Any 1st level feats that give a Sorceror another spell

[Dracandross]

You don't think that maybe it is worded differently because the sorcerer does not have access to the entire sorcerer/wizard spell list?

Well bard doesn't get all the spells either and had different wording. I'd doubt id allow sorc to take any other spell without some heavy rp or feat usage but that really sounds like it should be allowed.

-Dracandross

 

[Jack Simth]

You don't think that maybe it is worded differently because the sorcerer does not have access to the entire sorcerer/wizard spell list?

Let me quote the rest of the section; the above was just to show how fully the other PHB spellcasting classes mirror each other on the wording:

Spells: A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below).

To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a sorcerer’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the sorcerer’s Charisma modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a sorcerer can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Sorcerer. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Charisma score.

A sorcerer’s selection of spells is extremely limited. A sorcerer begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of your choice. At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known are fixed.) These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study. The sorcerer can’t use this method of spell acquisition to learn spells at a faster rate, however.

Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one he already knows. In effect, the sorcerer “loses” the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell’s level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged, and it must be at least two levels lower than the highest-level sorcerer spell the sorcerer can cast. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that he gains new spells known for the level.

Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a sorcerer need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his spells per day for that spell level. He does not have to decide ahead of time which spells he’ll cast.

(emphasis and emphasis added)

The section expands on it somewhat latter.
Spending a feat on it is one definition of some understanding through study.
So's spell research.
So's watching the Cleric cast a particular spell while watching through Detect Magic / Arcane Sight / Analize Dweomer.
So's making a spellcraft, spot, and listen check each time the Cleric casts a particular spell.

Exactly what's required for "some understanding through study" isn't defined, and is thus up to the DM.

And yes, there is a spell in the PHB that a Sorcerer doesn't have access to. Mnemonic Enhancer, for instance.

 

[shilsen]

Which Sorc/Wiz spells on the Sorc/Wiz list is barred to them?

Off the top of my head, Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer is the only one I can think of.

 

[Cutty Sark]

These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.

This is the same ability that the wizard has to research spells, though. The DM is well within their rights to allow a wizard to learn spells from the cleric list through study, too. The bard doesn't have that text in its description, either, I wouldn't use that to prevent bards from researching unique spells. A spellcaster of any type can research a new spell. I would read the sorcerer class description as alluding to this, rather than giving the sorcerer a class ability to learn spells from other lists. I'll admit that the sorcerer being the only class with this text stands out, but it makes more sense to me that the writing or editing is inconsistent.

 

[Seeten]

The DM is well within his rights to rule 0 every rule and play make believe. The Sorceror is explicitly allowed, by the rules, to learn spells from other spell lists. The wizard is explicitly barred from it. The fact that I can use rule 0 to play cowboys and indians with D&D does not change the RAW.

 

[Cutty Sark]

Woah, if the sorcerer were explicitly allowed or the wizard explicitly barred, we wouldn't be having this discussion. For the rules to be explicit, they would need to say that the sorcerer can learn spells from those other lists. What it says is that they may learn "unusual" spells. That's ambiguous rather than explicit.

 

[Jack Simth]

This is the same ability that the wizard has to research spells, though.

Is it?

My 3.5 PHB, on page 179, under Arcane Magical Writings (Wizard section, about adding spells to the spellbook) has a little itty bitty section labeled Independent Research that points you to the DMG chapter 2. On page 180, there's an identical label that points to the same chapter for divine spellcasters. For Sorcerers and Bards, though, it doesn't list independant research. On page 179, the heading "Adding Spells to a Sorcerer's or Bard's Repetoire" mentions at the end of the first paragraph that, with DM permission, the Sorcerer or bard can get new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of, and points to page 54 in the PHB: the Sorcerer's spellcasting description, not chapter 2 of the DMG.

In yet another spot, the Sorcerer stands out (although this time, the Bard stands in the same position).

When the same class difference shows up in more than one location, doesn't that suggest that there's actually a distinction there?

The DM is well within their rights to allow a wizard to learn spells from the cleric list through study, too.

No, only the Sorcerer and Bard (of the PHB classes) learn things through study. The Wizard needs research.

Mind you, the DMs are well within their rights to do basically anything... but I'm not actually talking rule 0 here.

The bard doesn't have that text in its description, either, I wouldn't use that to prevent bards from researching unique spells. A spellcaster of any type can research a new spell.

Explicitly. But that's reasearch, the Sorcerer description uses study.

