I'm waffling on some interpretations regarding the Order of Scribes wizard subclass in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and would really appreciate some second opinions. Most of the features seem pretty straightforward in their application, but as usual I think there are some edge case spells with more than one reasonable interpretation.

Question: can a cloned Order of Scribes wizard use their subclass features for replacing their spellbook?

Summary of my understanding: it seems to me that a clone of a Scribe wizard of level 14+ is able to replace their spellbook via their unique subclass feature for doing so, needing only a blank spellbook. On the other hand, a clone of a Scribe wizard of levels 1-13 is unable to replace their spellbook via their unique subclass features and must instead rely on either a backup spellbook provided by the original, or must begin filling a new spellbook from the spells they had prepared at the original's death. (I am aware that a Scribe wizard of that level cannot clone themselves).

The evidence:

Clone spell: The clone begins with no equipment (see PHB 222 for full Clone description):

The clone is physically identical to the original and has the same personality, memories, and abilities, but none of the original's equipment.

Therefore, when the original dies and wakes up in the body of the clone, it finds itself in need of a spellbook. If we take for granted the answer to this question about simulacrum is true, then the Scribe clone (for similar reasons) needs to acquire (or be provided with) a spellbook like any other wizard clone, which it can then awaken using its class features and proceed as it was before.

But it seems to me there are two rules that provide for a very different outcome with the Clone spell for the Order of the Scribes subclass at 14th level and beyond (and even without needing to account for the fact that "each spell governs only itself"). At level 14, the Scribe wizard gains a new feature (features for the Scribe wizard begin on TCE 77):

One with the Word: Your connection to your Awakened Spellbook has become so profound that your soul has become entwined with it.

Consider the above with the following line from the Clone spell:

At any time after the clone matures, if the original creature dies, its soul transfers to the clone, provided that the soul is free and willing to return.

So unlike the simulacrum, the clone contains the soul of the original. At this point (level 14 and beyond), it seems to me that a Scribe wizard's Awakened Spellbook cannot be separated from their soul. Thus, they should be able to use their unique subclass ability to replace their spellbook:

Wizardly Quill: As a bonus action, you can magically create a Tiny quill in your free hand.

Awakened Spellbook: ... If necessary, you can replace the book over the course of a short rest by using your Wizardly Quill to write arcane sigils in a blank book or a magic spellbook to which you're attuned. At the end of the rest, your spellbook's consciousness is summoned into the new book, which the consciousness transforms into your spellbook, along with all its spells. If the previous book still existed somewhere, all the spells vanish from its pages.

I could also see someone making an argument that this feature works for a Scribe clone at any level, because the clone explicitly

has the same personality, memories, and abilities

and one of the Scribe abilities is the ability to summon your spellbook's consciousness into a new book, regardless of the state of the equipment. The clone is definitely more you than a simulacrum is - for instance, I would assume that when the clone uses Find Familiar, they would get their same familiar back. But is it sufficiently you to have had a spellbook? I don't know.

I would appreciate any thoughts or references I may have missed that would clarify my uncertainties, and thanks for your time!

  • \$\begingroup\$ It looks like the answer to your older question is still relevant here. Please highlight why do you think that situation is different, especially why "cannot replace what they never had" should not apply just as well. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mołot
    Oct 24, 2021 at 11:12
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Does this answer your question? Scribes Wizard Feature Questions - Features with Simulacrum \$\endgroup\$
    – Mołot
    Oct 24, 2021 at 11:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Mołot did you read through my question here? They are not unrelated but I point out two very important factors that are not present in the question on simulacra. First, the Clone spell involves soul transfer. Second, the Scribe subclass capstone ties their awakened spellbook to their soul. I already highlight this in my question, so I don’t understand what you want me to do here. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 24, 2021 at 12:27
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Reading your own answer on the last question, and you not understanding the comments here tells me your focus is on the wrong areas when you are asking these questions. Are you aware of any rules for souls which make you think it matters? \$\endgroup\$
    – SeriousBri
    Oct 24, 2021 at 12:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SeriousBri it should be implicit in my asking of a question that I lack a perfect understanding. I am aware of several rules for souls, two of which I point out in my question above. Telling me my "focus is wrong" isn't particularly helpful - is this not a safe space for asking questions and considering them from all angles? \$\endgroup\$ Oct 24, 2021 at 14:50

1 Answer 1


Yes, starting from second level

My understanding of the clone spell is that an awakened clone "is" you, in the same way that a simulacrum "is not" you. A clone spell is just a fancier way of coming back from the dead.

