells.

In this instance, trying to claim high ground as though one knows the mind of every core writer, editor and such just makes a person sound like a jackass.

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to
support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to
authority is inappropriate if:

(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.

You can get a signed affadavit where all the people who worked on the core books and were in a position to change the text so that wizards so that wizards could only cast wizard spells yet accidentally refused to do so, and then you can start making the lame claim that you know what the designers intended. Please, no sooner though.

[RandomCasualty]

1130970707[/unixtime]]
It doesn't say duplicating "an existing wizard spell," as that would be stupid, since the rules for learning wizard spells are already covered by then. So what other existing spells could there be to be researched? Hrm.

No it wouldn't. What if you cacn't find that spell anywhere. That rule is there for the world where you can't just run down and buy a scroll of horrid wilting. Remember that not every world is going to have SpellMart incorporated where you can run down and buy whatever you want. Sometimes you may have to research the spell yourself because nobody has it.

When you do spell research you add a new spell to your list, but it stil has to be added to the wizard list in the first place. It's there to allow you to create new spells mostly.

Not to mention spell research has to be apporved by the DM, so while some DMs may allow you to research certain cleric spells, they don't have to.

You can get a signed affadavit where all the people who worked on the core books and were in a position to change the text so that wizards so that wizards could only cast wizard spells yet accidentally refused to do so, and then you can start making the lame claim that you know what the designers intended. Please, no sooner though.

Honestly I don't care enough. It's simple enough for me to say that if they wanted wizards to cast cleric spells by default, they'd have put them on their spell list. So I can say that it's very likely designer intent was not to allow wizards to cast cleric spells without paying anything.

In fact, there have later been feats and abilities published that let you add cleric spells to your list. Why publish something that lets you pay to do something you can do for free? Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.

The argument for wizards doing this is taken from a bunch of sneaky places and is overall very complicated. People are pointing to how dragons cast spell, taking things at their most literal wordings and other tactics that appear to be straight rules lawyering against designer intent..

It all comes down to balance.

If someone can make a good case as to why the wizard needs more power, then by all means go ahead. Until then... I'm not going out of my way to give wizards more spells to abuse. That'd be like giving druids a fighter BaB just for the hell of it.

[Crissa]

And this is different from finding a rare scroll containing a Cleric spell, and scribing that, RC, and how?

-Crissa

[Username17]

It all comes down to balance.

No. If it all came down to balance, Awaken and Shapechange wouldn't exist. Or if they did, they sure wouldn't do what they do now.

There are lots of arguments that are going on simultaneously:

Designer Intent: There are lots of ways to argue this. People are arguing this many ways. But one thing is abundantly clear: if the designers at any point really felt that it was in any way important to keep Wizards from casting healing spells, they sure don't feel that way now. Maybe it was when they openly encouraged wizards to bind Energons, maybe it was when they produced Healing Items that could be fabricated in quantity. Maybe they wanted Wizards to heal people the whole time and they just had leftover wording sitting around from the Gygax days. I don't know. I don't even care, because if it was ever true that Skip Williams didn't think Wizards should be in the healing business, it's blatantly obvious that Andy Collins does not feel that way now.

Wizardly Flavor: This isn't as stupid as it sounds at first, actually D&D magic has a lot of flavor. Magic is strongly tied to daily cycles and exists in discreet packets that are by themselves extremely large. Further, magic in D&D is extremely reliable and potent on a battlefield scale even when used by apprentices (while traditionally "magical" practices like remote viewing and divination are used with trepidation even by the mighty). D&D often passes itself off as "flavorless", but actually it just has extremely open ended magic that is capable of doing just about anything as long as it could be used on a Warhammer battlefield. If someone said that the new upcoming sourcebook had seahorse-based magicians who were very powerful, arguments would break out only as to whether they were really all that powerful. As such, it's patently absurd for anyone to argue that it is outside of wizardly flavor to be able to do any particular thing, but people are doing that anyhow.

Game Balance: This is the final argument, and the one that completely transcends even pretending to pay attention to anything that can be gleaned from the sacred texts. It's basically predicated on the concept that the ability to choose from more different options somehow intrinsically makes you more powerful. It's the same argument that people are making when they claim that if they could just write enough feats the Fighter would be balanced. Ha ha ha. A Wizard doesn't have an unlimited number of spells just as the fighter doesn't have an unlimited number of feats. Adding more spells to the wizard's options doesn't make the wizard any more powerful than it makes the fighter more powerful to print more feats. It's a complete non issue.

If anything, it is unbalanced for the Cleric to have any spells that the Wizard wants in the first place. Clerics are, you know, better than Wizards are in every meaningful way. The supposed selling point of wizards is that they have better spells. And for that to be true, there sure as heck shouldn't be any spells the Cleric gets that the Wizard actually wants and can't have. So even the balance argument seems to sway right back to the idea that wizards should be able to get any spell they want.

