Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9532148" data-attributes="member: 71699">Well, it shows yet again why it is right to say that spells are typed according to the list they were learned from. There is no Eldritch Knight spell list (nor a Magic Initiate list, nor an Elven Lineage list) but there are Bard, Cleric, Druid and Wizard spell lists. That's why it has to be spelled out: there could be a spell found only on the Cleric list that a Bard can take, and the rule counts that spell as nevertheless learned from the Bard list. Were that not stated, then any spell learned from the Cleric list would count as a Cleric spell.In a way, and the consistent principle is "does this class have a spell list" which all full casters have.* There can be Paladin spells and Ranger spells, but there cannot be Eldritch Knight spells. Were EK to be given it's own spell list, that would change because then there would be an Eldritch Knight list that spells could be learned of. As it is, their spells are Wizard spells... because they are learned from the Wizard spell list.*I've heard "full caster" used to mean the spells known and castable progression. There could thus be such a full caster "F" with the spell progression of a Wizard, but lacking a spell list: there would nevertheless be no "F spells". Possibly the term must be expanded to requiring a spell list!It makes sense as an initial hypothesis. What does "a Wizard spell" imply in the context of EK features? Hypothetically, it implies that the EK is some sort of wizard caster and it means their spells, i.e. "Eldritch Knight spells". Having tested that hypothesis, it not ony lacks evidence but there is strong evidence against it: the better theory turned out to be something else.</blockquote>

Verification