Obtain Familiar "Allows Spellcasting" Dysfunction

[Vaz]

You can obtain a familiar in the same manner as a sorcerer or wizard (see the sorcerer class description and the accompanying sidebar, page 52 of the Player's Handbook). As with a sorcerer or wizard, obtaining a familiar takes 24 hours and uses up magic materials worth 100 gp. For the purpose of determining familiar abilities that depend on your arcane caster class level, your levels in all classes that allow you to cast arcane spells stack.

The last sentence is the one which I am struggling to get my head around; the easiest way to write it would be "All arcane spellcasting class levels stack for the purposes of determining Master Class level".

As it stands, any class which doesn't explicitly prevent the casting of Arcane Spells (so, a Forsaker, for example) that qualifies for Obtain Familiar stacks.

This is because "allow" does not mean "grant".

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/allow
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allow?s=t&path=/

Here are some quotes from the Q+A Thread; to those reading/participating in the discussion.


Re 1392: Can a fighter level 1 cast 9th level spells? The rules don't say that I can't?

That kind of logic is flawed in the rules based system that D&D 3.5 uses. The normal standard is that you cannot do something unless something specifically allows you to do is (specific trumps general). In other words, while a level 1 wizard is allowed to cast arcane spells by class feature, the level 1 fighter is not allowed to cast arcane spells (barring multiclass, magical training, etc) because they lack class features that permit such casting.

In order to allow something, the rules must specify that. Any class that omits mention of arcane spellcasting cannot allow it.


But Vaz is talking about a multiclass character. A first level wizard/first level fighter can indeed cast arcane spells. That character's fighter class allows (i.e. does not prohibit) that character to cast wizard spells.


Re: Q 1392
That's a less-common definition ("permit by neglect") of allow (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allow?s=t&path=/). D&D generally uses the most common meaning of "give permission for", and that's borne out in Khedrac's original answer.

Anyway, this is largely groundless discussion. Absent a specific rules source including the phrase "class that allows you to cast arcane spells", this question lacks sufficient context to obtain a proper RAW answer.


I'll take this elsewhere. It's clearly a dysfunction (In D&D? NEVAR), but for RAW purposes, it is a nice little "workaround".


Again, a fighter 1 does not allow spellcasting. A wizard 1 can. A multiclass fighter 1/wizard 1 allows spellcasting, but solely by virtue of the level of wizard. A level of fighter never allows spellcasting, by virtue of the standard rule of multiclassing, where a multiclass character gains all the features of all its classes. Forsaker (which I am honestly unfamiliar with) would seem to trump this general rule by a specific rule of its own.

If there is general disagreement, please cite a rule of your own or start a new thread.


I mean it as Curmudgeon said:



I certainly recognize that it's a stretch, I just think there's at least a little bit of wiggle room in the wording.


Again, there is no wiggle room for that interpretation in D&D 3.5, unless you believe that the wiggle room allows a level 1 fighter with no other class levels to cast level 9 spells. (the ruuuules don't saaaaay I caaaan't!) RAW sometimes allows for extraordinary flexibility in what it says and omits, but it does not extend that far.

The Forsaker (3.0 question) in question has the following prerequisite and class feature;


The character must once have been the victim of a magical attack that seriously wounded him or threatened his life. He must also sell or give away all his magic items (including magic weapons, armor, and potions) and renounce the use of any spellcasting and spelllike abilities he previously used.

Forsake Magic: In addition to avoiding all use of spellcasting, spell-like abilities, and magic items, the forsaker must also refuse any benefits from others' magic including magical healing. Thus, he must attempt a saving throw against any spell that allows one. For most beneficial spells, such as displacement or neutralize poison, a successful save negates the spell's effects; for a cure spell, it halves the benefit. Any forsaker who unwittingly uses a magic item or casts a spell (while under the influence of a charm person or dominate person spell, for example) loses all the special abilities of the prestige class for one week.

So, despite it's crappy nature of a class, a Forsaker of certain races/feat/class choices can qualify for Obtain Familiar, but using the definition of "allow" to be "permit"; as in accordance with Curmudgeon's part answer, any class that "permits" Arcane Spellcasting (regardless of whether or not the class actually grants that ability; as Obtain Familiar does not require the need to cast spells, merely that the classes do not forbid Arcane Spellcaster (as in the case of the Forsaker).

For example, a Silverblood Human Barbarian 3 (or indeed, any non-Arcane Spellcasting Class) with the Education Feat has an Arcane Caster Level of 3 and can get 6 Skill ranks in Knowledge; Arcana, and can qualify for Obtain Familiar. Because Barbarian classes do not "disallow" Arcane Spellcasting, regardless of their ability (or lack thereof) to actually cast spells, they count towards the Familiar's Master's Level.

