SCAG Legality is Posted

[Orlax]

A tome-warlock built using the SCAG as a rules option could find appropriate EE spells and scribe them into her Tome of Secrets, but a blade-warlock doesn't have that option.

And, since cantrips aren't contained on scrolls, a character won't ever find a cantrip from any rules source that way, thus won't ever be able to add a cantrip from an unallowed rules source (barring some other cert-enabled option that might be created in the future to allow just that).

--
Pauper

Edit: And I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that blade-warlocks have to use the SCAG to be viable -- it seems to me that the design intent of the warlock was to have Hex automatically scale as the warlock goes up in level to gain the bonus duration. Granted, combo-ing Hex and Green-flame Blade seems like it might work pretty well, but only for low levels or for blade-warlocks that decide not to bother with the invocation that gives them the equivalent of Extra Attacks. Not sure I'm a good resource for analyzing optimization stuff, though.

Hex works with Eldritch Bolt as well. The issue with Blade locks is that yeah you have a weapon and can even get a second attack... Those attacks will never be as good as Eldritch bolt. Using Eldritch bolt, plus hex will always be better than using your class feature granted weapon... Unless you use green flame Blade which has even a modicum of chance of being on par with Eldritch bolt (Eldritch bolt will still be better for single target damage). Gen flame Blade + hex is almost no matter what better than two attacks, especially since you can use things like great weapon fighting with green flame Blade. Two attacks may take precedent in some situations or for a very short period before the damage of green flame Blade goes up, however if we are getting to higher than level 10 and I want to be a blade lock that actually uses their Blade effectively green flame Blade is a must have.

Also I was less asking about finding a cantrip I was more inquiring of if I could maybe find a scroll of investiture of flame to add to my Blade lock that was built with scag and already had green flame Blade

 

[tila]

And, since cantrips aren't contained on scrolls, a character won't ever find a cantrip from any rules source that way, thus won't ever be able to add a cantrip from an unallowed rules source (barring some other cert-enabled option that might be created in the future to allow just that).

You can buy a scroll with a cantrip on it from Fei Chen.

 

[Pauper]

You can buy a scroll with a cantrip on it from Fei Chen.

Good to know -- was not aware of that.

Of course, you can't use the scroll to learn a cantrip that's not on your class spell list -- each class with cantrips specifically notes that you can only learn cantrips on that class's spell list. And you can't even cast a spell scroll if the spell on it isn't on your class spell list (see the DMG/DM's Basic Rules -- a spell scroll with a spell that's not on your class spell list is unintelligible to you).

You might be able to use a scroll of a SCAG cantrip to add it to an EE sorcerer, warlock, or wizard, or use a scroll of an EE cantrip to add it to an appropriate SCAG caster, but it's not clear how that works mechanically -- cantrips aren't stored in wizard spellbooks, for instance, so you wouldn't use the scribing rules to do this. This currently seems like something that a DM could veto if she thought it was abusive, as there is no other rules guidance (edit: that I'm aware of) to go by.

--
Pauper

 

[Orlax]

So I'm going to go ahead and say that this seems pretty unfair. I get that wizard's and tomelocks can get spells off scrolls and spellbooks, and have expanded flexibility in what they can do on a day to day basis. That's totally fine in regards to character function in a base reasoning. However this now gives them the ability to mix content sources somewhat nilly willy (I get that they still need to find the proper scroll or have a friend that rolls a wizard with the spells they want) while all other character's and players are held to a completely different character construction and maintenance standard. It quite literally means that the character capability constraints are just different for wizard's and tomelocks. They can mix spells that other characters can never even get in the same combination (for instance they can get investiture of flame and green flame Blade while the bladelock can never ever get that combination without finding the exact right adventure or expedition). That is a massive problem. Their flexibility is no longer just a character function that allows them to be more flexible within the same bevy of options everyone else has. Their class features are now a way to game the AL specifically to have greater flexibility among options that no other class has. Was this an intentional product of the ruling (that wizards and tomelocks can freely mix sources to get their character abilities) or is it just something they overlooked?

 

[kalani]

Unfortunately, you cannot scribe cantrips into a spellbook (or similar item). They aren't even kept in your spellbook, they are simply memorized. As such, you will never be able to use EE cantrips and SCAG cantrips on the same character. You could always acquire a scroll of a cantrip, but it would be a one-use item.

 

[Orlax]

Unfortunately, you cannot scribe cantrips into a spellbook (or similar item). They aren't even kept in your spellbook, they are simply memorized. As such, you will never be able to use EE cantrips and SCAG cantrips on the same character. You could always acquire a scroll of a cantrip, but it would be a one-use item.

Cantrips are not the issue here. The issue is that tomelocks and wizards are allowed to mix and match source books as they wish, and are enabled to do so. Either by finding the proper scrolls or spellbooks, or by having a companion wizard that is based on another supplement. Ignore the cantrip portion of my examples.