Thus we should treat an awakened clone as equivalent to the original wizard; they have lost their spellbook, but their second-level feature allows them to replace it.

If necessary, you can replace the book over the course of a short rest by using your Wizardly Quill to write arcane sigils in a blank book or a magic spellbook to which you're attuned. At the end of the rest, your spellbook's consciousness is summoned into the new book, which the consciousness transforms into your spellbook, along with all its spells. If the previous book still existed somewhere, all the spells vanish from its pages.

Doing this causes the spells to fade from the original, so this is not a way to create infinite spellbooks.

Also, something is strange about these questions

You're asking a whole lot of questions about obscure rules issues, and it seems unlikely that these issues have come up in your game.

D&D isn't intended to be a game where all the rules interactions are perfectly laid out. There are many cases which are deliberately fuzzy and underspecified, and the DM is expected to make a ruling if the case ever comes up.

The polite way to handle rules ambiguities is to ask your DM to make a ruling when the ambiguity comes up in play. If you try to request rulings in advance, your DM might feel that you're trying to rules-lawyer them into ruling something they didn't intend to, and they might feel like it wasn't fun to have you at their table.

If you request rulings in advance from us, we're happy to tell you what we think. But please don't take our answers to your DM and tell them that our answers are the literal rules. Our answers are not the literal rules and should never be used to overrule your DM.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I very much appreciate the answer, but man, was it really necessary to spend half your answer on a weird, personally-assumptive tangent? You first accuse me of "asking a whole lot of questions about obscure rules issues"; I asked four questions about one wizard subclass. It was all going to be one question since they're all related, but I was told each had to be its own question. You next accuse me of trying to "overrule your DM". I am the DM. Is it so hard to imagine that I have four related questions about the newest wizard subclass and a handful of edge case spells? What is this attitude? \$\endgroup\$ Oct 25, 2021 at 0:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BlivetWidget Answers on SE try to solve the querent's actual problem, which sometimes means stepping outside the exact wording of the question to address a problem (perceived by the answerer) which might be causing the problem or similarly relevant. If you're getting misfires (which it sounds like), you might want to give more context (such as "I'm the DM and one of my players is this class" etc.) for how the question is coming about. Dan B would have to confirm, but I'm guessing the added section here is based on previous interactions, which aren't always pretty. \$\endgroup\$
    – Someone_Evil
    Oct 25, 2021 at 20:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ For example, I'm looking at a comment on this question: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/192327/… which says: "I was just trying to make sure I had a firm grasp of it RAW ("Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly" and all that. Plus, to be prepared for it on either side of the table)." \$\endgroup\$
    – Dan B
    Oct 25, 2021 at 21:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Someone_Evil my actual problem is edge case rules decipherment =). I think there are any number of perfectly reasonable justifications for someone wanting to understand how a spellcasting subclass with several new mechanics interacts with a handful of historically confusing spells: theory crafting, character planning, being in a group with a rotating DM hot seat, playing AL with different DMs, etc. I don't think any of these change the answer in any way - I'm not asking for opinions on how to handle a situation, just trying to decipher RAW. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 25, 2021 at 21:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DanB I was citing a famous quote saying that it is important to understand a system before you change it. In D&D it is only possible to break game rules from the DM side of the table, so you pretending that comment is an indicator of a problem player is a disingenuous interpretation. In other words, you're seeing problems because you want to find them. You also conveniently left out the first part of my comment, where I am responding to another commenter that I am similarly inclined to a more generous interpretation of the rule than RAW strictly allows. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 25, 2021 at 21:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .