PDA

View Full Version : Using Heighten Spell for Early-Entry Requirements?



Obrysii
2010-12-20, 06:29 PM
Hi!

I got into a vicious argument (over a game, I know :smallfurious:) regarding this very thing: using Heighten Spell to "cheat" your way into getting into prestige classes that require an X spell level to get into.

Essentially, my player wants to get into a PrC that requires the ability to cast 3rd level arcane spells. He wants to get into it by level 4 as a sorcerer / warmage (one of the two) by using Versatile Spellcasting and Heighten Spell.

I say this is not kosher. My perspective is, is that you cannot cast a spell of a spell level higher than you know (or have "unlocked"); that if you can cast 2nd level spells, you cannot heighten a spell to 3rd level and then cast it - that heighten can only raise a spell to the maximum of the spell level you can cast.

He argues otherwise, and that by the RAW, heighten spell works such that you can cast the spell even if you don't have access to the spell level. I assume he's getting the spell slot by a specific reading of Versatile Spellcaster.

So what's the Playground's view of this? Is he right? Am I right?

Gavinfoxx
2010-12-20, 06:31 PM
You, uh, need to add a few more feats to do it without arguments. Something about Earth Spell or Sanctum Spell or something.

Lateral
2010-12-20, 06:34 PM
RAW, it's a valid way to cover entry requirements. It's up to the DM though, as it is a bit nonsensical RAI.

Personally, I'd be inclined to let it pass if they're using a sub-optimal prestige class (e.g Mystic Theurge), but not for a prestige that makes him as strong or stronger than a plain Sorcerer/Warmage by going in straight. (Although I do usually houserule MT/PT/CM so that they can be entered earlier, just 'cause they suck so bad.

Edit: Never mind, I'm thinking of Precocious Apprentice to enter MT/Cerebremancer early. This way needs Earth Spell to work, and... I do NOT advocate using it. It's completely nonsensical.

Obrysii
2010-12-20, 06:34 PM
You, uh, need to add a few more feats to do it without arguments. Something about Earth Spell or Sanctum Spell or something.

I have no clue what those are or where they are located. Or what they do or how they can make this viable.


RAW, it's a valid way to cover entry requirements. It's up to the DM though, as it is a bit nonsensical RAI.

Personally, I'd be inclined to let it pass if they're using a sub-optimal prestige class (e.g Mystic Theurge), but not for a prestige that makes him as strong or stronger than a plain Sorcerer/Warmage by going in straight. (Although I do usually houserule MT/PT/CM so that they can be entered earlier, just 'cause they suck so bad.

He wants Rainbow Savant so he can cast, as a Warmage, all cleric spells by level 14.

Zeful
2010-12-20, 06:48 PM
So what's the Playground's view of this? Is he right? Am I right?

You are right, classes can't use spells of a level represented by a hyphen "-", no matter how they get spell slots for it, just like you cannot attack at stat represented by a hyphen. A hyphen isn't a zero, it's a non-existent stat that cannot be added to or subtracted from.

Defiant
2010-12-20, 06:53 PM
RAW, it's a valid way to cover entry requirements. It's up to the DM though, as it is a bit nonsensical RAI.

Personally, I'd be inclined to let it pass if they're using a sub-optimal prestige class (e.g Mystic Theurge), but not for a prestige that makes him as strong or stronger than a plain Sorcerer/Warmage by going in straight. (Although I do usually houserule MT/PT/CM so that they can be entered earlier, just 'cause they suck so bad.

Edit: Never mind, I'm thinking of Precocious Apprentice to enter MT/Cerebremancer early. This way needs Earth Spell to work, and... I do NOT advocate using it. It's completely nonsensical.

I agree with this.

Lateral
2010-12-20, 06:55 PM
Which part? The 'only allow if the class is sub-optimal', the 'don't allow it', or the 'don't allow it, but the precocious apprentice route is okay'? Keep in mind, the Precocious Apprentice route only works if you need 2nd-level spells only- not a certain CL, and not spell levels above 2nd.

Eloel
2010-12-20, 07:00 PM
It's a completely RAW way of doing things. I don't even see how it can be argued against. Whether it's broken has nothing to do with RAW, that part is open to argument. But RAW? It's crystal clear on the issue.

Keld Denar
2010-12-20, 07:03 PM
A heightened spell is, for ALL intents and purposes, a spell of the level you heighten it to. If you heighten a Magic Missile to 4th level, it is a 4th level spell. Period. It bypasses a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, it could be traded for a Solid Fog with a Runestaff of Solid Fog, it has a DC of 14 + stat, etc. It is a 4th level spell. If you can cast it, you are casting a 4th level spell. Contrast this to a wizard/sorcerer using a 4th level slot to just cast Magic Missile. It is NOT a 4th level spell, but a 1st level spell cast from a 4th level slot. It would not penetrate a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, and if it had a save, that save would be 11 + caster stat. It is NOT a 4th level spell, its a 1st level spell.

Versatile Spellcaster gives you a spell slot. That spell slot is one level higher than the level of spells you spent 2 slots from to get it. If you give up 2 3rd level spells, you gain a 4th level spell slot. This has nothing to do with any other mechanics such as the - in the spell progression table. Its not a bonus slot, but a slot you created with the feat. Without Heighten Spell, you could cast a 4th level or lower spell from that slot. It would not be a 4th level spell though. With Heighten, you could raise the above mentioned Magic Missile up to 4th level, and it would be, for all intents and purposes, a 4th level spell.

Ultimately, you are the DM. If you don't want him to do it, tell him outright. This is called "houseruling". What he wants to do is perfectly legal within RAW though.

Glimbur
2010-12-20, 07:07 PM
He wants Rainbow Savant so he can cast, as a Warmage, all cleric spells by level 14.

Are you allowing Rainbow Servant to be a full casting class, or do you have it lose levels? The text and table don't agree, so by RAW the text wins and it's full casting but it's worth asking. If the class is not full casting then it is less of a big deal to allow early entry, as he loses casting progression.

Obrysii
2010-12-20, 07:09 PM
It's a completely RAW way of doing things. I don't even see how it can be argued against. Whether it's broken has nothing to do with RAW, that part is open to argument. But RAW? It's crystal clear on the issue.

Care to explain?


Are you allowing Rainbow Servant to be a full casting class, or do you have it lose levels? The text and table don't agree, so by RAW the text wins and it's full casting but it's worth asking. If the class is not full casting then it is less of a big deal to allow early entry, as he loses casting progression.

Text trumphs the tables.