 

[Pauper]

So I'm going to go ahead and say that this seems pretty unfair. I get that wizard's and tomelocks can get spells off scrolls and spellbooks, and have expanded flexibility in what they can do on a day to day basis. That's totally fine in regards to character function in a base reasoning. However this now gives them the ability to mix content sources somewhat nilly willy (I get that they still need to find the proper scroll or have a friend that rolls a wizard with the spells they want) while all other character's and players are held to a completely different character construction and maintenance standard. It quite literally means that the character capability constraints are just different for wizard's and tomelocks. They can mix spells that other characters can never even get in the same combination (for instance they can get investiture of flame and green flame Blade while the bladelock can never ever get that combination without finding the exact right adventure or expedition). That is a massive problem.

I think you're overstating the issue -- a SCAG wizard can't automatically add EE spells to her spellbook any more than a SCAG sorcerer can add EE spells to her spells known when she goes up a level.

Both the blade-warlock and the wizard have to find the "exact right adventure" to find a scroll of Investiture of Flame (and given that it's a 6th level spell and there are, what, three actual level 11-16 Expeditions published right now, it's possible there isn't actually a scroll of Investiture of Flame to even discover currently).

The only significant distinction is that currently, wizards are allowed to pair up with other wizards in the same adventure to share spells from their spellbooks if they are both willing to spend downtime days after the adventure. I can speak from experience to say that this is not happening very frequently -- in the six adventures I played at GameholeCon, for example, only one was in a party with more than one wizard, and in that adventure, the party quickly dispersed after the adventure without the wizards sharing spells (the fact that it was after midnight and the game room was being shut down may have had something to do with that).

Something that seldom happens falls short of being a "massive problem", at least in my eyes. With that said, I'm not personally a fan of that ruling -- you're not allowed to share wealth, and if you lend out a magic item you have to take it back at the end of the adventure, even if it's as minor a thing as a potion of healing that never got used, so why allow wizards to share spells? It seems inconsistent to me (which is probably one reason why so few players realize it's allowed), but I wouldn't call it 'massively' inconsistent.

--
Pauper

 

[kalani]

In the entire time since the ruling was created, I have had exactly one occasion to copy spells from a fellow wizard - this despite playing twice weekly, and with enough players to fill 7-8 tables.

 

[Orlax]

I think you're overstating the issue -- a SCAG wizard can't automatically add EE spells to her spellbook any more than a SCAG sorcerer can add EE spells to her spells known when she goes up a level.

Both the blade-warlock and the wizard have to find the "exact right adventure" to find a scroll of Investiture of Flame (and given that it's a 6th level spell and there are, what, three actual level 11-16 Expeditions published right now, it's possible there isn't actually a scroll of Investiture of Flame to even discover currently).

The only significant distinction is that currently, wizards are allowed to pair up with other wizards in the same adventure to share spells from their spellbooks if they are both willing to spend downtime days after the adventure. I can speak from experience to say that this is not happening very frequently -- in the six adventures I played at GameholeCon, for example, only one was in a party with more than one wizard, and in that adventure, the party quickly dispersed after the adventure without the wizards sharing spells (the fact that it was after midnight and the game room was being shut down may have had something to do with that).

Something that seldom happens falls short of being a "massive problem", at least in my eyes. With that said, I'm not personally a fan of that ruling -- you're not allowed to share wealth, and if you lend out a magic item you have to take it back at the end of the adventure, even if it's as minor a thing as a potion of healing that never got used, so why allow wizards to share spells? It seems inconsistent to me (which is probably one reason why so few players realize it's allowed), but I wouldn't call it 'massively' inconsistent.

--
Pauper

It's also only been an issue for less than a week or two, and the spell lists one would do this with is currently quite small. However that doesn't make it not an issue, or just makes it an issue that hasn't come about en mass just yet. Ostensibly I could go around as an ee character and just start sitting in on games and adventuring with the explicit goal of handing spells to wizard's that shouldn't have them. Even better those scag wizard's that now have the EE spells can hand those spells to other scag wizard's, and then they can mix those spells with people using some future supplements. It's literally a great big hole in the no mixing source books ruling and its one that would be persistent through the entire legacy of AL and its a hole only wizard's and tomelocks get.

 

[Pauper]

Ostensibly I could go around as an ee character and just start sitting in on games and adventuring with the explicit goal of handing spells to wizard's that shouldn't have them.

But you won't. Nobody will, because it doesn't make sense. It's akin to saying, "I'm going to take the Magic Weapon spell, and then only adventure with groups that already have all magical weapons to point out how useless the spell is."

It's literally a great big hole in the no mixing source books ruling and its one that would be persistent through the entire legacy of AL and its a hole only wizard's and tomelocks get.

This is the relevant point -- the question is, regardless of the actual degree to which the rule is being used, is the rule perceived as unfair or inconsistent with other rulings?

I think there might have been one other person on the WotC boards at the time the ruling was announced who agreed with me that it seemed inconsistent, and you're the only person who seems to be arguing that it's unfair. At the moment, it doesn't look like there's a huge perception that this is a problem, so there's no urgency to 'fix' a problem that doesn't seem to be a problem. Honestly, even from my own perspective, I'd put a number of other issues higher on my list of things I'd like to see changed before I'd start heavily lobbying for this one.

--
Pauper