Indeed, the only class I can think of which actually "disallows" Arcane Spellcasting is the Forsaker, which at best means that even a Forsaker who takes "Obtain Familiar", has a Familiar with the abilities of a 10th Level Sorcerer/Wizard's Familiar.

I do not agree that this is the intention, but I believe it is *just one of them rules*.

[Eldonauran]

I don't see that problem. Yes, you can qualify for the feat. No, you can't have a familiar. Why? There is a magic ritual involved and you can't participate in it because you vowed never to use magic again.

Magic items sound like 'magical materials worth 100gp' to me.

EDIT: As for the Barbarian example, the barbarian class doesn't 'allow' you to cast spells. The 'spellcasting' class ability lets you cast spells, and determines the type of spells you have. The Barbarian class can not cast spells. The feat you took is what is giving you the arcane casting level. Just because you took it at the same time as a barbarian level does not give the barbarian class the ability to cast spells.

So, can a non-caster qualify for the feat? Yes. Does it do anything? Not unless you have levels in an arcane casting class.

[Vaz]

Yeah... not what I was getting at.

[Amphetryon]

Yeah... not what I was getting at.

Which caster levels, from which list, does Barbarian "allow"? Please be specific.

It looks like you're deliberately trying to make the language do something the designers pretty clearly didn't intend.

Funny how, when you do that, you get wonky results.

[Phelix-Mu]

I agree that the feat is poorly written. I am not sure I agree with this particular analysis of why it is poorly written. I got about 2/3 of the way through the argument before I kind of lost track of its main point. I think the OP may be over-complicating things a bit.

The problem is indeed with "allow." Normally "grant" or "advance" are used. Just another example of them outsourcing game terms and coming up with "close, but not synonymous" results.

[DaTedinator]

So what, specifically, is your question?

[Vertharrad]

This is what I took the feat to be saying - that for instance if you have a wiz 5/master specialist 10/archmage 5 your familiar would have the abilities of a 20th lvl wizard/or sorcerer. That any class or PrC that has or adds to arcane casting adds in for the sake of the familiars abilities. Another example would be a wiz 10/sor 10 would also have a 20th lvl familiar with the feat Obtain Familiar.

[Coidzor]

I do not agree that this is the intention, but I believe it is *just one of them rules*.

It's written in a bizarre way, but you just seem like you're reaching and the simplest explanation is that the writer was a moron and/or the editing process butchered the language due to one too many appletinis during the power luncheon.


I don't see that problem. Yes, you can qualify for the feat. No, you can't have a familiar. Why? There is a magic ritual involved and you can't participate in it because you vowed never to use magic again.

Magic items sound like 'magical materials worth 100gp' to me.

Well, I don't have the class's writeup memorized, but if the familiar was summoned before entering Forsaker, there's nothing stipulating the Forsaker must kill his or her familiar or that the connection is severed.

Granted, someone with a familiar forsaking all magic is hypocritical and ridiculous, but then again, the idea of the class existing in any of the D&D settings I know of is ridiculous.

[TuggyNE]

Granted, someone with a familiar forsaking all magic is hypocritical and ridiculous, but then again, the idea of the class existing in any of the D&D settings I know of is ridiculous.

Also, people in general are often hypocritical and ridiculous. :smalltongue:

[Vaz]

The Feat states that classes which allow Arcane Spellcasting to take place stack their levels to determine the familiars abilities.

If you take the meaning of allow to mean 'permit' like the two dictionaries I linked to state, then provided that the class does not forbid the casting of arcane spells, then all the levels stack.

Forsaker was used as an example because it is the only class i know of which actively disallows arcane spellcasting.

Provided you qualify for the feat (as say a Silverbrow Human), even none spellcasting classes advance the familiar, because they do not 'disallow' spellcasting, regardless of the presence of ability.

Hence, a Silverbrow Human with its HD based Caster Level SLA that has the requisite skillranks can take Obtain Familiar. All classes which do not 'disallow' Arcane Spellcasting progress the familiar.

[TypoNinja]

The Feat states that classes which allow Arcane Spellcasting to take place stack their levels to determine the familiars abilities.

If you take the meaning of allow to mean 'permit' like the two dictionaries I linked to state, then provided that the class does not forbid the casting of arcane spells, then all the levels stack.


Your problem is you've made a false connection between "not specifically forbidden" and "Allowed/permitted".

My 1st level fighter isn't specifically forbidden a breath weapon, does that mean I get one?

My Dwarf isn't specifically forbidden to fly, so I'm allowed to fly right?