Obrysii
2010-12-20, 07:12 PM
This has nothing to do with any other mechanics such as the - in the spell progression table. Its not a bonus slot, but a slot you created with the feat. Without Heighten Spell, you could cast a 4th level or lower spell from that slot. It would not be a 4th level spell though. With Heighten, you could raise the above mentioned Magic Missile up to 4th level, and it would be, for all intents and purposes, a 4th level spell.

So, a low-level character with sufficient spell slots could in theory cast a 9th level spell with this? How does that even make sense?

Psyren
2010-12-20, 07:13 PM
Care to explain?

He has versatile spellcaster, which gives him access to the higher slots. Heighten spell then gives him something he can cast from those slots. This satisfies "casts x-levels spells" that most PrCs have.

Keld Denar
2010-12-20, 07:20 PM
So, a low-level character with sufficient spell slots could in theory cast a 9th level spell with this? How does that even make sense?

Nope, because you can't combine Versatile Spellcaster slots together. You couldn't burn 4 1st level spells to get 2 2nd level slots, then burn them to get a single 3rd level slot. You burn the slots as part of the casting action. It doesn't combo. Thus, at most, you can cast spells one level higher. Unless you are a caster with a fixed list who knows all his spells (like a Beguiler or Warmage), you don't know any spells of that level, and thus need something like Heighten to "fake" knowing an effective spell.

It works.

Obrysii
2010-12-20, 07:21 PM
He has versatile spellcaster, which gives him access to the higher slots. Heighten spell then gives him something he can cast from those slots. This satisfies "casts x-levels spells" that most PrCs have.

Can you cite where it gives him access to higher slots? Rules as written simply state that you can expend two lower level slots to gain a higher level slot.

Ie, a level 6 sorcerer has expended all of her 3rd level spell slots for the day - so she uses two 2nd level slots to regain one of her 3rd.

I don't understand how you can use it to artificially increase the spell level slots you have access to - even using heighten. How can Heighten raise a spell to a spell slot of a higher level than you have access to?


It works.

Can you cite precedent?

tyckspoon
2010-12-20, 07:21 PM
So, a low-level character with sufficient spell slots could in theory cast a 9th level spell with this? How does that even make sense?

No, it limits at +1 level, because Versatile Spellcaster requires you to cast the spell immediately. It doesn't actually make a persisting slot that just waits around for you to do whatever with.

Psyren
2010-12-20, 07:36 PM
Can you cite where it gives him access to higher slots? Rules as written simply state that you can expend two lower level slots to gain a higher level slot.

...You just cited it yourself.
It doesn't say anything along the lines of "the slot must be one you already have access to." It gives you a higher slot, period.



Can you cite precedent?

I'm not sure what answer you're expecting for this question besides "it worked at my table." :smallconfused:

Marnath
2010-12-20, 07:38 PM
Versatile Spellcaster gives you a spell slot. That spell slot is one level higher than the level of spells you spent 2 slots from to get it.

You are mistaken. Versatile spellcaster does not give you a slot, it uses two slots to cast a spell, just from a level higher. Also, you can't use it to cast a spell of a level you can't cast yet.

Ernir
2010-12-20, 07:46 PM
RAW, he's right.

There are half a dozen reason for not allowing it, but it being against the rules isn't one of them.

Marnath
2010-12-20, 07:52 PM
RAW, he's right.

There are half a dozen reason for not allowing it, but it being against the rules isn't one of them.

I suppose it would have been more accurate of me to say you "shouldn't" be able to. I would not allow him to do it in your postion, OP. But then again, I am a proponent of giving sorceror spell progression one level earlier or in other words on par with the wizard, which...actually still doesn't help, since that puts you at level 5 for 3rd level spells.

tyckspoon
2010-12-20, 07:56 PM
Also, you can't use it to cast a spell of a level you can't cast yet.

This bit here, you are adding to the rules. Versatile Spellcaster actually has really, really simple text: "You use 2 slots of a spell level to cast a spell you know of one spell level higher." No restriction on the spell level, beyond that you have to cast it when you use the feat so you can't stack them.

Obrysii
2010-12-20, 08:06 PM
This bit here, you are adding to the rules. Versatile Spellcaster actually has really, really simple text: "You use 2 slots of a spell level to cast a spell you know of one spell level higher." No restriction on the spell level, beyond that you have to cast it when you use the feat so you can't stack them.

So you can cast a spell of a level of spell you do not have?

I am the only one seeing the doublethink in this?

Anyway, here's my ruling: "You cannot cast a spell of a higher spell level than you have access to, nor can you use Heighten Spell to bring a spell to a higher spell level than you have access to."

This keeps level 1 warmages from casting 2nd level spells, among other things.

Jack_Simth
2010-12-20, 08:10 PM
Hi!

I got into a vicious argument (over a game, I know :smallfurious:) regarding this very thing: using Heighten Spell to "cheat" your way into getting into prestige classes that require an X spell level to get into.

Essentially, my player wants to get into a PrC that requires the ability to cast 3rd level arcane spells. He wants to get into it by level 4 as a sorcerer / warmage (one of the two) by using Versatile Spellcasting and Heighten Spell.

I say this is not kosher. My perspective is, is that you cannot cast a spell of a spell level higher than you know (or have "unlocked"); that if you can cast 2nd level spells, you cannot heighten a spell to 3rd level and then cast it - that heighten can only raise a spell to the maximum of the spell level you can cast.

He argues otherwise, and that by the RAW, heighten spell works such that you can cast the spell even if you don't have access to the spell level. I assume he's getting the spell slot by a specific reading of Versatile Spellcaster.

So what's the Playground's view of this? Is he right? Am I right?

If you're DMing, you're correct. If he argues, go read him the PrC chapter header in the Dungeon Master Guide. More specifically, the paragraph on page 176, just before "Definitions of Terms":


Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.

Keld Denar
2010-12-20, 08:10 PM
So you can cast a spell of a level of spell you do not have?

Pretty much, yea. Lots of classes do it. Shadowcraft Mage's who schtick, even without cheeze, comes from using a 1st level slot heightened to a 4th level slot, which Earth Spell makes into a 5th level slot, and Shadow Illusion reduces to a 4th level slot. Regardless, he's casting what is effectively a 5th level spell from a 4th level slot, even though the spell it emulates is only 4th level. It has a save DC of a 5th level slot, and is for all intents and purposes a 5th level slot, even if the caster is only able to cast 4th level spells.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean its not a rule.

tyckspoon
2010-12-20, 08:10 PM
So you can cast a spell of a level of spell you do not have?

I am the only one seeing the doublethink in this?

