Human sorcerer favored class feature question (3.P)

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I recently had a trick vetoed. I'm not here to gripe about that; DMs have the right to balance their game how they choose. I just want to know if it's fine by RAW since I plan to join another game with a spontaneous full caster. Outside of some funky houserules and plot elements that DM is mostly by-the-books.

Suppose I'm playing 3.P and have a Human Sorcerer 1 with Heighten Spell and Versatile Spellcaster, and I take the favored class benefit of one additional spell known. Suppose for ease of typing he knows Sleep. Here's my logic. Let's see if it works.

1. Since he knows Sleep, and he has Heighten Spell, he knows Heightened Sleep.
1a. Heightened Sleep, when heightened one level, is a second level spell. To delve into semantics a bit, its "spell level" is two. Note that PF made this a tad clearer, see here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/heighten-spell-metamagic---final).
2. Since he has Versatile Spellcaster, he can use two first level spell slots to cast a second level spell he knows.
3. Since he knows Heightened Sleep, a second level spell, and he can cast a second level spell he knows, he can cast a second level spell. The highest spell level my sorcerer can cast is two.
4. From the PFSRD,
Sorcerer: Add one spell known from the sorcerer spell list. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level the sorcerer can cast.5. One level below the highest spell level the sorcerer can cast is one. Therefore, the sorcerer can learn a first level spell by the Human Favored Class Benefit.

[Talentless]

I recently had a trick vetoed. I'm not here to gripe about that; DMs have the right to balance their game how they choose. I just want to know if it's fine by RAW since I plan to join another game with a spontaneous full caster. Outside of some funky houserules and plot elements that DM is mostly by-the-books.

Suppose I'm playing 3.P and have a Human Sorcerer 1 with Heighten Spell and Versatile Spellcaster, and I take the favored class benefit of one additional spell known. Suppose for ease of typing he knows Sleep. Here's my logic. Let's see if it works.

1. Since he knows Sleep, and he has Heighten Spell, he knows Heightened Sleep.
1a. Heightened Sleep, when heightened one level, is a second level spell. To delve into semantics a bit, its "spell level" is two. Note that PF made this a tad clearer, see here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/heighten-spell-metamagic---final).
2. Since he has Versatile Spellcaster, he can use two first level spell slots to cast a second level spell he knows.
3. Since he knows Heightened Sleep, a second level spell, and he can cast a second level spell he knows, he can cast a second level spell. The highest spell level my sorcerer can cast is two.
4. From the PFSRD, 5. One level below the highest spell level the sorcerer can cast is one. Therefore, the sorcerer can learn a first level spell by the Human Favored Class Benefit.

Pretty sure it doesn't quite work that way. While technically adding a Metamagic effect increases the spell level of the affected spell, you don't really know a second level spell, just a beefed up first level spell.

[kestrel404]

While this may be true by RAW, it's pretty clearly an abusive trick. Since Heighten spell and versatile spellcaster and the human favored class ability of gain a spell known are all decent by themselves, combining them to get something better but dodgy is just a bit abusive. I can't fault any GM for deciding they don't want that in their game.

[Ernir]

Steps 1 to 3 are old 3.5 tricks, and they work. The last part... probably? Don't know how much PF changed.


Pretty sure it doesn't quite work that way. While technically adding a Metamagic effect increases the spell level of the affected spell, you don't really know a second level spell, just a beefed up first level spell.
Knowledge of a second level spell is arguable.

He definitely has the ability to cast one, though, which is what seems to matter in the provided text.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Pretty sure it doesn't quite work that way. While technically adding a Metamagic effect increases the spell level of the affected spell, you don't really know a second level spell, just a beefed up first level spell.Once again I refer you to Heighten Spell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/metamagic-feats/heighten-spell-metamagic---final):
A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level.Emphasis mine. It's not just a beefed up level 1 spell. It's a level 2 spell.
While this may be true by RAW, it's pretty clearly an abusive trick. Since Heighten spell and versatile spellcaster and the human favored class ability of gain a spell known are all decent by themselves, combining them to get something better but dodgy is just a bit abusive. I can't fault any GM for deciding they don't want that in their game.First, as you may note in the first post, I didn't fault the GM either. Second, I don't see how it's all that abusive. It just takes the spells known bonus and bumps the spells up one level, all for two feats which are relatively useless at first level and good but not broken later on. If it's just about getting the spells known, playing a wizard would be horrible abuse. If it's abuse because I combined three nice things to improve a class feature in a way the designers didn't intend, any sort of optimization could be considered abuse. I'm not chain gating/astral projecting here. I just want a more versatile sorcerer, especially at low levels.

Ernir: I'm not silly enough to claim credit for the trick; I'm just using it. You're right that it's the ability to cast second level spells that matters; my wording was somewhat misleading. My mistake.

[kestrel404]

IMO, the human sorceror favored class bonus is by far the single strongest favored class bonus in the game. Making it better is abusive (although it's a very mild form of abuse - not game breaking, certainly, but may get a book thrown at you). But that's just my opinion.

[peacenlove]

Versatile spellcaster isn't a Pathfinder feat so any use of this feat must be houseruled by the DM.
So the RAW answer is simple. "No this doesn't work because you don't use a Pathfinder introduced feat"
However since he houseruled the feat in and didn't change the text, yes your trick is legal, no holes on it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Versatile spellcaster isn't a Pathfinder feat so any use of this feat must be houseruled by the DM.
So the RAW answer is simple. "No this doesn't work because you don't use a Pathfinder introduced feat"You have to be kidding me. I guess all that talk about backwards compatibility was a joke? And somehow, if Versatile Spellcaster was reprinted word-for-word in some Pathfinder splatbook, you'd read it differently? Besides, I clearly stated in the title and the OP that this was 3.P, which means Pathfinder base with 3.5 splats, not pure pathfinder. I wouldn't play in pure pathfinder because I don't like it when melee gets nerfed :smalltongue:

The consensus seems to be that it's okay by RAW, but I'm a terrible person for looking for RAW exploits to ruin games. Well, I plan on facing things 5 or more CRs above me regularly, with no chance of retreat or parlay (already have), so haters gonna hate.

[TroubleBrewing]

Well, I plan on facing things 5 or more CRs above me regularly, with no chance of retreat or parlay (already have), so haters gonna hate.

If that's the case, I don't think anybody, including the DM, would (or should, for that matter) fault you for the choice. :smalltongue:

Seriously, though. It's a solid trick, and unless an appearance by Curmudgeon totally squishes me, I'd say it's valid by RAW.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Aw, my first necro'd thread.

I kindly refer you to the forum rules: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=25&a=1

I recommend looking up Thread Necromancy and "Mea Culpa" offenses.

As far as the actual rules discussion, I'll bring it up via PM.