Elven Generalist Wizard + Precocious Apprentice

[veven]

Would this grant a 2nd level 2 spell slot at level 1? I have a player in an E6 campaign taking a 1 lvl dip in wizard. By RAW this is the case. "The elf wizard may also prepare one addition spell of her highest spell level each day."

What do you guys think?

[Aspenor]

No. Precocious Apprentice does not actually grant the ability to cast second level spells.

Yeah, all those "early entry" tricks that involve Precocious Apprentice? Those don't work.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Benefit Choose one 2nd -level spell from a school of magic you have access to . You gain an extra 2nd-level spell slot that must be used to initially to cast only the chosen spell

So please tell me; why doesn't it work?

[Aspenor]

So please tell me; why doesn't it work?

Quote more of it. You know, the parts that say "if you can't cast 2nd level spells yet" and "when you become able to cast 2nd level spells."

[holywhippet]

So please tell me; why doesn't it work?

Because it doesn't grant you access to a new level of spells, only a single spell from that particular level.

[Aspenor]

Because it doesn't grant you access to a new level of spells, only a single spell from that particular level.

Basically this.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I would love to quote more of the feat; but then I would be infringing the Forum Rules concerning the OGL.

Also then, if you are right, then what would be the point of the feat? an extra 2nd level slot that you can't use for 3 levels? (Precocious Apprentice is fist level only)

[holywhippet]

If you pick just the right spell it can make a really large difference. Web, invisibility and even buffing spells like bulls strength can make a big difference in a low level fight.

That extra second level slot won't mean much at higher levels, but at lower levels it is very precious.

[Aspenor]

I would love to quote more of the feat; but then I would be infringing the Forum Rules concerning the OGL.

Also then, if you are right, then what would be the point of the feat? an extra 2nd level slot that you can't use for 3 levels? (Precocious Apprentice is fist level only)

You are allowed to cast ONE 2nd level spell with a caster level check. You are not simple "able to cast second level spells." You can cast one second level spell, and only sometimes. The feat quite obviously states that just having it does not enable you to cast second level spells.

[olentu]

You are allowed to cast ONE 2nd level spell with a caster level check. You are not simple "able to cast second level spells." You can cast one second level spell, and only sometimes. The feat quite obviously states that just having it does not enable you to cast second level spells.

Hmm so is it the limitation to only one spell "known", is it only one spell cast per day, or perhaps both limitations that you are referring to when you say ONE.

[gbprime]

I've found the best use for Precocious Apprentice is in combination with a Reserve Feat. A 1st level wizard taking Precocious Apprentice (Scorching Ray) and Fiery Burst. 2d6 of fire damage whenever you want it is great for a low level wizard. And at 5th or 6th level when you've outgrown the reserve feat, you retrain one or both of the feats to get the prerequisites you need for your upcoming prestige class of choice.

[Aspenor]

Hmm so is it the limitation to only one spell "known", is it only one spell cast per day, or perhaps both limitations that you are referring to when you say ONE.

Both of these. What the feat does is allow you to attempt to cast a spell, it does not automatically make you able to cast it every time.

[Lhurgyof]

Can't you use easy metamagic and heighten spell to get a second level spell or something though? I'm not so good with my wizard-fu. :smalltongue:

[Zaq]

Both of these. What the feat does is allow you to attempt to cast a spell, it does not automatically make you able to cast it every time.

There is a feat called "Utterance of the Evolving Mind" on pg. 230 of Tome of Magic. One of the prerequisites is "ability to speak two utterances." An utterance requires a successful Truespeak check to use. By your logic, no one could ever qualify for this feat, since you don't automatically have the "ability to speak two utterances" every time.

Are you saying that the Utterance of the Evolving Mind feat is even more of a waste of space than it is already? Because that's what I'm getting by applying the exact same logic.

[olentu]

Both of these. What the feat does is allow you to attempt to cast a spell, it does not automatically make you able to cast it every time.

Interesting so one looses all abilities based on being able to cast spells when one puts on armor with spell failure chance.

[holywhippet]

Can't you use easy metamagic and heighten spell to get a second level spell or something though? I'm not so good with my wizard-fu. :smalltongue:

Not sure what you are asking, are you suggesting using easy metamagic to lower the heightened spell to level 1? Can't work - easy metamagic only lowers the level by one, so a 2nd level spell heightened to 3 would still go back down to level 2. It's also a dragon magazine feat which might not be allowed.

Also, I think there is some rule saying that no metamagic reduction can lower a spell to a lower level than the original spell.

[AdalKar]

You are allowed to cast ONE 2nd level spell with a caster level check. You are not simple "able to cast second level spells." You can cast one second level spell, and only sometimes. The feat quite obviously states that just having it does not enable you to cast second level spells.

Please don't start an argument about it is only ONE 2nd level spell, otherwise Sorcerers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#sorcerer) can't get into certain prestige classes for another level :smallsigh:

[Aspenor]

There is a feat called "Utterance of the Evolving Mind" on pg. 230 of Tome of Magic. One of the prerequisites is "ability to speak two utterances." An utterance requires a successful Truespeak check to use. By your logic, no one could ever qualify for this feat, since you don't automatically have the "ability to speak two utterances" every time.

Are you saying that the Utterance of the Evolving Mind feat is even more of a waste of space than it is already? Because that's what I'm getting by applying the exact same logic.
Logic Fail.

Precocious Apprentice specifically states that you are not able to cast level 2 spells because of it. That's all you need. I was merely explaining the mechanic.


Interesting so one looses all abilities based on being able to cast spells when one puts on armor with spell failure chance.
No, wrong. Items are not related, they are tangential.