Yes, you can. And no, you're not, but it's not as mindbending as you think. The feat creates the temporary opportunity for you to cast a higher-level spell. If you have some way to create that higher-level spell on the fly- say, you're a spontaneous spellcaster using metamagic- then you can use that metamagiced spell. If the metamagic you use happens to be Heighten, than your spell *is* a (level+1) spell for every game purpose (it's arguably the only way you can cast a spell over your natural level in this way, since as noted several times.. Versatile Spellcaster doesn't make a slot, it just lets you cast the higher level spell. And Heighten is the only way to make your base lower level spell into that actual higher level spell.) Since your Heightened Spell *is* now a (level+1) spell, it gets you into PrCs that require that spell level.

Obrysii
2010-12-20, 08:12 PM
Since your Heightened Spell *is* now a (level+1) spell, it gets you into PrCs that require that spell level.

Of course, as soon as you are doing using this bizarre combination, you no longer have the requirements for the spell (you cannot constantly meet the requirement of being able to cast X level spells), and thus no longer can advance in the class.

The whole "trick" seems cheesy, asinine, and bred out of power gaming and, literally, nothing else.

Jack_Simth
2010-12-20, 08:14 PM
Yes, you can. And no, you're not, but it's not as mindbending as you think. The feat creates the temporary opportunity for you to cast a higher-level spell. If you have some way to create that higher-level spell on the fly- say, you're a spontaneous spellcaster using metamagic- then you can use that metamagiced spell. If the metamagic you use happens to be Heighten, than your spell *is* a (level+1) spell for every game purpose (it's arguably the only way you can cast a spell over your natural level in this way, since as noted several times.. Versatile Spellcaster doesn't make a slot, it just lets you cast the higher level spell. And Heighten is the only way to make your base lower level spell into that actual higher level spell.) Since your Heightened Spell *is* now a (level+1) spell, it gets you into PrCs that require that spell level.
Divine Metamagic (Heighten Spell) theoretically works on the same principals. Most PrC's have skill rank requirements to go with, though.

Keld Denar
2010-12-20, 08:15 PM
By your rule, a normal vanillia sorcerer who enters the normal way, but uses all of his 3rd level spell slots for the day, no longer qualifies either. Its "able to cast X level spells", not "able to cast X level spells right now, and also after lunch, and maybe twice after dinner".


The whole "trick" seems cheesy, asinine, and bred out of power gaming and, literally, nothing else.

And you are certainly welcome to maintain this opinion. That doesn't change the RAW. As JackSmith posted, Rule 0 is the most fundamental power a DM has. If you don't like something, change it. That doesn't mean it didn't work to begin with.

Psyren
2010-12-20, 08:18 PM
The whole "trick" seems cheesy, asinine, and bred out of power gaming and, literally, nothing else.

Where is all this vitriol coming from? If you don't like it, you are the DM, there should be no problem.

Analytica
2010-12-20, 08:20 PM
The WotC FAQ (on their webpage somewhere) stated that a 1st-level sorcerer with versatile spellcaster and extend spell can use two 1st-level spell slots to cast an extended 1st-level spell. If used with heighten, this would technically allow said sorcerer to cast a 2nd-level spell.

I also agree that RAW allows it. However, I would play using RAI most likely, under which the prerequisite "3rd-level spells" means that there is a number, not a dash, in the column for third-level spells in the row you are currently entitled to in a class progression table. Then again, under the same RAI, Rainbow Servant is unlikely to be full-casting in any game the designers would DM.

HOWEVER, your player has already chosen a weaker option by taking sorcerer (or worse, warmage) rather than something like wizard or cleric. I would probably let them have it. Or rather, more likely I would work with them to make a homebrew prestige class based around the specific character concept that would give them additional available spells each level, to an extent I was comfortable with for balance.

ALSO note that the Rainbow Servant capstone does not work that way for sorcerers - they still need to choose each cleric spell as a spell known. The same FAQ does state that a warmage could use it fully though.

Warlawk
2010-12-20, 08:27 PM
Of course, as soon as you are doing using this bizarre combination, you no longer have the requirements for the spell (you cannot constantly meet the requirement of being able to cast X level spells), and thus no longer can advance in the class.

The whole "trick" seems cheesy, asinine, and bred out of power gaming and, literally, nothing else.

For what it's worth this is how it's played at our table both when I dm and when our main DM is running. It's cheese plain and simple. IMO no dm worth playing under would let it slide.

Online forums tend to discuss strictly Rules As Written, not Rules As Intended or anything else reasonable. Everyone's play experience and opinions are different, so discussing RAW is the only way to have a solid common ground for the discussion.

RAW he can do it. RAW he can play Pun Pun at level 1. Doesn't mean either thing makes sense or needs to be allowed at your table. According to the books, a Swordsage gets X6 multiplier for their skill points at first level. I don't know anyone stupid enough to think that's anything other than a typo, or any DM bad enough to let is slide if someone did try to push it. This situation isn't really any different.

If he pushes it just say "Yep, it works, that's great. Here's a new character sheet to roll up something that doesn't contain the kind of stinky cheese I don't want at my table."

Keld Denar
2010-12-20, 08:39 PM
IMO no dm worth playing under would let it slide.


Um...I allow it. So...ah...thanks. I guess...

Ernir
2010-12-20, 08:52 PM
For what it's worth this is how it's played at our table both when I dm and when our main DM is running. It's cheese plain and simple. IMO no dm worth playing under would let it slide.
I'm playing Rainbow Servant where I entered at level 2, and that DM is competent enough. The group needed someone that could spam Heals to keep them alive through the outrageously dangerous campaign. I wanted to play something that wouldn't be my Nth Cleric. So far, I think the fact that it my "classes" line on the character sheet says War Mage 1/Rainbow Servant 10/War Weaver 3 rather than War Mage 6/Rainbow Servant 8 hasn't made anyone unhappy, nevermind incompetent. :smallannoyed:

Really. On the list of things a DM can do wrong, I'd say "using the Rules as Written despite people on the internet saying the RAW and the RAI don't agree" is pretty damn low on the list.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-12-20, 08:59 PM
Cheese is a meaningless word. Designer intent is a meaningless concept. Cheese is a puffed-up synonym for "Something I don't like", and the designers have no super special authority that makes their intent worth caring about. The only thing worth caring about is fun.

Will allowing this decrease the fun at your table? Why, because you don't like it? Why don't you like it? And do not say that it's cheesy, since that's a broad judgment on par with "I don't like it", as opposed to something actually descriptive like "it would unbalance the game". Do you dislike it because it would unbalance the game (quite likely, given that's he's aiming for rainbow warsnake)? Then say that, for the love of Pelor, without spouting off nonsensical and emotionally loaded words.

Early-entry Rainbow Servant from Warmage is bad because it makes other players feel inferior and creates much more work for you at encounter-building time. Hell, in a flagrant case like this, it might be bad because the player's quest for character power is pushing out social niceties (i.e. he's powergaming excessively). It's not bad because it offends your delicate sensibilities of what D&D should be and crosses the painfully subjective line into "cheese".

This is excessive, of course. Aesthetics have a role in everything, and if you have an instinctive revulsion to early entry that won't go away it's quite important to factor that into any character construction. But I took things a bit far just to express how deep my distaste for the word "cheese" is.

Obrysii
2010-12-20, 09:21 PM
Will allowing this decrease the fun at your table?

In this particular scenario? No. But it creates a precedence for abuse later - that's the only real reason I'm fighting against it.

Keld Denar
2010-12-20, 09:24 PM
Playing D&D is setting a precident for abuse. You pretty much have to kaibosh things as they come. A mature player will accept no as an answer and shouldn't need any other explaination other than "I don't want to deal with that in my game" when someone tries to use the same trick to get into Incantatrix at ECL4. I mean, technically Pun-Pun is rules legal, and yet nobody plays with him.

If its not unbalanced, why disallow it?

Obrysii
2010-12-20, 09:29 PM
If its not unbalanced, why disallow it?

"Because you allowed X before!" is annoying to deal with.

Also, I gave the two players the Leadership feat over a month ago (at least 4 sessions ago) in order to deal with a player discrepency. They haven't bothered with character creation until today when they decided they wanted to try out this cheese.

So now I'm just saying they lost the leadership feats due to inactivity - they obviously weren't interested in having it, so now I guess it doesn't matter. Immature, I know, but I'm tired of trying to appease everyone all the time. If they aren't happy, the game can die - big deal. It's not costing them anything but an afternoon every two weeks.

Keld Denar
2010-12-20, 09:34 PM
Eh, you are the DM. If they don't like it, tell em to run a game themselves.

Also, I see nothing wrong with the justification "it was fine then because you were a rainbow warsnake wannabe. Now you want to be an Incantatrix, so no, I'm not gonna allow it. If you don't like it, tough."

If they whine about that, my mom has good advise for them. "Life's not fair."

Obrysii
2010-12-20, 09:41 PM
True. I posted this thread in the hopes of conclusiveness, but it does seem it is rather split - I wouldn't be surprised if it splits along the DM / player line: the DMs finding it not really right or nonsensical, the players seeing it making perfect sense.

At least I am not alone in thinking it simply does not make sense and reeks more of power-gaming than balanced or anything of the sort.

Analytica
2010-12-20, 09:47 PM
Also, I gave the two players the Leadership feat over a month ago (at least 4 sessions ago) in order to deal with a player discrepency. They haven't bothered with character creation until today when they decided they wanted to try out this cheese.

So now I'm just saying they lost the leadership feats due to inactivity - they obviously weren't interested in having it, so now I guess it doesn't matter. Immature, I know, but I'm tired of trying to appease everyone all the time. If they aren't happy, the game can die - big deal. It's not costing them anything but an afternoon every two weeks.

If, in your experience, this is how you and your gaming group are happiest, go with it. I am not one of your players, so the fact that I disapprove of the above is irrelevant.

Obrysii
2010-12-20, 09:51 PM
If, in your experience, this is how you and your gaming group are happiest, go with it. I am not one of your players, so the fact that I disapprove of the above is irrelevant.

I guess I am burning out of always dealing with players who look at the game and say, how can I exploit this statistical anomaly even if it makes the other players useless? How can I stretch the rules to make the combats even easier and make the other players even more useless?

Depending on time of year (due to scheduling), I have two players who literally have little to do because they built their characters for fun - not for exploiting numbers. So this whole heightened debacle sort of finally hit a nerve.

Anyway, my objective here has been met - there's no consensus as to whether this is RAI or not but appears to work by RAW. One of those things that OotS lampoons with the Dragon comic about eating dirt. Those who defer to the spirit of the rules instead of the rules as written would not allow this - whereas those who see the RAW as the end and all of any argument would.

Tael
2010-12-20, 09:55 PM
I guess I am burning out of always dealing with players who look at the game and say, how can I exploit this statistical anomaly even if it makes the other players useless? How can I stretch the rules to make the combats even easier and make the other players even more useless?

Depending on time of year (due to scheduling), I have two players who literally have little to do because they built their characters for fun - not for exploiting numbers. So this whole heightened debacle sort of finally hit a nerve.

Anyway, my objective here has been met - there's no consensus as to whether this is RAI or not but appears to work by RAW. One of those things that OotS lampoons with the Dragon comic about eating dirt. Those who defer to the spirit of the rules instead of the rules as written would not allow this - whereas those who see the RAW as the end and all of any argument would.

Actually the FAQ makes it quite clear that RAI, Versatile Spellcaster lets you cast Metamagic'd versions of spells you couldn't normally cast. It's not a stretch to get here from that.

Analytica
2010-12-20, 09:56 PM
Depending on time of year (due to scheduling), I have two players who literally have little to do because they built their characters for fun - not for exploiting numbers. So this whole heightened debacle sort of finally hit a nerve.

Consider strengthening these characters, then. Let them rebuild into something with the same flavour/fluff but stronger mechanical ability, your customized homebrew if required.

Keld Denar
2010-12-20, 10:02 PM
Yea, you're making it sound like there's the right way, and then there is your way. Thats kinda martyristic, and doesn't look flattering because its passive-aggressively insulting those of us who think that both RAW and RAI work that way.

As I said, I think its fine both as a player and as a DM, as long as its not combined with a bunch of other abusive things. I can handle getting into a PrC 2 levels early, assuming it doesn't have difficult skill prereqs. I would draw a line at using Inspire Greatness + Psychic Reformation and a Kensai to get into literally every PrC ever printed at 2nd level. A little creative lisence should be rewarded, and extravagent abuse turned away.

You yourself said that in the case of rainbow warsnakes, early entry isn't that abusive. Thats fine.

Warlawk
2010-12-20, 10:05 PM
Um...I allow it. So...ah...thanks. I guess...

*shrug* You're not a DM I would consider worth playing under then.

Now for the clarification.

Doesn't make your game bad, doesn't make you a bad DM. It just means that we have different priorities on what is and what is not important. It isn't a judgment of quality but rather of differing priorities, so no need to take it personal.

However, I strongly agree that allowing something that you consider to be abusive of the rules sets precedent and then you end up having to deal with more crap later. The 3.5 system is fragile enough without having to analyze every little thing the players choose because you've already let one rules abuse slide by. (Abuse for this purpose being anything the DM feels is 'tricking' the rules. Or essentially gaming the system.)

In this case as the opinions in this thread show, people feel differently about it. It's your game. If you feel like it shouldn't be allowed, don't allow it. The thread has also shown that while it is *technically* RAW it's a rather sketchy interpretation of those rules.

Tael
2010-12-20, 10:13 PM
*shrug* You're not a DM I would consider worth playing under then.

Now for the clarification.

Doesn't make your game bad, doesn't make you a bad DM. It just means that we have different priorities on what is and what is not important. It isn't a judgment of quality but rather of differing priorities, so no need to take it personal.

However, I strongly agree that allowing something that you consider to be abusive of the rules sets precedent and then you end up having to deal with more crap later. The 3.5 system is fragile enough without having to analyze every little thing the players choose because you've already let one rules abuse slide by. (Abuse for this purpose being anything the DM feels is 'tricking' the rules. Or essentially gaming the system.)

In this case as the opinions in this thread show, people feel differently about it. It's your game. If you feel like it shouldn't be allowed, don't allow it. The thread has also shown that while it is *technically* RAW it's a rather sketchy interpretation of those rules.

{Scrubbed}

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-12-20, 10:14 PM
See the BG debate on this+DMM a few months ago. Much more specific. Much better in its conclusions. Much more reasoned. As you can guess quite a lot of the thread was explanations of interpretations, but that's what you should expect with one of the worst-written metamagics out there.

tl;dr not for variable mm's

Warlawk
2010-12-20, 11:09 PM
{Scrub the original, scrub the quote}

Anything to add to the thread other than a personal attack regarding a game you know nothing about?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-12-20, 11:28 PM
Anything to add to the thread other than a personal attack regarding a game you know nothing about?

You (implicitly) put forth the idea of "gaming the system" as negative while simultaneously playing an Incantatrix. This presents an bizarre (i.e. rare) juxtaposition. While Tael's presentation of it is a bit hostile I don't consider it any more hostile than your original comment about DMs worth playing under.

Darrin
2010-12-20, 11:56 PM
So you can cast a spell of a level of spell you do not have?


Versatile Spellcaster gives you a spell level you don't normally have. The problem for Sorcerers is that, ok, fine, trade two first level spell slots for a 2nd level spell... they don't *know* any 2nd level spells at that point.

Which is what Heighten is for. It allows them to treat a 1st level spell as a 2nd level spell via spontaneous metamagic.

Now, I think you mentioned Warmage? My understanding is this trick is actually easier for Warmages and Beguilers because once Versatile Spell allows them to cast a higher level spell, they already know all their spells for that level. So a Warmage or Beguiler doesn't even need the Heighten metamagic to get this trick to work.



Anyway, here's my ruling: "You cannot cast a spell of a higher spell level than you have access to, nor can you use Heighten Spell to bring a spell to a higher spell level than you have access to."

This keeps level 1 warmages from casting 2nd level spells, among other things.

You might want to change that to "have access to via spellcasting levels". One loophole down... but if your player is determined and knows how to google, prepare for a bit of whack-a-mole:

There are other ways to gain "access to" higher level spells. Precocious Apprentice is the most notorious. By itself, the usual argument against it is a grammatical nitpick over singular/plural spells, but it's a particularly weak argument. It's also circumvented via Precocious Apprentice + Focused Specialist (Complete Mage), which is more solid by RAW and works something like this: Precocious Apprentice gives you a 2nd level spell slot. At each spell level you can cast, Focused Specialist removes one spell slot and replaces it with two slots that can only be used for your specialist school. Since you already know the spell you chose for Precocious Apprentice, you can now cast it twice from your two 2nd-level slots.

Sanctum Spell also works by RAW: cast any 1st level spell in your sanctum, and it becomes a 2nd level spell. This one is pretty useful for getting into Mystic Theurge, since it doesn't specify the spell has to be divine or arcane.

Illumian + Improved Krau Sigil (Races of Destiny) is another good way to get into Mystic Theurge. At 1st level, starting with cleric, you pick a spell with a verbal component, and it counts as one spell level higher, as if it had been heightened. At 2nd level, take a level of wizard/sorcerer/etc., and pick another spell with a verbal component to count as a 2nd level spell. Take another level of whatever to finish off the skill requirements, and you're ready for Mystic Theurge.

Earth Spell + Earth Sense (Races of Stone) + Heighten Spell is a little harder to pull off without flaws because it requires 3 feats. Heighten a 0-level spell to 1st level, and Earth Spell kicks it up to a 2nd level spell.

The last method is via Dragonsblood Pool (Complete Mage), but is much easier to restrict. Allowing a higher-level character to start with a magical location (Dragonsblood Pool = 2000 GP) as part of their backstory is about as "subject to DM approval" as you can get.

Tael
2010-12-21, 12:03 AM
You (implicitly) put forth the idea of "gaming the system" as negative while simultaneously playing an Incantatrix. This presents an bizarre (i.e. rare) juxtaposition. While Tael's presentation of it is a bit hostile I don't consider it any more hostile than your original comment about DMs worth playing under.

What irks me more than the Incantatrix is the the blatant "gaming the system" going on when you combine the very strong Domain wizard variant and the Elven Generalist Sub levels. Combining two variants/ACFs designed to be strong Specialization alternatives is practically the definition of gaming the system. But I should really stop talking now.

On topic: What are the builds of the other characters? Really makes a difference. I allow Rainbow Warsnakes with Batman Wizards and tricked out Shadowpouncers, but not with vanilla rogues for example.

JonestheSpy
2010-12-21, 12:06 AM
So, here's a lawyerly perspective regarding RAW vs RAI. Heighten Spell is a core, SRD feat. So messing with it is, in a way, messing with basic assumptions about the game that should be made known to the players in the beginning, and shouldn't be a matter of mid-game rulings.

Versatile Spell, on the other hand, is just a bit splatbook optional rules (as is Rainbow Savant), from one of the more obscure splatbooks, btw. In such a case, the idea of RAW isn't worth bucket of warm spit - it's all completely up to the DM to utilize anything from those books as they see fit. Now one can argue that if a DM says in the beginning of a campaign that a book is allowed it should be treated like the rest of the core rules, and they'd have a point. But it's common knowledge that the splatbooks have all sorts of feats, spells, classes etc that create these way-powerful if not broken combinations when you take Feature X from book A by designer Smith and combine it with Feature Y from book B by designer Jones - and Smith and Jones in no way collaborated or thought of their ideas being combined in such a manner. And obviously, very very few DM's are going to have all the various book memorized well enough that they can issue rulings about every possible combo ahead of time.

That being the case, I see it as completely valid for a DM to rule as they see fit regarding non-SRD material on a situational basis; in fact I think it is flat-out required of a good DM to do so, instead of simply accepting everything published as more 'legitimate' than 'houseruling'.

Keld Denar
2010-12-21, 12:33 AM
So...when your player brings something unbalanced to a game, you'll figure it out real quick. Smite him, make him reroll, and move on with life. Emphasis that you don't approve and that he shouldn't do it again. If he does, smite him again. If he does it a 3rd time, kick him out. If hes the kind of person who needs to get his jollies breaking the system without your close supervision, is he really someone you want to be playing in your game?

Defiant
2010-12-21, 12:44 AM
Which part? The 'only allow if the class is sub-optimal', the 'don't allow it', or the 'don't allow it, but the precocious apprentice route is okay'? Keep in mind, the Precocious Apprentice route only works if you need 2nd-level spells only- not a certain CL, and not spell levels above 2nd.

The RAW it's allowed. But should only be allowed for sub-optimal classes.

Warlawk
2010-12-21, 12:47 AM
You (implicitly) put forth the idea of "gaming the system" as negative while simultaneously playing an Incantatrix. This presents an bizarre (i.e. rare) juxtaposition. While Tael's presentation of it is a bit hostile I don't consider it any more hostile than your original comment about DMs worth playing under.

Note also that I specifically clarified the statement you consider hostile.

A strong character does not implicitly mean that you are gaming the system. The issue of Heighten spell meeting requirements of being able to cast spells of X level comes from the fact that the PrC requirements do not provide enough information to determine if that meets the requirements or not. It is a gray zone. It is completely ambiguous and not clearly defined in the rules. Interpreting it solely in the way that is most beneficial to your character and then solidly putting that forth as RAW is certainly Gaming the System.

I even said up above, that's not bad. It doesn't make for a bad person, a bad GM or a bad game. It simply isn't something I want at my table as a player or a DM and I don't think much of it in general. I think even less of people who respond with straight up ad hominim and don't even try to add anything to the topic at hand.

Bottom line for Heighten in this respect, from my own reading (and the 5 other people in our gaming group) it does not meet the requirement. Other people think the opposite. This is because the PrCs do not give a clear definition of what it means to be able to "Cast Level X spells". The terminology is ambiguous enough to have multiple potential interpretations within a system that has as many options as D20. No one is right or wrong except the DM who has to make the decision for his table.

Marnath
2010-12-21, 02:03 AM
The WotC FAQ (on their webpage somewhere) stated that a 1st-level sorcerer with versatile spellcaster and extend spell can use two 1st-level spell slots to cast an extended 1st-level spell. If used with heighten, this would technically allow said sorcerer to cast a 2nd-level spell.


Does anyone have a link to the specific page this is from? Not to continue arguing, mind, but just for my own amusement. As it is I would say versatile spellcaster does not provide the ability to cast metamagic spells above the level you currently can use but I would change my mind if the wording seems logical( which I'm not going to take for granted as I have heard disparaging remarks about the worthiness of the FAQ before.)

Vistella
2010-12-21, 06:05 AM
Does anyone have a link to the specific page this is from? Not to continue arguing, mind, but just for my own amusement. As it is I would say versatile spellcaster does not provide the ability to cast metamagic spells above the level you currently can use but I would change my mind if the wording seems logical( which I'm not going to take for granted as I have heard disparaging remarks about the worthiness of the FAQ before.)

from the faq: (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)

Can a sorcerer combine Versatile Spellcasting with a
metamagic feat to cast a spell whose level is higher than the
level of spells he’d normally be able to cast?
This is possible. For example, a 1st-level sorcerer using the
Versatile Spellcaster feat can give up two 1st-level spells to
cast extended shield.

Stegyre
2010-12-21, 10:54 AM
from the faq: (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)
Note: this is not an example of qualifying for a "can cast X-level spells," and the FAQ does not give it in that context.

I believe Keld Denar has correctly stated RAW on the OP's question: Versatile Spellcaster allows a spontaneous caster to combine two spell slots of his highest level to create one spell slot of the next highest level. Heighten Spell then allows the caster to cast a spell of his highest level at the next higher level (using the slot created by Versatile Spellcaster). This satisfies the RAW requirement to be able to cast spells of X-level.

That's a two-feat investment to get early PrC entry. While I oppose cheese and tortured readings of RAW, IMO, this is neither.

(Note, however, that merely casting an "Extended" spell with that higher-level slot does not meet the requirements: by RAW, metamagics (other than Heighten) that require higher level slots are still considered spells of the base level. (So they are blocked by an appropriate invulnerability globe, may be countered by a spell of the base level, etc.))

dextercorvia
2010-12-21, 11:59 AM
Midnight Metamagic and Heighten work in a similar fashion and is easier for a non spontaneous or non arcane caster to qualify for. Midnight Metamagic is not as useful as Versatile Spellcaster in everyday use.

Stegyre
2010-12-21, 12:45 PM
See the BG debate on this+DMM a few months ago.
Linkie? I would like to read this, but my BG searching skills are weak.

Flickerdart
2010-12-21, 12:50 PM
There's a much easier way to qualify for casting.

Bard 1, Extra Music, Talfirian Song. You can now Heighten Illusion spells to 4th level. Enjoy your PrCs.

Psyren
2010-12-21, 01:05 PM
There's a much easier way to qualify for casting.

Bard 1, Extra Music, Talfirian Song. You can now Heighten Illusion spells to 4th level. Enjoy your PrCs.

Kudos to you sir, you just kicked my Eldritch Chord build into high gear :smallsmile:

It's nice to have a technique for 3rd-level spells that doesn't rely on Sanctum Spell cheese.

Stegyre
2010-12-21, 01:15 PM
Talfirian Song (http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-2887-talfirian-song.html) :smallconfused:
Still requires Heighten Spell.

Limited to a specific class (bard) and region (Tethyrian human).

And most problematic: 3.0.
(Yes, we know the advice about using non-upgraded 3.0, but imo, a DM is readily justified in throwing something out on this basis, alone. 3.5 is a fix to 3.0, and no one need assume that anything not expressly "fixed" is "okay.")

The basic Versatile Spellcaster + Heighten has the same feat cost and is far less problematic. (Though admittedly it can only get you +1 SL.)

Not that this seems to matter to the OP, because any of us who would permit VS+H are clearly RAW slaves intent upon bending RAI over a barrel to do violence to its anatomy. :smallwink:

Flickerdart
2010-12-21, 01:45 PM
A jump of 4 more spell levels for the price of one extra feat is nothing to sneer at. You don't even need Extra Music if you take more Bard levels (a 4th level Bard is able to cast 6th level spells with this, for example).

Emmerask
2010-12-21, 02:05 PM
...You just cited it yourself.
It doesn't say anything along the lines of "the slot must be one you already have access to." It gives you a higher slot, period.


Well there are two different ways to see that, it doesnīt say meaning it canīt do it or it doesnīt say meaning it can :smalltongue:

Everything concerning casters is in my opinion it doesnīt say so it canīt :smallbiggrin:

Flickerdart
2010-12-21, 02:08 PM
Well there are two different ways to see that, it doesnīt say meaning it canīt do it or it doesnīt say meaning it can :smalltongue:

Everything concerning casters is in my opinion it doesnīt say so it canīt :smallbiggrin:
Where does it say that spellcasters don't need to get kicked in the balls by Ao before they can cast a spell? It doesn't, so thus clearly they need to do this.

Emmerask
2010-12-21, 02:19 PM
Where does it say that spellcasters don't need to get kicked in the balls by Ao before they can cast a spell? It doesn't, so thus clearly they need to do this.

Iīm not quite certain if you wanted to make a point in favor of my argument or not but you just did :smalltongue:

ie the it doesnīt say so it is clearly allowed school of thought has exactly that problem.
The it doesnīt say so it is not allowed or even relevant thought has other problems (for example teleportation doesnīt say you change your velocity so you die^^ or at least take 20d6 damage slamming into the nearest obstacle) but the one you mentioned is not one of those because nowhere in the text AO is mentioned :smallwink:

Stegyre
2010-12-21, 02:46 PM
Well there are two different ways to see that, it doesnīt say meaning it canīt do it or it doesnīt say meaning it can :smalltongue:

Everything concerning casters is in my opinion it doesnīt say so it canīt :smallbiggrin:
Typically, such restrictions are expressly called out, for example:

Heighten Spell: "A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to 9th level)."

Metamagic Song: "You cannot use the Metamagic Song feat to add metamagic feats that would make the spell's effective level higher than the highest level of spell that you can cast normally."

You may, of course, play the game however you wish (if you are the DM), or however your DM lets you (if you are a player), but if you want to argue what the Rules are (RAW), the burden is really upon you to show that silence implies the limitation.

Emmerask
2010-12-21, 02:55 PM
The argument for silence implies limitation is actually quite simple
Book space, if you would print every single limitation on every single spell/feat/feature one can think of then the book pretty soon becomes a thousand pages long and pretty much unreadable.

The argument against silence implies limitation, only thing I can think of right now would be that some spells wouldnīt work anymore (teleport etc) but that could just be wotc not knowing physics :smallwink:

/edit
I just remembered one case where silence implied a limitation of course one case does not mean that this is always wotcs modus operandi but it at least is an indicator,
extra spell does not mention anything about not being able to learn spells from other spell-lists, it was later however clarified (however you take the faq) that it actually means that (ie that silence did imply a limitation).

Psyren
2010-12-21, 03:06 PM
Well there are two different ways to see that, it doesnīt say meaning it canīt do it or it doesnīt say meaning it can :smalltongue:

Everything concerning casters is in my opinion it doesnīt say so it canīt :smallbiggrin:


Where does it say that spellcasters don't need to get kicked in the balls by Ao before they can cast a spell? It doesn't, so thus clearly they need to do this.

I'm not normally one to rely on "the rules don't say I can't!" but that is not the case here. If you say Versatile Spellcaster cannot let your cast spells over your cap, the burden of proof is on you to cite a source that says so. If I have an ability that says "You can do X" and you want to append "except in cases where Y!" then you're the ones who need support.

Stegyre
2010-12-21, 03:27 PM
/edit
I just remembered one case where silence implied a limitation of course one case does not mean that this is always wotcs modus operandi but it at least is an indicator,
extra spell does not mention anything about not being able to learn spells from other spell-lists, it was later however clarified (however you take the faq) that it actually means that (ie that silence did imply a limitation).
Your example fails on at least two points (setting aside the whole FAQ=/=RAW issue).

First, the silence did not imply the limitation, which is why the need to "clarify" with the FAQ.

Second, imo at least, this is actual a good instance of "FAQ is wrong"the actual FAQ made its clarification by resort to the statement that, "The Extra Spell feat allows you to choose a new spell, but it does not remove the restrictions of how you would normally pick your spells—so they must be picked from your own spell list."

If the author had actually read the feat, he'd see that it expressly does remove the restriction on "how you would normally pick your spells":

For classes such as wizard that have more options for learning spells, Extra Spell is generally used to learn a specific spell that the character lacks access to and would be unable to research.
That could only reference blocked schools, but it could just as easily reference spells not on the wiz/sorc spell list. One interpretation is no more compelling than the other. Expanded Knowledge (the psioinic feat) is certainly precedent for the broader interpretation).

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-21, 04:15 PM
Having a PC enter a PrC isn't a player right--it's a GM granted privilege. If your player satisfied all the book requirements for rainbow mage by anyone's interpretation but it so happened that you didn't want to have a couatl-flavored divine/arcane caster, then tough luck for him. It is your game world. If the players don't like it, they'll stop playing.

In this case, it seems to me that a) the Heighten Spell + Versatile Spellcaster combo is technically RAW but not even slightly RAI. However, b) any gain in power from early class entry is offset by burning two feats the PC would probably not have taken otherwise, so I don't think game balance is likely to go out the window. Also, c) going with text over table (full caster progression for Rainbow Mages) is arguably not unbalanced in this particular case, but is almost certainly not RAI and is granting Rainbow Mages far more power for nothing than what the player was asking for in exchange for two feats.

It's okay that the OP is fine with that. His game, his rules. But the inconsistency in this example between adherence to RAW over RAI in some instances but not in all could be confusing to a player. I think it might be better, as a GM, to just say "Sorry, no--I'm Rule 0-ing this one" rather than looking for a justification in the text.

Emmerask
2010-12-21, 04:39 PM
First, the silence did not imply the limitation, which is why the need to "clarify" with the FAQ.


It did, but a lot of people use the it does not say so clearly it works mindset and therefore asked (frequently asked questions -> faq) and because of the amount of questioning regarding this it was clarified in the faq, therefore you canīt use it as an example for not not implied limitation ^^




Second, imo at least, this is actual a good instance of "FAQ is wrong"the actual FAQ made its clarification by resort to the statement that, "The Extra Spell feat allows you to choose a new spell, but it does not remove the restrictions of how you would normally pick your spells—so they must be picked from your own spell list."