I would read the sorcerer class description as alluding to this, rather than giving the sorcerer a class ability to learn spells from other lists. I'll admit that the sorcerer being the only class with this text stands out, but it makes more sense to me that the writing or editing is inconsistent.

See above. I found the same distinction in another spot. The same difference, for the same class, in a different section, worded differently. It would appear to be a consistent difference (for the Sorcerer; Bard's another story).

Might it be an overlooked class feature, rather than a copy error?

 

[IanB]

There's also some wording about the DM possibly giving sorcerers access to some other spells if they feel like it. I suspect that's why the word "primarily" is used. It is a DM's discretion sort of thing.

 

[Cutty Sark]

But that's reasearch, the Sorcerer description uses study.

I shouldn't have used research and study interchangeably. I still can't buy your distinction between the two, though, because study is only mentioned in passing in the class description for the sorcerer. There aren't any other descriptions of what you can do with "study," but there is a description of what you can do with "research" in the DMG, and any spellcaster can use those rules. I think it seems logical to use those rules for research with the sorcerer in absence of any special rules for study. If there are some (I only have a 3.0 DMG on hand, so I could be missing something) I'd be willing to concede.
The closest I can find, though, are on PHB 179: a sorcerer "might have learned an unusual spell from an arcane scroll or spellbook." Emphasis mine, of course. That would certainly seem to exclude divine spells rather than include him. It isn't absolutely conclusive, but I still don't see a reason to read the differences to mean that there is a separate system for sorcerers to learn other spells, or that "unusual" spells mean divine spells.

 

[Jack Simth]

I shouldn't have used research and study interchangeably. I still can't buy your distinction between the two, though, because study is only mentioned in passing in the class description for the sorcerer. There aren't any other descriptions of what you can do with "study," but there is a description of what you can do with "research" in the DMG, and any spellcaster can use those rules.

No lo contendre.

I did not say that Study was a defined term. In fact, one of the things I said was:

Spending a feat on it is one definition of some understanding through study.
So's spell research.
So's watching the Cleric cast a particular spell while watching through Detect Magic / Arcane Sight / Analize Dweomer.
So's making a spellcraft, spot, and listen check each time the Cleric casts a particular spell.

Exactly what's required for "some understanding through study" isn't defined, and is thus up to the DM.

However, "study" is used consistently with the Sorcerer, and consistently not used with the Wizard or with the Divine casting classes (who get the word research, used consistently, when used at all).

I think it seems logical to use those rules for research with the sorcerer in absence of any special rules for study.

[meaningless lexical rant]
Such a misused word, logical.
"...seems to make sense..." - lexically accurate.
"...seems reasonable to..." - perfectly good.
"...seems logical to..." - misuse of the word.

When you're actually doing something logically, you either end up with a proof (such as for the Pathagorean Theorm) that proves the thing for a particular set of cases, a contradiction (otherwise known as a disproof), or a map to what you still need to make one or the other. If A -> B and B -> C, Logically, A -> C. If B -> C and B -> A, logically, given C, there's no necessity for A (although with B <-> C and B -> A, C -> A is logically valid).
[/meaningless lexical rant]

If there are some (I only have a 3.0 DMG on hand, so I could be missing something) I'd be willing to concede.

The closest I can find, though, are on PHB 179: a sorcerer "might have learned an unusual spell from an arcane scroll or spellbook." Emphasis mine, of course. That would certainly seem to exclude divine spells rather than include him.

Not really. With a quirk of the scroll creation rules, you can make an Arcane scroll of Reincarnate (Wizard supplies the Scribe Scroll feat, Druid supplies the Reincarnate, they agree that the Wizard is the creator of the scroll, and he pays the XP - RAW, you've got an arcane scroll of Reincarenate, normally only useable via UMD). Dragons cast Arcane spells too; and....

Spells: A dragon knows and casts arcane spells as a sorcerer of the level indicated in its variety description, gaining bonus spells for a high Charisma score. Some dragons can also cast spells from the cleric list or cleric domain lists as arcane spells.

(Emphasis added). Which, incidentally, includes ALL the metallic dragons listed in the SRD.

You can get an arcane scroll of ANY spell that can be cast, if you work at it a little (cheaper and faster than research, for most cases, too... but it costs a little XP).

It isn't absolutely conclusive, but I still don't see a reason to read the differences to mean that there is a separate system for sorcerers to learn other spells, or that "unusual" spells mean divine spells.

I didn't say it was conclusive. I didn't say there was a defined seperate system.

Here's an excersize for you:
You don't see a reason to read the differences in a particular manner.
Can you see how someone else could?