If your class doesn't specify spellcasting then you are not allowed to cast spells. Unless of course you gain some ability that then grants you spellcasting.

[Another_Poet]

I posit that the difficulty in discerning the meaning of your first post is greater than the difficulty in discerning the meaning of the quoted rules :smalltongue:

To address your question here, you are misusing the word "allow" in this case and the dictionaries don't change that. The intent of the rule is quite clear and you have not discovered a "workaround" at all.

Only classes that "grant" (in your words) arcane spellcasting stack to determine familiar abilities. Sorry.

[Vaz]

I am interested in RAW, guys. Please stop telling me "it's not intended". I know that. Not entirely sure how "hard" it is to understand the first post; the problem was stated in the very first line; about what actually "allow spellcasting means". I know it's RAI to mean "grant/advance", but as its written, any class which does not "disallow" advances the Familiar's Master Level based abilities.

How can I be misusing "allow" when "grant" is not even mentioned? As you said grant was my own word, grant is not one present in the Obtain Familiar Feat Description.

I am not asking to cast spells, simply whether the presence of taking a class prevents me from doing so.

The feat specifies that classes which allow arcane spellcasting stack to determine master abilities. This means that classes which disallow Arcane do not stack.

A Fighter does not disallow spellcasting. Neither does a Duskblade, the difference between them is that a Duskblade can cast spells through its class levels, but a Fighter needs another class or feat (Magical Training) to be able to cast spells; but the Fighter by itself does not refuse permission to cast spells; Fighter still "allows arcane spellcasting" to take place because it does not "disallow arcane spellcasting".

[Amphetryon]

The phrase "to take place" does not appear in the text I have regarding the Obtain Familiar Feat. Source, please?

[Talya]

The OP is right.

As written, fighter levels would count toward obtain familiar caster levels.

Fighter allows arcane spellcasting. It doesn't grant it or advance it, but the feat doesn't specify that the class has to do either. But it does allow it.

[Vaz]

Does a fighter say anywhere it disallows arcane spellcasting?

While the class itself might not actually give any spellcasting, does taking Fighter 1 in a wizard build disallow Arcane Spellcasting? This means it allows spellcasting, because it doesn't forbid it.

It allows 9th level spells to be cast- a wizard 19/fighter 1 can still cast 9th's because fighter still allows spellcasting, because it doesn't actively prohibit.

If there is a sign saying 'you are disallowed from walking on the grass' that means you cannot walk on the grass. If there is no such sign, you are free to walk on the grass. Does not mean you have to walk on the grass, or grant you the ability to walk on the grass (you might be incapable of walking for whatever reason), that much be attained elsewhere. However, regardless of your ability to walk on the grass, there is nothing from preventing you from walking on the grass.

[Talya]

Does a fighter say anywhere it disallows arcane spellcasting?

While the class itself might not actually give any spellcasting, does taking Fighter 1 in a wizard build disallow Arcane Spellcasting? This means it allows spellcasting, because it doesn't forbid it.

That's what I said.

[Vaz]

Sorry, talya, typing on a tablet takes ages.

[Bakeru]

Actually, if you want to nitpick at "allows/does not prohibit" vs. "allows/enables", "Obtain Familiar" is the lesser problem.

Go through your rulebooks and see how often they used "allows" as "enables". All the time.
Now, replace all these instances with "does not prohibit, but does not enable it".

I'd recommend the Magic Item Compendium for this. Deepdweller Armor gets a minor nerf (one function is "allows you to talk to any aquatic being that has a language"), Ghostward Armor does nothing any more (only function is "allows you to add the enhancement bonus against ethereal touch attacks"), Armor of Landing doesn't do anything any more (only function is "allows you to ignore the first 60 ft. of falling"), and that's only those before I stopped searching.

I couldn't find a single instance of "allows" being used as "does not prohibit". I'm sure those are somewhere and could possibly count as dysfunctional, but seriously, "allows" has been consistently used as "enables". Far more consistently than some other WotC-rules.

[Khedrac]

Whilst I still hold that levels of Fighter do not count, I think you have found an interesting twist and non-casting levels of a casting prestige class would count!

For example consider a Rainbow Servant - the class allows casting of arcane spells - but all 10 levels would count despite the class being only half casting.
Now some would argue based on the above that because the class does not grant spellcasting it does not allow it either, but I think that the "allow" wording is probably best read as "advances".
If you do hold that classes that advance casting don't work then a hexblade counts - it grants casting, but at only half the class level, for this feat all hexblade levels would count.

[Vaz]

@ Bakeru; Not said anything about "enable". You're the only person to have brought "enable" into it. When you subvert "enable", yet, you're right. but as it's irrelevant, it's incorrect.

"Allow" = "Permit"

Deepdweller armour "permits" you to converse to water breathing creatures with a language. It doesn't mean it suddenly allows you to talk, or to talk intelligibly underwater.

A Ghost Ward armour requires an Enchantment Bonus, the enchantment permitting. If there was (theoretically) no Enchantment Bonus, it would not grant you the ability to add Enchantment Bonus.

Landing allows you to ignore the first 60ft of falling damage, and you can always land on your feet. It's irrelevant to the discussion as this (like Ghost Ward) cannot trigger should you not meet the trigger event.

Meanwhile, a Fighter 1-19 does not prevent Arcane Spellcasting, it "permits" Arcane Spellcasting to happen.

To use your anology, replace "allow" with "does not disallow". The meaning of all is completely unchanged.

Edit; @ Khedrac; but what about a 3 level dip in Hexblade? Would that be a Spellcasting class? If no, what happens when you take the 4th level, do you studdenly gain 4 additional master levels? The same for other classes/prestige classes which are not fullcasters, or have their 1st level(s) not advance spellcasting.

[Amphetryon]

@ Bakeru; Not said anything about "enable". You're the only person to have brought "enable" into it. When you subvert "enable", yet, you're right. but as it's irrelevant, it's incorrect.

"Allow" = "Permit"


Bakeru's not subverting "enable;" he's using "enable" as one of the viable synonyms for "allow" to show a dysfunction. Can you demonstrate why his linguistically viable synonym for "allow" is incorrect, while your linguistically viable synonym for "allow" is right?

[nedz]

Taking a level in Fighter, say, does not allow you to cast any arcane spells. Now you may have levels in other classes which do but they are not relevant to the level in Fighter.

Half casting PrCs appear more problematic, but I think that all their levels count because the class contains levels which allow you to cast arcane spells, irrespective of any other classes you might have.

Hexblade, and any other arcane half casters, would also count fully — by the same reasoning.

[Vaz]

Bakeru's not subverting "enable;" he's using "enable" as one of the viable synonyms for "allow" to show a dysfunction. Can you demonstrate why his linguistically viable synonym for "allow" is incorrect, while your linguistically viable synonym for "allow" is right?

Couldn't find "enable" listed as a synonym for allow.

If a fighter doesn't "allow", then it must "disallow" Arcane Spellcasting. Where does it say a fighter "disallows"?

[Grim Reader]

Whilst I still hold that levels of Fighter do not count, I think you have found an interesting twist and non-casting levels of a casting prestige class would count!

For example consider a Rainbow Servant - the class allows casting of arcane spells - but all 10 levels would count despite the class being only half casting.
Now some would argue based on the above that because the class does not grant spellcasting it does not allow it either, but I think that the "allow" wording is probably best read as "advances".
If you do hold that classes that advance casting don't work then a hexblade counts - it grants casting, but at only half the class level, for this feat all hexblade levels would count.

Nitpick: Rainbow Servant is full-casting.

[Coidzor]

Deepdweller armour "permits" you to converse to water breathing creatures with a language. It doesn't mean it suddenly allows you to talk, or to talk intelligibly underwater.

So it does nothing, as he stated.


Meanwhile, a Fighter 1-19 does not prevent Arcane Spellcasting, it "permits" Arcane Spellcasting to happen.

More accurately it doesn't interact with Spellcasting at all.

[Bakeru]

@ Bakeru; Not said anything about "enable". You're the only person to have brought "enable" into it. When you subvert "enable", yet, you're right. but as it's irrelevant, it's incorrect.You're far to fixed on one single interpretation of "allow", while it has, in fact, several meanings.


"Allow" = "Permit"Nope. Here's (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/allow) a complete definition, have a look at it, there are 8 different meanings for "allow". 4. is what you're reading, but WotC meant it more like 1. ("To grant, give, admit, accord, afford, or yield; to let one have."), and sometimes possibly like 8. ("To render physically possible")
Or look here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/allow) and scroll down to "thesaurus": "make it possible through a specific action or lack of action for something to happen"
Or here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allow), under "intransitive verb": "to make a possibility"


Deepdweller armour "permits" you to converse to water breathing creatures with a language. It doesn't mean it suddenly allows you to talk, or to talk intelligibly underwater.
"Armor that has this property does not apply an armor check penalty on your Swim checks, and wearing deepdweller armor allows you to converse with any water-breathing creature that has a language."If it was just "You're allowed talk to them if you have the ability to do so", then it wouldn't make sense to include it, because that's the default. It really does give you the ability to talk to anything that breathes water and can talk, otherwise it would be a moot point.


A Ghost Ward armour requires an Enchantment Bonus, the enchantment permitting. If there was (theoretically) no Enchantment Bonus, it would not grant you the ability to add Enchantment Bonus.Enhancement Bonus of shields and armour does not apply against touch attacks. If Ghost Ward armour does not add the ability to use the enchantment bonus against touch attacks, then it does nothing, because the original enchantment bonus can't be applied against touch attacks.


Landing allows you to ignore the first 60ft of falling damage, and you can always land on your feet. It's irrelevant to the discussion as this (like Ghost Ward) cannot trigger should you not meet the trigger event.If you fall more than 60ft., then you usually can't just choose to ignore 60ft of it. Landing enables you to do so.


Meanwhile, a Fighter 1-19 does not prevent Arcane Spellcasting, it "permits" Arcane Spellcasting to happen.In the "permits" sense, yes, not in the "To render physically possible"-sense.


To use your anology, replace "allow" with "does not disallow". The meaning of all is completely unchanged.It is, because "does not disallow" means Landing and Ghost Ward do nothing - great, if I fall, the armour doesn't prevent me from doing something I can't do anyway, and if I'm attacked by a touch attack, the armour doesn't prohibit something that I cannot do. And Deepdweller would just mean "If you can talk to them, you can talk to them."


Couldn't find "enable" listed as a synonym for allow.Have a look here (http://thesaurus.com/browse/enable). "Enable. (One of several) Definition(s): allow, authorize"

[Amphetryon]

Couldn't find "enable" listed as a synonym for allow.

If a fighter doesn't "allow", then it must "disallow" Arcane Spellcasting. Where does it say a fighter "disallows"?

See Bakeru's post, above. I found it easily, as well, and knew the synonymous definition beforehand. What's your native language, out of curiosity?

[Eldonauran]

See Bakeru's post, above. I found it easily, as well, and knew the synonymous definition beforehand. What's your native language, out of curiosity?

I am curious about this as well. I'm not sure if this is a simple misunderstanding of the language or an intentional twisting of the language.

[TypoNinja]

I am curious about this as well. I'm not sure if this is a simple misunderstanding of the language or an intentional twisting of the language.

Its a twisting of the language. It requires an incorrect leap that "not forbidden" automatically equates to "allowed" by using the wrong definition of allow.


Admit (an event or activity) as legal or acceptable.
Give (someone) permission to do something.

The OP is (mis)using Allow in the permissive sense. Rather than the Descriptive.

Under the OP's usage of allow anything you are not specifically forbidden from doing becomes an acceptable action, which is of course ridiculous, and its easy to demonstrate why.

Take a look at a 1st level fighter. Now notice how it doesn't forbid just about everything. Regeneration, fast healing, elemental resistances, SR, flight, SLA's. Divine Ranks.

Of course the lack of any text forbidding their use doesn't automatically grant you that power. You still need to be specifically granted that ability from somewhere. Compare with a Druid who is specifically forbidden certain kinds of armor.

The use of an edge case with Obtain Familiar makes it seem like a grey area until you attempt to apply the same reasoning to anything more straight forward, like deciding if you have a burrow speed or not. Without some text specifically granting you an ability, you do not have it, and its use would not be a legal or acceptable action during gameplay.

[Bakeru]

Its a twisting of the language.To be fair, some languages work very differently. I'm german, and it took me a while to understand that "must not" means "actively required not to do something". The word-by-word translation of "must not" into German would mean "don't need to".

So, if Vaz isn't a native english speaker, that could pretty much explain everything.

[TuggyNE]

To be fair, some languages work very differently. I'm german, and it took me a while to understand that "must not" means "actively required not to do something". The word-by-word translation of "must not" into German would mean "don't need to".

So, if Vaz isn't a native english speaker, that could pretty much explain everything.

Yeah, in general it's wise to avoid assuming deliberate misinterpretation (however tempting the assumption may be) when a simple misunderstanding is plausible.

For that matter, even some native English speakers are kind of poor in their understanding of certain corners of the language; I myself have a very good instinctive knowledge from reading lots and lots of books, but my ability to formally explain precisely why such-and-such is linguistically correct is sadly lacking.

[Vaz]

So, in short, we all agree that despite the usage of "allow" actually meaning that my interpretation is correct provided I use a particular definition of "allow", but when I use a different definition of "allow" it falls apart, and your definition is correct, because... you... say so? That's what I'm getting here.

"Allow" is a definition, not a synonym of "Enable". Do not equate definition as synonym, and there is no mention "enable" in either of the links, or indeed, the wiktionary link you hosted. Stop confusing the issue by bringing yet another irrelevant word in. I had originally thought "enable" was correct, and the argument I had put forward was done, until I actually researched, and found out that "enable" is not referenced in any of the dictionary links to "allow" posted above.

@TypoNinja; that's precisely what I'm getting at. The druid is a perfect example.


For the purpose of determining familiar abilities that depend on your arcane caster class level, your levels in all classes that allow you to cast arcane spells stack.

Replace "allows you to cast arcane spells" with "allows you to wear metal armour without penalty".

Don't get pedantic on the "without penalty" bit, as technically a druid does not prevent you from wearing metal armour. But the example is still solid and hold's true. A Druid 5/Fighter 5 with Obtain Familiar using the statement below would have a Master Level of 5, because Fighter 5 does not have a specified penalty from wearing metal armour. The Druid 5 bit does, however.

The same applies to "allows you to cast arcane spells". If a class does not prevent it, it therefore allows it, It is ON/OFF. Allow/Disallow.

I AM NOT SAYING "The Rules don't say I can't, so I can". I am saying the rules do not forbid X class from casting spells, therefore it MUST allow it; regardless of said classes ABILITY to do so; which is a seperate entity.

Does a Fighter make any mention of SLA's? No. Therefore it ALLOWS them. You must however actually have SLA's to make use of them, however. A Silverbrow Human has an SLA; is there a clause in Fighter which prevents that SLA from being used? No. It therefore allows it. Does a Fighter make any mention of spells? No. Does this grant you the ability to cast spells? No. Does taking a level Fighter as a Silverbrow Human Wizard prevent you from casting spells? Therefore a Fighter allows you to cast spells.

In regards to "enable" being a synonym of "allow"; try looking under the linked pages in the OP for "enable", as they are linked to allow, not to enable.

It is not a twisting of the language. It is using the plain English language definition of "allow". I find it fairly... offensive is too strong a word, perhaps insulting... that a non-english speaker is calling me out. I am English, born and bred, and I also have the OED link in the first post; said link having the first definition of "allow" supporting my statement.

As an aside; yes, Deepdweller's "conversing" ability is utterly useless. Where does it say you can speak underwater, speak intelligibly underwater, or be understood by the water breathing creature? But then, that's not really why you get Deepdweller armour.

[Bakeru]

So, in short, we all agree that despite the usage of "allow" actually meaning that my interpretation is correct provided I use a particular definition of "allow", but when I use a different definition of "allow" it falls apart, and your definition is correct, because... you... say so? That's what I'm getting here.No. It's because your definition doesn't make sense in several instances.
Also, we all know what RAI is (Only classes that "enable you to cast arcane spells" are supposed to count), and that just happens to be one meaning of "allow". You can keep pushing for your reading of "allow", but if another possible reading ("Grant", "give", "making it possible") is not only just as valid, but also obviously RAI, your claims just don't hold.

And yes, "enable" isn't spelled out there. "Grant" and "give" are. "Making it possible" is also mentioned twice. None of these would fit your interpretation, while "grant (the ability to)" or "give (the ability to)" (as well as "making s.th. possible") are pretty much identical in meaning to "enable".

Also, the one who called you out originally and assumed you weren't a native speaker was someone else, I just added (after someone accused you of deliberately misinterpreting the rules) that different languages use words in different ways, and not being a native speaker would be a plausible explanation.
And, at last, I'm not the only or even the first to disagree with you...

[Phelix-Mu]

If a class does not prevent it, it therefore allows it, It is ON/OFF. Allow/Disallow.


Hmm. This may or may not be linguistically correct, but it is clearly not in keeping with what "allow" normally means in the context of the game.

Moreover, I think I can even venture to quibble with the assertion that this is a binary issue. I see three cases:

A: X allows Y.

B: X disallows Y.

C: X does not specifically allow or disallow Y.

The thing about Case C is that X may be stated in Case C, while Y is not mentioned at all.

Indeed, such is the case with most of rules language. What is not explicitly "allowed" (and the better word may indeed be "granted" or "enabled") is not disallowed, but the rule/class/etc assumes a neutral role in regards to the matter. You default to any other information that is pertinent.

So, for example: Fighter does not allow or disallow spellcasting. Fighter, in fact, says nothing about spellcasting. It also says nothing about flying, eating oranges, or mandatory castration. Without explicit mention, we assume nothing, and default to other sources of info (should they exist).

Say the same Fighter would like to also be a Wizard. Wizard explicity allows spellcasting (in fact, it's granted by a class feature). We now look for language disallowing spellcasting. Fighter has no such language, and as there is no language disallowing, Wizard can be taken and spellcasting will function normally (barring use of Fighter class features that interact unusually with arcane spellcasting, like armour).

In short, I defer to my first post: Obtain Familiar is very poorly written. RAW, it probably shouldn't do anything, since poorly defined things make terrible rules language. A DM clarification is the only suitable source to rectify the matter, IMHO.

[TuggyNE]

So, in short, we all agree that despite the usage of "allow" actually meaning that my interpretation is correct provided I use a particular definition of "allow", but when I use a different definition of "allow" it falls apart, and your definition is correct, because... you... say so? That's what I'm getting here.

The problem is actually in reverse; anyone propounding a given reading of the rules that relies on a particular meaning of a word or phrase must give a reasonable argument for why that's the only meaning that can work in context. Not merely that it could work, but that nothing else can.

Without some reason to suppose that one particular meaning out of several is in fact the correct one, you have no reliable argument at all.

For clarity's sake, here (http://thesaurus.com/browse/allow) are some (http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/allow%5Bverb%5D) examples (http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/allow/) of synonyms (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/thesaurus/category/allow) or definitions (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/allow) that make (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/allow) decent alternatives (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Allow) to your reading.

[olentu]

So, your whole argument is that conversational English is not perfectly specific or was there more. I mean, if that is all it is not like that was some great unknown thing.

[Vaz]

This has now descended into thought experiment, as the reasoning behind the question behind it has been worked around.

However, the point still stands.

In your example; you gave 3 options. What are the three outcomes?

1; Arcane Spellcasting is allowed
2; Arcane Spellcasting is disallowed
3; Arcane Spellcasting is ???

Wizard 1/Fighter 1 can cast Arcane Spells just like Wizard 2. The fact that Wizard 2 can cast more/better/stronger spells is irrelevent. QED, Fighter does not disallow spellcasting. QED, Fighter is allowed to cast spells (but doesn't grant the ability to). QED, Fighter 2 is allowed to cast spells. QED, Epic Fighter 24253252343225234325235 is allowed to cast spells. It can't cast spells because it does not have access to Arcane Spellcasting, not because Epic Fighter 24253252343225234325235 has a clause stating it is not allowed to cast arcane spells.

Edit; @tuggyne. Problem is, we're not dealing with synonyms. We're dealing with "allow". In regards to your point, though, I agree. 1) a DM is unlikely to use this in game. 2) It's TO. 3) it's down to the individual's interpretation of the X amount of given definitions anywhere. For the purposes of English language, however, I chose the Oxford Dictionary, and the first one definition present there.

[Bakeru]

Ohh, thought experiments!
Let's go with the very first meaning of "allow" that Wikitionary lists: "to grant".
A class either grants spellcasting, or it doesn't. It should be noted that "not granting" is not the same as "prohibiting" - just because your grandma doesn't grant you an allowance doesn't mean your parents don't grant you any, either.

So, let's go through the relevant possibilities:
"Fighter grants spellcasting". Whoops, now it actually states that being a fighter makes it possible to cast spells, not really what we want.
"Being a fighter does not grant spellcasting". Hmm, seems legit. Just because you're a fighter doesn't mean you cast spells.
"Being a wizard grants you spellcasting". True.
"Being a fighter/wizard grants you spellcasting". Well, kinda. It's the wizard part that grants spellcasting, but being a wizard is part of being a fighter/wizard.

So, we use the first word provided as a definition for "allow" from Wikitionary, and suddenly, everything makes sense and works with the rules. How weird.

[Vaz]

Why Wiktionary, and not the Oxford English Dictionary?

You know, the world renowned most trusted source on the English Language, as opposed to essentially a fan sourced website?

[NotScaryBats]

lol, I see what you mean, and yes it could be read that way in some of the TO "stupid RAW" kind of way, which I think is your point.

It could be read and used the way you describe, Vaz.

[Bakeru]

Why Wiktionary, and not the Oxford English Dictionary?

You know, the world renowned most trusted source on the English Language, as opposed to essentially a fan sourced website?Why use a British English dictionary, when we're dealing with an American company which is going to hire American writers who are going to use American English? Yes, BE and AE are different. There's a huge overlap, but some words are just used differently.

/Edit: Oh, hey! Oxford Advanced American Dictionary: Allow. (http://oaadonline.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/Allow)
Look at definition number 4: "Make Possible".

[Amphetryon]

You're wrong, we've shown why, you're not acknowledging it, so I'm done. Enjoy your game.

[Chambers]

A: X allows Y.

B: X disallows Y.

C: X does not specifically allow or disallow Y.

Correct answer in bold.

This really is a spurious argument that you're making Vaz. In all my many and storied years of discussing D&D online, every time I've seen someone bring out the dictionary definition of a word (and the OED, no less, so it must be true!) in relation to some argument about the rules the discussion always seems to be about how a particular interpretation of a certain word totally changes how the rules of the game interact with each other.