Please don't start an argument about it is only ONE 2nd level spell, otherwise Sorcerers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#sorcerer) can't get into certain prestige classes for another level :smallsigh:

So what? The designers hate sorcerers, everybody knows it. It's the DM's responsibility to make them not suck, which involves house rules.

[Jack_Simth]

I've found the best use for Precocious Apprentice is in combination with a Reserve Feat. A 1st level wizard taking Precocious Apprentice (Scorching Ray) and Fiery Burst. 2d6 of fire damage whenever you want it is great for a low level wizard. And at 5th or 6th level when you've outgrown the reserve feat, you retrain one or both of the feats to get the prerequisites you need for your upcoming prestige class of choice.
Oh, Fiery Burst is useful later on in the game, too. It's one of the keystones of a trapsmith (well, trap-smash) build. Magic Sensitive (or Vatic Gaze, or Permanency(Detect Magic or Arcane Sight) + Fiery Burst or Acidic Splatter + Summon Elemental + Some relatively simple repeating procedures = All the core traps fail with no roll required.

[Tytalus]

You are allowed to cast ONE 2nd level spell with a caster level check. You are not simple "able to cast second level spells." You can cast one second level spell, and only sometimes.

Bogus, and has no basis in the RAW.

If you can cast a single 2nd level spell per day, you are " able to cast 2nd level spells". One today, one tomorrow, etc. There is no RAW stipulation that you have to be able to cast more that one spell per day.



The feat quite obviously states that just having it does not enable you to cast second level spells.


That is entirely wrong: the feat explicitly states that you can cast those spells: "You gain an extra 2nd-level spell slot that must be used to initially to cast only the chosen spell". That was already quoted, too.


Both of these. What the feat does is allow you to attempt to cast a spell, it does not automatically make you able to cast it every time.

...which is also not required (see wizard + armor example).

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

oo nice rebuttal. I also liked Zaq's follow-through on the interpretat

[yugi24862]

Domain wizard. Me have second level spells now.

[olentu]

Logic Fail.

Precocious Apprentice specifically states that you are not able to cast level 2 spells because of it. That's all you need. I was merely explaining the mechanic.


No, wrong. Items are not related, they are tangential.



So what? The designers hate sorcerers, everybody knows it. It's the DM's responsibility to make them not suck, which involves house rules.

So why are items unrelated. They fit the definition of "does not automatically make you able to cast it every time" since they make it so that you can not automatically cast it every time.

But perhaps your definition is more like this "Requirement three for being able to cast spells of a level is that one must not have any chance of failing to successfully cast the spell of that level. However the only reason for the failure that counts must be from having a feat that makes one make a DC8 caster level check to cast the spell.".

In any case a question what if one can not fail the check.

[Aspenor]

The requirement for PrC's is being able to cast second level spells. Precocious Apprentice obviously says that you are unable to cast second level spells simply by virtue of having the feat. It is stated TWICE in the feat. Explanations and explorations of why or how are tangential to this fact, and are a distraction from the pure, simple fact that the feat states:


If you cannot cast 2nd-level spells yet
This mechanic would be completely pointless if the feat itself gave you the ability to cast second level spells.

Also, since you must take the feat at level 1, this line would be pointless:

When you become able to cast 2nd-level spells
If the feat granted the ability to cast second level spells, there would be no reason to bother putting this in.

Obviously, simply by taking the feat you do not gain the ability to cast second level spells.

My statement about the caster level check was simply an explanation of how the designers meant the feat to be read, and attempting to refute my argument based on it is a Strawman Fallacy.

[Coidzor]

The requirement for PrC's is being able to cast second level spells.
Explanations of why or how are tangential to this fact

One of these things is not like the other.

[Aspenor]

One of these things is not like the other.

The rules say what the rules say. The rules say that the feat does not grant the ability to cast second level spells. This is just another example of people taking one sentence out of context, then completely ignoring the rest of the rules. They do this due to wishful thinking, and it is rampant in the gaming community.

[Coidzor]

Nope. I'm reading you loud and clear and amused by your insistence on using bold on a single s, really. :smallwink:

Also, you're arguing against yourself when you say it's about being able to cast multiple spells and then going back and saying no it isn't, it's that the feat explicitly denies one to qualify for PrCs with this statement here.

[Talya]

So what? The designers hate sorcerers, everybody knows it. It's the DM's responsibility to make them not suck, which involves house rules.

This has to be one of the most amazing statements made ever...considering by anyone's estimate, a sorcerer is a very high tier 2 bordering on tier 1 class that half of 3.5 players ban from their games...

Anyway, early qualifying for PrCs is about the only purpose Precocious Apprentice has. It most certainly does grant the ability to cast level 2 spells (or spell, in this case, like a sorcerer) and would almost certainly allow an elven generalist a second level 2 spell slot -- and then become almost useless from level 3 on.

[Axinian]

^Wow I didn't notice he said that. I'm tempted to sig that, but I'm going to avoid doing so since it would inject all my posts with fail.

Regarding the "if you can't cast 2nd level spells yet," I think it's supposed to mean "if you can't cast 2nd level spells by virtue of your spellcasting class." At least, that's how I interpret it. Doesn't seem like a stretch to me either.You are right in that its usage is somewhat vague, but I don't think it makes things absolutely, objectively clear as you seem to be implying. I mean, if someone can produce a reasonable and valid alternative interpretation, it's not clear is it?

[holywhippet]

Anyway, early qualifying for PrCs is about the only purpose Precocious Apprentice has. It most certainly does grant the ability to cast level 2 spells (or spell, in this case, like a sorcerer) and would almost certainly allow an elven generalist a second level 2 spell slot -- and then become almost useless from level 3 on.

Have you actually played any low level games recently? Precocious apprentice would be useful for a low level arcance spellcaster since it gives them a free level 2 spell slot when they reach a certain level. That's nothing to sneeze at.

It certainly doesn't qualify you for PrCs since it very specifically says "Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells". If that isn't an indicater that you can't use it as a qualifier then I don't know what is.

[Axinian]

Is there really no definite FAQ or Custserv answer to this? This annoys me.

[Coidzor]

If that isn't an indicater that you can't use it as a qualifier then I don't know what is.

Actually stating directly that it doesn't count towards prerequisites for feats or prestige classes, of course.

The feat had to say something about the issue of when one would get 2nd level spells in the normal manner, after all.

[Talya]

Have you actually played any low level games recently? Precocious apprentice would be useful for a low level arcance spellcaster since it gives them a free level 2 spell slot when they reach a certain level. That's nothing to sneeze at.

It certainly doesn't qualify you for PrCs since it very specifically says "Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells". If that isn't an indicater that you can't use it as a qualifier then I don't know what is.

That's fine if your DM allows retraining. Otherwise, no feat that doesn't maintain its usefulness has any business existing.

[Elric VIII]

That's fine if your DM allows retraining. Otherwise, no feat that doesn't maintain its usefulness has any business existing.

You could use that slot to cast False Life, then it's like you took Toughness.

[Axinian]

You could use that slot to cast False Life, then it's like you took Toughness.
You know that's not really a point in its favor right?

[Kylarra]

Maybe it is schrodinger's feat. When you succeed you invalidate it by having it but then since it is invalidated you can get access to it again...:smallbiggrin:

[dextercorvia]

What if you remove the failure chance with Arcane Mastery?

[Aspenor]

You are all interpreting my statements about "intention" as statements of RAW.

What is true about the RAW, is that the feat does not give the ability to cast level 2 spells. That is explicitly clear and anybody attempting to argue otherwise does so due to wishful thinking and no other reason.

[Koury]

You are all interpreting my statements about "intention" as statements of RAW.

What is true about the RAW, is that the feat does not give the ability to cast level 2 spells. That is explicitly clear and anybody attempting to argue otherwise does so due to wishful thinking and no other reason.

...What? :smallconfused:

The feat that exists only to enable a character access to level 2 spells earlier then normal "does not give the ability to cast level 2 spells"?

And whats more, anyone who thinks otherwise " does so due to wishful thinking and no other reason"?

So there is no possible way that I, or anyone else, could think that being able to cast second level spells lets me count as being able to cast level two spells? I not only disagree, I don't follow the logic leading to that statement.

[olentu]

You are all interpreting my statements about "intention" as statements of RAW.

What is true about the RAW, is that the feat does not give the ability to cast level 2 spells. That is explicitly clear and anybody attempting to argue otherwise does so due to wishful thinking and no other reason.

Would you care to provide a quote or should I just take your word for it.

[Axinian]

You are all interpreting my statements about "intention" as statements of RAW.

What is true about the RAW, is that the feat does not give the ability to cast level 2 spells. That is explicitly clear and anybody attempting to argue otherwise does so due to wishful thinking and no other reason.
So what does the feat do, if not let you cast a 2nd level spell? Just give you a spell slot? It does that, and then explicitly says you can use that slot to cast a 2nd level spell, albeit with a chance of failure.

[Glarx]

Aspenor appears to be saying -- and please, if I'm wrong do not hesitate to correct me -- that the limitation of the feat to the casting of a single spell of the second level selected when the feat is obtained is inherently different from the ability to cast second level spells willy-nilly.

The feat itself is posted on the Wizards' site under Preview, as seen here, so I presume we could copy and paste the whole thing. However, not wishing to incur the wrath of the moderators, I shall simply provide the hotlink: here. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20041114a)

The caveat concerning the 'updating,' if you'll forgive the term, of the feat's benefits when a new caster level is obtained seems to support the claim that Precocious Apprentice does not, in fact, provide the ability to cast second level spells since it would, otherwise, 'trigger' itself, so to speak.

In reference to the sorcerer, there is a selection of spells that single slot can be used for, and thus I do not believe it is synonymous with the benefit of the Precocious Apprentice feat.

That being said, I would like to say that it makes sense to me that the Precocious Apprentice feat could be used to activate other things that require the ability to cast second level spells, as the phrase 'ability to cast second level spells' does not, to me at least, indicate a need to be able to cast a multitude of second level spells, but a spell of the classification of the second level. Otherwise, once more I will stress that this is only my own personal understanding and therefore is not me stating 'lo! Rules As Written!,' a caster would have to have access to every second level spell before being able to be said to have the ability to cast second level spells. Perhaps it will be argued that it requires the ability to cast but two spells of the second level in order for the plurality of the phrase to be fulfilled.

Quite the paragraph. I apologize.

Anyhow, I hope that makes some sense.

[Ditto]

I would actually agree with Aspenor. I didn't expect to! Strange things happen.


Benefit: Choose one 2nd-level spell from a school that is not barred to you. You can cast that spell once per day. In effect, you have an extra 2nd-level spell slot
It does not give you a spell slot. It acts like one, but only insofar as that helps you understand how the feat works. It really should say something like 'If you can't cast the second level spells yet, it is an SLA.' which would be pretty much the same mechanic. It spells out that once you get access to casting 2nd level spells normally, you gain an extra spell slot. That's the '...and cannot be used for any other purpose'. That's VERY different from saying '...and cannot be used to prepare any other spell', like how a domain slot is restricted. Domain slots are spells slots that can be used for other things. 'Cast spells of X level', 'Cast X number of Divination spells', etc.

[Aspenor]

Would you care to provide a quote or should I just take your word for it.