Well one could argue about the faq all day long but in the end especially when raw is ambiguous they are the final authority on raw... however much one dislikes some of their rulings/clarifications.



If the author had actually read the feat, he'd see that it expressly does remove the restriction on "how you would normally pick your spells":

That could only reference blocked schools, but it could just as easily reference spells not on the wiz/sorc spell list. One interpretation is no more compelling than the other. Expanded Knowledge (the psioinic feat) is certainly precedent for the broader interpretation).

Yes, but that is interpretation ie rai with which I completely agree

Stegyre
2010-12-21, 05:01 PM
It did, but a lot of people use the it does not say so clearly it works mindset and therefore asked (frequently asked questions -> faq) and because of the amount of questioning regarding this it was clarified in the faq, therefore you canīt use it as an example for not not implied limitation ^^
Your support for this is . . . you?

Well one could argue about the faq all day long but in the end especially when raw is ambiguous they are the final authority on raw... however much one dislikes some of their rulings/clarifications.
Same response applies. FAQ is certainly instructive, but there is not actually anything making it the "final authority." Too often, the FAQ is as poorly sourced as WOTC's RAW, which really hurts the "final authority" (or "any authority") arguments.

Ultimately, the "final authority" on RAW is RAW. The "final authority" on the rules for any particular campaign is the GM.

Yes, but that is interpretation ie rai with which I completely agreeThe conclusion that this interpretation is RAI is again unsupported. Your implied reasoning is tautological: RAI=FAQ=RAI. We don't even know whether the person writing the FAQ is the same person writing or editing the Extra Spell feat description.

We do know that designers of the game have come out with diamatrically opposed rulings. One example recently uncovered (to me) is how Skip Williams (in the 3.0 FAQ) and Andy Collins (in the 3.5 FAQ) address the effects of Protection from Evil. (See thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179673&highlight=mind+blank)) There really wasn't any change in the spell between the two versions. One designer simply interprets and applies it differently from the other. Who has the correct RAI?

I'm sure your arguments are very compelling -- to you. But they really don't have any actual substance.

Vistella
2010-12-21, 05:10 PM
Note: this is not an example of qualifying for a "can cast X-level spells," and the FAQ does not give it in that context.

my post delivered what was asked for in the post i quoted



(Note, however, that merely casting an "Extended" spell with that higher-level slot does not meet the requirements: by RAW, metamagics (other than Heighten) that require higher level slots are still considered spells of the base level. (So they are blocked by an appropriate invulnerability globe, may be countered by a spell of the base level, etc.))

yes, with extend it doesnt work, thats the reason heighten is used

Marnath
2010-12-21, 05:12 PM
my post delivered what was asked for in the post i quoted


Yep, that's true. Thanks for the response, by the way. :smallsmile:

Emmerask
2010-12-21, 05:13 PM
First, the silence did not imply the limitation, which is why the need to "clarify" with the FAQ.

And your support for this is... you? :smallwink:

Stegyre
2010-12-21, 05:34 PM
And your support for this is... you? :smallwink:
The support is the fact that there needed to be an FAQ, and particularly an FAQ response that could not rely upon RAW, which you yourself conceded is "ambiguous."

If a term is ambiguous, it is has more than one reasonable meaning in context. If one of those meanings was implied, as you insist, there would not be an ambiguity to begin with.

Bottom line, as I and other posters have shown, your argument that "silence implies limitation" has no more support than what you offered in your first post on the point: that it is your opinion.

You are, of course, welcome to play the game however you wish, just as the OP is fully empowered (as DM) to disallow using VS+H to gain early PrC entry. However, neither of these change RAW, and neither of them have any more authority to RAI than anyone else's opinion or houserule.

However, to claim that your opinion or houserule is RAW is provably false, and to claim that it is RAI is an unprovable -- and meaningless -- assertion.

dextercorvia
2010-12-21, 08:25 PM
However, b) any gain in power from early class entry is offset by burning two feats the PC would probably not have taken otherwise,

Heighten spell sure, but Versatile Spellcaster is a really nice feat. Maybe not a must-have for a beguiler since they can cast from their whole list, but it still adds considerably to the highest level spells you cast in the course of a game.

Endarire
2010-12-21, 10:15 PM
My Verdict
If it's rules legal and isn't an infinite loop nor a nearly infinite loop, I'm inclined to allow it.

Emphasis on inclined.

Regardless of the printed rules, I want everyone to enjoy themselves. I want people to be able to do their shtick ASAP, and I'll change the rules to suit certain concepts.

Then again, I expect my players to play tier 1, 2, and 3 classes. They've seen what level 9 Wizard spells can do. Right now, our group has 2 Psions, 3 Wizards, a Pixie Crusader, and a Warblade, and we're level 1. I let in the Pixie just to see how things would work, and I like.

Things that I, as a DM, Generally Disallow or Change
-Weak options. I don't want people to be fussing over a +1 AC bonus from Dodge, which is why I made it +3 dodge AC and +1 more per 3 HD you have.

-Casting spells of a level sooner than a full Wizard, Cleric, or Druid. This also includes an Artificer's infusions and a Psion's powers. Entering Ur-Priest at level 10 is OK. Entering it at level 6 is almost certainly bad.

-Getting too many actions per turn. This one is especially subjective. I'm well aware of many means to get more than one turn's worth of actions in a round. Using a Belt of Battle or Linked Power + synchronicity or time stop are usually OK. Going Planar Shepherd (Dal Quor) to get 9 more rounds' worth of actions than almost anyone else is ick.

Marnath
2010-12-22, 02:48 PM
What does any of that have to do with what we were talking about?:smallconfused:

Vizzerdrix
2010-12-22, 03:31 PM
Hmm... I'm of the belief that Versatile Spellcaster+ Heighten is not only RAW, RAI as well. I think it was made as a sort of stealth fix for the poor neglected sorcerer, who hasn't gotten much love over the years.

Keld Denar
2010-12-22, 03:39 PM
What does any of that have to do with what we were talking about?:smallconfused:
I believe he was making reference to the fact that someone essentially said : "Strong things are ok, but shouldn't be combined with other strong things". Early entry is fine, as long as you aren't doing early entry into Iot7V or Incantatrix. Action economy tweaking is fine as long as you don't take it to a heavy extreme, do millions of damage, etc.


Hmm... I'm of the belief that Versatile Spellcaster+ Heighten is not only RAW, RAI as well. I think it was made as a sort of stealth fix for the poor neglected sorcerer, who hasn't gotten much love over the years.

Poor neglected sorcerers...oh, right...kobolds...yea...no pitty.