---

Now fundamentally, it just isn't clear. The vagueries of the English language are subject to interpretation at the best of times, and the D&D rules have been written in an exceptionally unclear fashion. They aren't intended to be read under the rules of sentential logic, they are intended to be read under directive logic, and they are written by people who don't understand directive logic and are exceptionally careless with their terminology. Certain key portions of this text are outright missing. The part of the rules where it actually states that Wizards can cast their spells is left implied - they never actually say that anywhere. This leaves the question of what Wizards can cast totally up in the open. The rules only state what spells Wizards can't cast.

Now, a clerical spell that a wizard has scribed into her spell book is not on any of the lists of things she can't cast. It's also not on the list of things she can cast - since as previously noted there isn't one. You can make of that what you will.

But there's nothing to get emotionally invested over, since the actual rules dovetail nicely with the way it is played:

The Wizards get two free spells off the wizard list every level of anything they can find in any sourcebook that the DM will allow into his game. The Wizard also gets to scribe copies of any spell the DM provides in written form.

Since the spells that the Wizard gets to scribe from writings are provided by the DM, I honestly don't see as how it makes any difference whether the Wizard can scribe any spell found, or is restricted to those spells he finds that he can convince the DM that there could be a sorcerer/wizard somewhere who researched a version of.

This linguistic construction is something up with I shall not put.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1130997132[/unixtime]]Adding more spells to the wizard's options doesn't make the wizard any more powerful than it makes the fighter more powerful to print more feats. It's a complete non issue.

Huh?

More options generally mean more power. If the spells/feats suck then sure, you aren't making someone more powerful, but if you have one, just one that's actually worth taking, you've made the class more powerful.

So really, why tempt fate? The wizard doesn't need more power right now. Why even risk giving him an option that may be superior to what he has now? Sure, on average cleric spells are worse than wizard spells, but he just needs to find one spell worthwhile and you've effectively given him more power and options at no cost.

What's wrong with just requiring wizards to take the feats to cast cleric spells anyway? Is there any pressing balance reason why wizards need to be casting cleric spells?

[erik]

1131007037[/unixtime]]
What's wrong with just requiring wizards to take the feats to cast cleric spells anyway? Is there any pressing balance reason why wizards need to be casting cleric spells?

To my perspective it's more like, "is there any pressing reason why wizards shouldn't be casting cleric spells?"

If someone wants to play a Dr. Frankenstein wizard who has mastered manipulation and animation such that they have healing/resurrection and undead-animating spells, I'm not going to as a DM dick them over by requiring that they spend a 2 feats and somehow find gods which have healing *and* death domains and then try to match alignments. Especially when those options are not mechanically superior to what a vanilla wizard can already do. Pay feats to cast worse spells? I can think of stupider things to do, but why?

In most cases you really aren't getting much of a power up. Not every campaign lets you get as many spells known as you want, as you already noted RC. And it costs to scribe em too. So taking a cleric spell instead of a wizard spell can likely be disadvantageous. It's as though you could take fighter feats in the wizard's bonus feat slots. It's more options, but those options are ass for what you could do instead. It is in no way a power-up. It is simply allowing people the option of a different flavor choice, granted a mechanically inferior one, but still a choice.

More options but limited slots means that it is not necessarily a power up. And even if it is a power up, it is frickin slight. Not worth worrying about. Any spell broken in the hands of a wizard is way more broken in the hands of a divine caster. If you can't be pissed that divine casters sneak in many very good arcane spells via domains from day one, then it makes no sense at all to get weepy over wizards getting divine spells.

It's about allowing different flavors of wizards to me anyways. I can imagine plenty of situations where someone's wizard wants a flavor that is better suited by some divine spells (maybe a nature-oriented wizard, or a real diviner, whatever). Should I force the player to match alignments with some stupid deity that they likely have no connection with, and then pay a feat, just to suck more?

Balance my ass.

(note: that last sentence was declarative, not imperative)

[Maj]

Balance my ass.

(note: that last sentence was declarative, not imperative)

[RandomCasualty]

1131023711[/unixtime]]
To my perspective it's more like, "is there any pressing reason why wizards shouldn't be casting cleric spells?"

From a flavor standpoint... none.

But like I said, they're already one of the most powerful classes in the game.

And really I don't have so much of a problem with someone using that rule as I do trying to achieve that end through breaking down every comma in the rules and other rules lawyer logic. If you think wizards should cast cleric spells, that's great, I don't necessairly even think it's that unbalanced. Unneccessary IMO, but it's not all that bad.

I'd just prefer people call it a house rule instead of trying to bend the rules to try to make it legal, even though it goes against all common sense and obvious designer intent.

I've no problem if people make a conscious effort to say that the designers were smoking crack and that their intent is total bullshit. What I do have a problem with is people trying to bend and twist the rules to pull fast ones and trying to sell it like it's what the designers wanted all along.

I dont' mind when people tell Skip Williams to go fuck off, that's fine. Hell, sometimes I think he deserves it. Just I'd prefer if people said it outright that they were kicking his theories in the balls rather tahn trying to twist his words around.

[Lago_AM3P]

I'd just prefer people call it a house rule instead of trying to bend the rules to try to make it legal, even though it goes against all common sense and obvious designer intent.

I've no problem if people make a conscious effort to say that the designers were smoking crack and that their intent is total bullshit. What I do have a problem with is people trying to bend and twist the rules to pull fast ones and trying to sell it like it's what the designers wanted all along.

RandomCasualty, if someone faithfully goes to a Lutheran church every Wednesday and Sunday, has an expressed belief system that is 100% that of what Lutherans believe in, and meets every single one of the spiritual and technical requirements of becoming a Lutheran and then claims up and down that they're not a Christian, does that make the people who insist that they are actually a Christian trying to defy common sense and twist definitions that they are in fact a Christian?

The fact is that wizards learning and casting divine spells meet every single technical and spiritual requirement in the game. I find it amazing that the people who don't believe that wizards can cast divine spells from scrolls agree with every single premise in the argument but then reject the logical conclusion. Because they don't like the conclusion that wizards can cast divine spells from scrolls.

Simply amazing.

[RandomCasualty]

1135035020[/unixtime]]
The fact is that wizards learning and casting divine spells meet every single technical and spiritual requirement in the game. I find it amazing that the people who don't believe that wizards can cast divine spells from scrolls agree with every single premise in the argument but then reject the logical conclusion. Because they don't like the conclusion that wizards can cast divine spells from scrolls.

Look, if they wanted wizards to cast cleric spells, they'd have either said it in the text directly or they'd have had the entire cleric list on the wizard's spell list.

Quite simply, they didn't and backdoor logic isn't going to change that.

The hacker who finds a way to gain access to a system he shouldn't is in fact bending and breaking the rules. Even though the exploit in the program may have been there all along, it wasn't the system designers intention to allow people access to something that way. While I don't doubt that legally your argument works, it's still nothing more than a bug in the system, and you are exploiting it.

You are trying to sell a bug as though it were an intentional feature, and I object to that.

[Lago_AM3P]

Look, if they wanted wizards to cast cleric spells, they'd have either said it in the text directly or they'd have had the entire cleric list on the wizard's spell list.

Quite simply, they didn't and backdoor logic isn't going to change that.

FrankTrollman already gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for why this is so: the Sor/Wiz list is actually important for what spells that you automatically get as you level up.

And as far as I remember, you only get the cleric/druid/whatever spells from scrolls when you find them in the game, as wizards can obviously not scribe scrolls of spells that they don't know. Which the DM or another player has to place. Meaning that you have to have some outside approval to have the spell on your list. Meaning that, ironically, getting clerical spells on your wizard spell list works exactly like standard spell research.

Even though the exploit in the program may have been there all along, it wasn't the system designers intention to allow people access to something that way. While I don't doubt that legally your argument works, it's still nothing more than a bug in the system, and you are exploiting it.

But it WAS their idea. They wanted to have a way to have wizards add spells to their list that weren't originally on their list and put rules in the game for it. And curiously enough, the method works exactly the same way it does for researching brand new original spells.

Regardless, I'm wondering why you don't object to the idea of wizards being able to research (or find, it's really the same thing) a game-specific cure spell from scratch but you do object to the idea of wizards getting clerical cure spells in the exact same way. That seems to be the biggest roadblock to your accepting this rule.

[RandomCasualty]

1135076086[/unixtime]]
And as far as I remember, you only get the cleric/druid/whatever spells from scrolls when you find them in the game, as wizards can obviously not scribe scrolls of spells that they don't know. Which the DM or another player has to place. Meaning that you have to have some outside approval to have the spell on your list. Meaning that, ironically, getting clerical spells on your wizard spell list works exactly like standard spell research.

Except spell research deals with new spells, not existing ones. If the existing spells had been meant to be cast by wizards, then it would be on the wizard spell list.

But it WAS their idea. They wanted to have a way to have wizards add spells to their list that weren't originally on their list and put rules in the game for it. And curiously enough, the method works exactly the same way it does for researching brand new original spells.

Again, the research mechanic is for new spells, not existing spells that the designers already decided wizards shouldn't be casting.

Regardless, I'm wondering why you don't object to the idea of wizards being able to research (or find, it's really the same thing) a game-specific cure spell from scratch but you do object to the idea of wizards getting clerical cure spells in the exact same way. That seems to be the biggest roadblock to your accepting this rule.

I don't object to any of that. I could care less if you actually let wizards do that stuff in your game. What I object to however is claiming that it was designer intent all along, when it quite clearly wasn't.

It's a game bug. It may not be a broken game bug, but it's still a backdoor method of casting cleric spells using legalese.

[Neeek]

1135115848[/unixtime]]
Except spell research deals with new spells, not existing ones. If the existing spells had been meant to be cast by wizards, then it would be on the wizard spell list.

By this logic, if a NPC wizard researched a cleric spell, then a PC somehow ended up with a copy of the spell, the PC would not be able to scribe it.