Read it (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20041114a)...the whole thing. Don't just stop after reading the first part. Read it in its entirety, and you will see that the feat itself even states that you still need to "become able to cast 2nd level spells" and that you have an effectual spell slot, but not an actual spell slot of second level as long as you are not able to cast 2nd level spells.

It's really quite simple. Don't just stop after the first sentence, which is an extremely common problem in gaming forums.

[holywhippet]

That's fine if your DM allows retraining. Otherwise, no feat that doesn't maintain its usefulness has any business existing.

Like I said, low level games. I've played in campaigns that never go past 5th level (admittedly they ended prematurely). If you expect to get to a really high level then you might not take precocious apprentice. But if you start at a low level and don't expect to go too high that extra slot might be just want you want.

Otherwise you could use the same argument for the brew potion feat. At higher levels it's better to just make a wand of whatever spell you want. But for those early levels it might be just want you need.

[The Rabbler]

It's really quite simple. Don't just stop after the first sentence, which is an extremely common problem in gaming forums.

well that's not very nice.:smallyuk:

[Axinian]

Read it (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20041114a)...the whole thing. Don't just stop after reading the first part. Read it in its entirety, and you will see that the feat itself even states that you still need to "become able to cast 2nd level spells" and that you have an effectual spell slot, but not an actual spell slot of second level as long as you are not able to cast 2nd level spells.

It's really quite simple. Don't just stop after the first sentence, which is an extremely common problem in gaming forums.
We're not just not stopping after the first sentence. It's because we are reading the other parts is what makes the feat confusing. It somewhat implies that you are not able to cast second level spells, but the feat lets you cast one one per day with a successful caster level check. It doesn't really matter if you have a spell slot for it, it still says you are casting the spell. The feat contradicts itself. That's the source of the confusion. IT IS NOT CLEAR! That's why there is a debate. People are reading the entire feat and are confused as to how it works because its wording is vague and contradictory. What seems clear to you may not be clear to others because the wording can be interpreted multiple ways.

So please, stop implying people are wrong because they aren't reading. That's not the case.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point, however. I'm actually sort of on your side here. The wording suggests that you are not able to cast second level spells. But, as I've said, it can be interpreted another way, and not without cause.

[holywhippet]

I think you can assume that when they say "able to cast second level spells" they mean you can cast them normally, without having to jump through any hoops or special conditions.

Otherwise, why I can't I get a higher level caster to cast "Imbue with Spell Ability" on me in order to qualify for PrCs that require divine spell casting?

I think in cases like this the designers decided to leave it up to the DMs to decide if they were going to allow this sort of shennanigans in their campaign - I'd wager most DMs would say no simply because it's clear this sort of thing was never intended by RAI. Otherwise, why not just allow every character to be playing Punpun.

[Axinian]

I think in cases like this the designers decided to leave it up to the DMs to decide if they were going to allow this sort of shennanigans in their campaign.
I somehow doubt that's what they had in mind when they first wrote the feat, but their lack of definite response on the issue may indicate that this became the case later. Though I think it would have been better had they just said so.

[RaginChangeling]

I think you can assume that when they say "able to cast second level spells" they mean you can cast them normally, without having to jump through any hoops or special conditions.

Otherwise, why I can't I get a higher level caster to cast "Imbue with Spell Ability" on me in order to qualify for PrCs that require divine spell casting?

I think in cases like this the designers decided to leave it up to the DMs to decide if they were going to allow this sort of shennanigans in their campaign - I'd wager most DMs would say no simply because it's clear this sort of thing was never intended by RAI. Otherwise, why not just allow every character to be playing Punpun.

Slippery Slope fallacy much? Allowing Precocious Apprentice for early entry qualification is hardly allowing Pun-Pun. Additionally, the spell clearly does state that you gain a spell slot that you use to cast a second level spell, I don't know why they couldn't have intended for that! Perhaps the writer wished for people to more easily enter Mystic Theurge, I'm not claiming to be able to divine other people's intentions in this case.

[Endarire]

Precocious Apprentice is here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20041114a) on the Wizards site.

[faceroll]

There are other ways to get early entry- versatile spell caster and earth spell being the two major ones. Sanctum Spell works, too. Those are fairly feat intensive for a first level character, though.


Maybe it is schrodinger's feat. When you succeed you invalidate it by having it but then since it is invalidated you can get access to it again...:smallbiggrin:

Like Dragon Disciple or Ur-Priest?

[olentu]

Read it (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20041114a)...the whole thing. Don't just stop after reading the first part. Read it in its entirety, and you will see that the feat itself even states that you still need to "become able to cast 2nd level spells" and that you have an effectual spell slot, but not an actual spell slot of second level as long as you are not able to cast 2nd level spells.

It's really quite simple. Don't just stop after the first sentence, which is an extremely common problem in gaming forums.

Oh I read the feat and guess what my opinion did not change. However thanks for the clarification. You seem to be arguing that the writers of the feat imply that the feat does not qualify as ability to cast second level spells since if that were so then an unintended result would happen. Thus since nothing unintended can occur in the rules it can not possibly grant the ability to cast second level spells since that is unitended. That to me would seem to be arguing for the aptly named rules as they are intended to be.

[Aspenor]

Oh I read the feat and guess what my opinion did not change. However thanks for the clarification. You seem to be arguing that the writers of the feat imply that the feat does not qualify as ability to cast second level spells since if that were so then an unintended result would happen. Thus since nothing unintended can occur in the rules it can not possibly grant the ability to cast second level spells since that is unitended. That to me would seem to be arguing for the aptly named rules as they are intended to be.

No, wrong. You are arguing that "I want precocious apprentice to do something it doesn't, therefore i'm going to completely ignore what the feat says to get what I want."

I am arguing that the words state that you still need to become able to cast second level spells, therefore you are not able to cast second level spells. It has nothing to do with what is intended, and everything to do with exactly what is written.

Furthermore, PrC prereqs specifically state that you must be able to cast, plural, 2nd level spells. Precocious Apprentice only gives you one second level spell, not plural. Combine with with the fact that the feat explicitly states that it does not make you able to cast second level spells, and it becomes tacitly obvious that I am right.

Any other conclusion is only wishful thinking.


There are other ways to get early entry- versatile spell caster and earth spell being the two major ones. Sanctum Spell works, too. Those are fairly feat intensive for a first level character, though.
Another common error. Sanctum Spell does not grant early entry.

[dextercorvia]

I fail to see how this entire line of argumentation applies to the OP.

He is asking about Elven Generalist Wizard. Generalist wizardry says "one additional spell of her highest spell level." There is no argument that a 1st level EGW with PA has level 2 as her highest spell level is there? Now, guess what, you can cast two. Spells. Plural.

[Aspenor]

I fail to see how this entire line of argumentation applies to the OP.

He is asking about Elven Generalist Wizard. Generalist wizardry says "one additional spell of her highest spell level." There is no argument that a 1st level EGW with PA has level 2 as her highest spell level is there? Now, guess what, you can cast two. Spells. Plural.

The Precocious Apprentice feat states that you have an "effective" spell slot, not an actual spell slot. It only becomes an actual spell slot after you have the ability to cast second level spells. The highest level spell that a first level Generalist wizard has is first level.

[Axinian]

Any other conclusion is only wishful thinking.

No, its not. See my other post.

Let's not even get into Sanctum Spell, but there's reasonable debate on that one as well.

[Taelas]

The requirement for PrC's is being able to cast second level spells.

By that logic, you lose the benefits of any such prestige class when you have less than two 2nd-level spells remaining, since you can no longer "cast 2nd-level spells".

The game does not make a distinction based on the number of spells you can cast, sorry. If you can cast one spell, then you can cast spells.

[Axinian]

By that logic, you lose the benefits of any such prestige class when you have less than two 2nd-level spells remaining, since you can no longer "cast 2nd-level spells".

The game does not make a distinction based on the number of spells you can cast, sorry. If you can cast one spell, then you can cast spells.
The first part is wrong, as I think the ruling is that you don't lose the benefits of a prestige class if you no longer qualify for it, but you do need to qualify for it in order to take a level.

The second part seems right, but the other part of the argument is, are you really able to "cast" the spell in the sense required for prerequisites?

[Aspenor]

By that logic, you lose the benefits of any such prestige class when you have less than two 2nd-level spells remaining, since you can no longer "cast 2nd-level spells".
No, wrong. You are still able to do so, but you must rest and study. Precocious Apprentice specifies that the feat does not make you able. There is a subtle yet important difference.


The game does not make a distinction based on the number of spells you can cast, sorry. If you can cast one spell, then you can cast spells.
The Precocious Apprentice feat itself directly contradicts this statement.

While I realize this is an argument from negative consequences, but let's explore it for a minute:
"Hi, my name is Randy and I am playing a level 2 Human Conjurer with Spell Focus: Conjuration and Arcane Mastery. I am going to take my first level of Master Specialist at level 3 because I can cast 2nd level spells from scrolls. What do you mean that doesn't work? But I can cast them! They are second level!!"
This is effectively the exact same argument that is used when people pose that Precocious Apprentice grants the ability to cast 2nd level spells.

[dextercorvia]

The Precocious Apprentice feat states that you have an "effective" spell slot, not an actual spell slot. It only becomes an actual spell slot after you have the ability to cast second level spells. The highest level spell that a first level Generalist wizard has is first level.

The word effective is not used anywhere in that feat. The feat allows the casting of a 2nd level spell. If you want to argue that it is only one, and that the rest of the feat implies that it doesn't satisfy "able to cast 2nd level spells" prereq.'s fine. I'm not arguing that (today). But nowhere does it say that it isn't really a 2nd level spell. EGW checks to see what the highest level spell you are able to cast is. That is 2nd. It then gives you the ability to prepare an extra 2nd level spell.

[HugeC]

If they hadn't put the sentence about a second level spell slot into the feat, it would be much more clear.

As for the scroll argument, that is activating a spell completion magic item, not casting a spell. This feat does say you are casting a spell.

Also, this feat is weird because you don't get the spell you choose for the feat on your list of spells known (or at least the feat doesn't specify that you do). Once you get to cast 2nd level spells "normally", you will never be able to cast the originally chosen 2nd-level spell again unless you learn it some other way.

In conclusion, very poorly worded feat.

[Hecuba]

The word effective is not used anywhere in that feat. The feat allows the casting of a 2nd level spell. If you want to argue that it is only one, and that the rest of the feat implies that it doesn't satisfy "able to cast 2nd level spells" prereq.'s fine. I'm not arguing that (today). But nowhere does it say that it isn't really a 2nd level spell. EGW checks to see what the highest level spell you are able to cast is. That is 2nd. It then gives you the ability to prepare an extra 2nd level spell.

"In Effect," not "in actuallity," not "in fact," but "In Effect." And then it goes on to explain that when you get actual 2nd level spells, the effect changes.

[Aspenor]

The word effective is not used anywhere in that feat. The feat allows the casting of a 2nd level spell. If you want to argue that it is only one, and that the rest of the feat implies that it doesn't satisfy "able to cast 2nd level spells" prereq.'s fine. I'm not arguing that (today). But nowhere does it say that it isn't really a 2nd level spell. EGW checks to see what the highest level spell you are able to cast is. That is 2nd. It then gives you the ability to prepare an extra 2nd level spell.


In effect, you have an extra 2nd-level spell slot that must be used to cast the chosen spell
Effective, in effect...same thing.

Here's the deal with Generalist Wizardry. Precocious Apprentice only allows you to cast the chosen spell once per day, and can only cast the one particular spell and no others in its place. A wizard may learn and scribe spells only of the level or levels which he or she is able to cast (at least, learning through leveling up).

Even if the first level generalist wizard did get an additional slot of 2nd level, he or she would have no other spells besides the one selected through Precocious Apprentice (assuming no spell purchases and scribing).

Interestingly enough, it could be argued that Precocious Apprentice does not state anywhere that you get to add the chosen spell to your spellbook. It could therefore be argued that if you were to get another second level slot from Generalist Wizardry, that you would have zero second level spells with which to fill the new slot.

The only way that you could, RAW, fill that slot is to scribe new spells into your book. Since Precocious Apprentice specifically denies you the ability to cast your chosen 2nd level spell more than once per day, and does not by RAW add it to your spellbook, you would have to fill that second level slot with a first level spell until you were able to obtain others.

[dextercorvia]

Effective, in effect...same thing.

Here's the deal with Generalist Wizardry. Precocious Apprentice only allows you to cast the chosen spell once per day, and can only cast the one particular spell and no others in its place. A wizard may learn and scribe spells only of the level or levels which he or she is able to cast (at least, learning through leveling up).

Even if the first level generalist wizard did get an additional slot of 2nd level, he or she would have no other spells besides the one selected through Precocious Apprentice (assuming no spell purchases and scribing).

Interestingly enough, it could be argued that Precocious Apprentice does not state anywhere that you get to add the chosen spell to your spellbook. It could therefore be argued that if you were to get another second level slot from Generalist Wizardry, that you would have zero second level spells with which to fill the new slot.

The only way that you could, RAW, fill that slot is to scribe new spells into your book. Since Precocious Apprentice specifically denies you the ability to cast your chosen 2nd level spell more than once per day, and does not by RAW add it to your spellbook, you would have to fill that second level slot with a first level spell until you were able to obtain others.

Are you looking at page 181 of Complete Arcane, or are you just making words up. There is no "in effect". So you have to spend a little gold to make it work? Big deal. Guess which second level spell you can scribe into your book without copying from somewhere else. That's right, the one you already have prepared.

[Axinian]

Are you looking at page 181 of Complete Arcane, or are you just making words up. There is no "in effect". So you have to spend a little gold to make it work? Big deal. Guess which second level spell you can scribe into your book without copying from somewhere else. That's right, the one you already have prepared.
You're actually right. In Complete Arcane, there is no "in effect" clause. BUT, the online version of the feat that has been linked to a couple times does, and I think that one might take precedence over the print.

[dextercorvia]

You're actually right. In Complete Arcane, there is no "in effect" clause. BUT, the online version of the feat that has been linked to a couple times does, and I think that one might take precedence over the print.

Nope, that is a Preview, not an errata. If anything removing the in effect clause before publication strengthens the RAI argument for allowing it to work.

You should check out the Preview of the Illumian race sometime for kicks.

[Tyndmyr]

Not sure what you are asking, are you suggesting using easy metamagic to lower the heightened spell to level 1? Can't work - easy metamagic only lowers the level by one, so a 2nd level spell heightened to 3 would still go back down to level 2. It's also a dragon magazine feat which might not be allowed.

Also, I think there is some rule saying that no metamagic reduction can lower a spell to a lower level than the original spell.

You're right, but for the wrong reasons.

Heighten works off the adjustment, and therefore, does not mesh with reducers.

There is no blanket rule prohibiting lower final spells off reducers, though reducers generally have guidelines limiting the final spell, and Arcane Thesis DOES have such a clause in the errata.

You can, however, trivially modify the level of spells you can cast with Sanctum Spell.



No, wrong. Items are not related, they are tangential.

This is incorrect. Items act like anything else for the purpose of establishing eligibility to take things. For instance, you can put on a ring of evasion to meet a prereq of "evasion" for a prc. However, when you take the ring back off, you lose eligibility again, which may have consequences.

The one spell is not an issue. One spell is routinely treated as sufficient for all manner of things. Sorcerer entering a prestige class is one. Simply put, there is no evidence that "can cast spells" means "can cast 2+ spells", and an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

There is also no particular reason to believe that you must be able to cast a spell all the time. Otherwise, leveling up while out of higher level spells would leave you unable to enter many PrCs. This is quite ridiculous.



This mechanic would be completely pointless if the feat itself gave you the ability to cast second level spells.

Obviously, RAI is that they are referring to the normal progression. If you want to use RAW to dodge the normal use of it for levels one and two, best of luck talking your DM into it.

RAI is not attempting to cover what it counts as for the purposes of prerequisites. Many feats have explicit language to ensure they do not count as something they shouldn't. This lacks any such verbiage.


And, on a practical basis, early qualification in trade for a feat is not generally a big deal balance wise. Without this use, the feat would be entirely ignored and pointless. This is of more importance than one clause of the feat being useless, even if you take a very unusual interpretation, is it not?

[Taelas]

It is a simple matter of inference. Since the feat states that the benefit changes when you become able to cast 2nd-level spells, you do not fulfill the requirement of "being able to cast 2nd-level spells" simply by taking the feat.

The highest level spells you can cast are 2nd, but you do not actually have the ability to cast 2nd-level spells. It's complicated, yes. By RAW, Generalist Wizardry would let you prepare another 2nd-level spell (though it would not actually give you one), but you would not be able to cast the spell.

[Tyndmyr]

It is a simple matter of inference. Since the feat states that the benefit changes when you become able to cast 2nd-level spells, you do not fulfill the requirement of "being able to cast 2nd-level spells" simply by taking the feat.

Well, we have two different levels. RAI and RAW.

RAI: They didn't really intend ANYTHING about prerequisites. This can be shown because feats frequently clarify intentions regarding prereqs. PA does not have this. It was almost certainly not considered. They were just attempting to describe how it worked as you leveled up.

RAW: Inferences are always of no importance when compared to actual rules. If it says "You have an extra 2nd level spell slot...", then dammit, you have an extra 2nd level spell slot. If this immediately means that the CL portion of the rule is never used, well...that's how RAW rolls. Sometimes RAW makes portions of the rules not used.

[veven]

Effective, in effect...same thing.

Here's the deal with Generalist Wizardry. Precocious Apprentice only allows you to cast the chosen spell once per day.



Well, after hearing you say that I finally read the version on the wizards website. The online preview and the version printed in Complete Arcane are completely different. I am using the complete arcane version, which has no "effectively" clause and also no mention of only being able to cast the spell once per day. It does say you must use the slot to cast only the spell you select, but there is no mention of a per day limit which is why I am allowing the player in question to use his second level spell 2/day.

If you have access to Complete Arcane you should check it out. I think it would help the debate a lot of we were all reading the same feat.

[faceroll]

Another common error. Sanctum Spell does not grant early entry.


Sure it does, breh.

[Tyndmyr]

Sanctum Spell takes the same slot for the purpose of preparation. It is explicitly described as counting as the adjusted spell level for ALL OTHER PURPOSES.

It works. It's actually a pretty terrible feat for anything other than bypassing limitations. It's just really flexible for that.

[Axinian]

Well, after hearing you say that I finally read the version on the wizards website. The online preview and the version printed in Complete Arcane are completely different. I am using the complete arcane version, which has no "effectively" clause and also no mention of only being able to cast the spell once per day. It does say you must use the slot to cast only the spell you select, but there is no mention of a per day limit which is why I am allowing the player in question to use his second level spell 2/day.

If you have access to Complete Arcane you should check it out. I think it would help the debate a lot of we were all reading the same feat.
The reason you can only cast the spell once per day is because it only gives you one spell slot for it. When you cast the spell, you used up the spell slot for the day, just like casting any other spell normally.

[Coidzor]

Effective, in effect...same thing.

Where did you get that idea? :smallconfused: Thems dangerous waters to tread in with English.

[veven]

The reason you can only cast the spell once per day is because it only gives you one spell slot for it. When you cast the spell, you used up the spell slot for the day, just like casting any other spell normally.

Right, I understand that. What I am saying is that in the online preview of the feat it specifically says, "you can cast that spell once per day", Which would certainly make the second 2nd level slot gained (arguably) by Elven Generalist useless. I suppose you could use it for metamagic'd 1st level spells, which is pretty cool for first level.

But the complete arcane has no such "one per day" clause. Obviously when you use your one 2nd level slot, you can no longer cast the spell that day. In this hypothetical situation however, you have a second 2nd level slot. Since by RAW you don't actually know the spell (have it in your spell book) You still can't do much with this slot but I am going to ignore what I feel is just a result of a poorly written feat and say that the player has the spell in his book. Therefore I am allowing him to prepare it twice per day, both times with the caster level check requirement.

[Axinian]

Right, I understand that. What I am saying is that in the online preview of the feat it specifically says, "you can cast that spell once per day", Which would certainly make the second 2nd level slot gained (arguably) by Elven Generalist useless. I suppose you could use it for metamagic'd 1st level spells, which is pretty cool for first level.

But the complete arcane has no such "one per day" clause. Obviously when you use your one 2nd level slot, you can no longer cast the spell that day. In this hypothetical situation however, you have a second 2nd level slot. Since by RAW you don't actually know the spell (have it in your spell book) You still can't do much with this slot but I am going to ignore what I feel is just a result of a poorly written feat and say that the player has the spell in his book. Therefore I am allowing him to prepare it twice per day, both times with the caster level check requirement.
Ah right, sorry. Got so caught up in the back-and-forth I forgot what the thread was originally about :smalleek:

[veven]

Ah right, sorry. Got so caught up in the back-and-forth I forgot what the thread was originally about :smalleek:

No worries haha, there certainly has been a lot of "back-and-forth"

[Tyndmyr]

Where did you get that idea? :smallconfused: Thems dangerous waters to tread in with English.

Doesn't matter. The actual book doesn't use the words "in effect".

It just is a slot. Done deal.

Allowing the two to combo is quite reasonable, IMO.

[olentu]

No, wrong. You are arguing that "I want precocious apprentice to do something it doesn't, therefore i'm going to completely ignore what the feat says to get what I want."

I am arguing that the words state that you still need to become able to cast second level spells, therefore you are not able to cast second level spells. It has nothing to do with what is intended, and everything to do with exactly what is written.

Furthermore, PrC prereqs specifically state that you must be able to cast, plural, 2nd level spells. Precocious Apprentice only gives you one second level spell, not plural. Combine with with the fact that the feat explicitly states that it does not make you able to cast second level spells, and it becomes tacitly obvious that I am right.

Any other conclusion is only wishful thinking.


Another common error. Sanctum Spell does not grant early entry.



Er just because part of the feat invalidates itself does not make it wrong. You are arguing that it is wrong because it can not be intended.


And again I am still waiting for that quotation where the official feat explicitly states one can not cast second level spells. Or are you going to again argue that implication is actually explicit statement.

Of course if you are not actually using the proper source I could see the problem but that is easily remedied.

[Aspenor]

Sanctum Spell takes the same slot for the purpose of preparation. It is explicitly described as counting as the adjusted spell level for ALL OTHER PURPOSES.
No, this is false. It does not say "all other purposes." That text is exclusive to Heighten Spell, and is why Heighten Spell + Earth Spell works for early entry.


It works. It's actually a pretty terrible feat for anything other than bypassing limitations. It's just really flexible for that.
Except that it doesn't actually work.


Doesn't matter. The actual book doesn't use the words "in effect".

It just is a slot. Done deal.

Allowing the two to combo is quite reasonable, IMO.
This is correct, and is my fault for not checking the book (I didn't have time, and assumed the online version was the same).

In this case, the Generalist Wizardry + Precocious Apprentice combo would work. It would also allow early entry, while Precocious Apprentice alone does not.


Er just because part of the feat invalidates itself does not make it wrong. You are arguing that it is wrong because it can not be intended.


And again I am still waiting for that quotation where the official feat explicitly states one can not cast second level spells. Or are you going to again argue that implication is actually explicit statement.

Of course if you are not actually using the proper source I could see the problem but that is easily remedied.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm arguing that it can't be that way due to intention. That is nothing even remotely close to what I have said. You are making a Strawman Argument. It is an argumentative tactic where you create an imaginary argument and attribute it to the other side, because the imaginary argument is easy to attack. This is a logical fallacy, and means that your argument will be rejected.

The feat does not invalidate itself. The feat differentiates between its utilization and being able to cast second level spells.

You seriously want me to quote it again? How about you show me where it states that you can cast second level spells. It doesn't. It doesn't even say that you are able to cast the spell, only that the slot must be used for for that purpose.

When we go by literal RAW, even from the book, Precocious Apprentice itself does not give one the ability to cast second level spells. The S on the end is important when you go by the literal RAW. Pluralized terms have meaning, and the meaning is "more than one."

[olentu]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm arguing that it can't be that way due to intention. That is nothing even remotely close to what I have said. You are making a Strawman Argument. It is an argumentative tactic where you create an imaginary argument and attribute it to the other side, because the imaginary argument is easy to attack. This is a logical fallacy, and means that your argument will be rejected.

The feat does not invalidate itself. The feat differentiates between its utilization and being able to cast second level spells.

You seriously want me to quote it again? How about you show me where it states that you can cast second level spells. It doesn't. It doesn't even say that you are able to cast the spell, only that the slot must be used for for that purpose.

When we go by literal RAW, even from the book, Precocious Apprentice itself does not give one the ability to cast second level spells. The S on the end is important when you go by the literal RAW. Pluralized terms have meaning, and the meaning is "more than one."

Your argument is that the feat does not invalidate itself due to some distinction that is not present anywhere in the feat but that you say is. So since there is nothing in the feat that actually makes that distinction I must assume that your argument is based upon the implication that the feat should not invalidate itself.


Now here is the thing I would not be making this argument if you did not say that the feat says that it makes the distinction as the feat itself so far as I can see does not and without you explaining your self better (presenting the proper quote or so forth) I am unlikely to change my mind.

However if you happened to just go back to arguing over the definition of what it means to cast second level spells that would be a different matter completely. The feat may or may not grant the ability to cast second level spells depending on just what that actually means as the discussion is still ongoing but the feat itself does not argue for either meaning except through implication.

So if you say the feat lends support for your meaning the only possible way that I can see that it could do so is through implication. Thus I must conclude that either you are not properly expressing yourself (which I find unlikely given the number of times and ways you have expressed that the feat says it does not grant second level spells), that I have been and continue to misinterpret you (which I am trying to resolve if it is happening but as nothing has been resolved on the matter I shall not yet take as correct), or you are arguing intent. Of the three one I find less likely, one is under investigation, and one I find reasonable so given those choices I chose the one I find reasonable.

The heart of the matter is just what can we agree upon for a definition of able to cast second level spells and then when that is decided the feat can be properly interpreted. But until then the feat does not except through implication define what ability to cast second level spells means.

[Geigan]

When we go by literal RAW, even from the book, Precocious Apprentice itself does not give one the ability to cast second level spells. The S on the end is important when you go by the literal RAW. Pluralized terms have meaning, and the meaning is "more than one."

Wait a sec. Define your plurality there. Do you mean ability to cast 2nd level spells, "more than once per day", "more than once", "more than one spell known", or other?

Very different distinctions and very different arguments against or for each.

More than once would mean that you don't factor in the ability to cast the spell tomorrow.

More than once per day would keep classes that gain only one spell at the level they gain 2nd level spells out of PrCs without a high enough int for the bonus spells. Not applicable to most full casters, but a gish who only took enough int to cast the relevant spells and PrC into something else because he only wanted the buffs are left out in the cold.

More than one spell known means classes like sorcerers will be entering many PrCs later than the level they typically "gain 2nd level spells".

Is there another interpretation you're using?

It's a very poorly worded feat and is yet another example of WoTC not thinking when they wrote something down.

[Elric VIII]

Just a thought:

This spell is cast at your CL (1 or 2), even though a normal 2nd level spell is 3+.

In the rules for lowering your CL when casting a spell it says that you cannot reduce it to a level below the minimum to learn the spell. Precocious Apprentice specifically bypasses this limitation.

Perhaps the line refering to having a level high enough to cast second level spells is referencing the fact that you cannot have a CL (not counting modifiers) less than 3 to cast 2nd level spells.

Although, if this is the case, you would only be able to use that slot granted by the feat (which I agree qualifies you for PrCs), but not the Elven Generalist Wizard slot, to cast 2nd level spell. Although, Practiced Spellcaster (with 3+ HD) or a metamagic-enhanced 1st level spell should be castable.

[Wings of Peace]

I'm AFB right now so I can't do it myself, but (unless it violates forum policy which I'm unfamiliar with) you guy can just post the relevant text of the feat here under the fair use clause without infringing on copyright. It might make the debate easier.