This is essentially a fancified version of The Rules Don't Say I Can't Do X.

[AugustNights]

So, in short, we all agree that despite the usage of "allow" actually meaning that my interpretation is correct provided I use a particular definition of "allow", but when I use a different definition of "allow" it falls apart, and your definition is correct, because... you... say so? That's what I'm getting here.

English is a tricky language, and I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but I wanted to point out that people are not saying your definition is incorrect because they say so. Rather they have come to this conclusion by what is called precedent in legal matters.
Precedent of the term "allow" in D&D 3.5 rules follows the definitions that the people opposing your point of view maintain, where as there is no precedent that I am aware of supporting your definition of the word.
If you could find such precedent you'd be helping your argument quite a bit.

[Vaz]

You're wrong, we've shown why, you're not acknowledging it, so I'm done. Enjoy your game.

I will cheers, thanks for the good will.

@Chambers; no, it's not. If the rules had said "classes which advance arcane spellcasting"; then there'd have been no argument. As it stands, it used the term "allow". What does "allow" mean?

Does it mean "permit"? Or does it mean "grant"? It's down to the DM to decide.

It is a little amusing though that some people seem to have got quite heated over this before going off in a huff.

@Bakeru; "make possible" still does not mean you have the ability to do so. The grass may allow you to walk on it, but if you cannot walk, that is down to yourself, not due to the grass.

I'm going to leave it at this though. It's late, and we're just going to have to disagree. Like I said, I've gotten around my need in game for this rule, so I'm happy enough to leave it at that.

[Chambers]

@Chambers; no, it's not. If the rules had said "classes which advance arcane spellcasting"; then there'd have been no argument. As it stands, it used the term "allow". What does "allow" mean?

Does it mean "permit"? Or does it mean "grant"? It's down to the DM to decide.

Not really. You're choosing to insert a false equivalency between a number of words in order to twist the rules for a more powerful interpretation of the rules. There's not really an argument or rules question here other than the one you've created.

[Bakeru]

@Bakeru; "make possible" still does not mean you have the ability to do so. The grass may allow you to walk on it, but if you cannot walk, that is down to yourself, not due to the grass.To respond with reductio ad absurdum:
If the grass makes it possible for me to walk over it, yet I'm still not able to walk over it, then obviously, it can't have been made possible - otherwise, it would be possible now.
Grass doesn't make it generally possible to walk over it. It might make walking over it more comfortable, but you can only do that if walking already is possible for you.

That's why "make possible" is just one of many meanings for "allow". It just happens to be the one WotC latched on to.



I'm going to leave it at this though. It's late, and we're just going to have to disagree. Like I said, I've gotten around my need in game for this rule, so I'm happy enough to leave it at that.I do agree on this one, I just have a heavy case of "Always wants to have the last word".

[Phelix-Mu]

However, the point still stands.

In your example; you gave 3 options. What are the three outcomes?

1; Arcane Spellcasting is allowed
2; Arcane Spellcasting is disallowed
3; Arcane Spellcasting is ???


The answer to three is "Arcane spellcasting is not mentioned." The rules allow no assumptions to be made about things not mentioned. [or, ideally should do so]

Theoretical Feat:

Acquire Oranges
You acquire an orange for every class level that allows oranges.

Does this feat grant oranges for all levels, even in classes that mention nothing about oranges? Or should we first (and logically) only look at classes that have something to do with oranges?

This examples is probably not logically consistent, and it is not analogous in any case. But what it is is a good example of why we shouldn't just imagine implications into existing rules language. Fighter doesn't say Fighter can't have oranges, so obviously Fighter can. Whether it can or can't have oranges is irrelevant, the rules don't say either way, so we assume nothing.

Common sense stuff is obviously an exception. The rules don't say your character starts with ten fingers, but he/she does. On the other hand, it's not common sense to create a binary situation from use of allow/disallow and similar language. 8 year-old: "Mom didn't say I couldn't drive her car while she is at the movie with Dad." Ergo, let the kid drive?

We can't assume that just because something doesn't specifically disallow something that it is allowed. It's not binary.

Again, the writing was so bad that a DM should rule on it.

[TypoNinja]

Yeah, in general it's wise to avoid assuming deliberate misinterpretation (however tempting the assumption may be) when a simple misunderstanding is plausible.

For that matter, even some native English speakers are kind of poor in their understanding of certain corners of the language; I myself have a very good instinctive knowledge from reading lots and lots of books, but my ability to formally explain precisely why such-and-such is linguistically correct is sadly lacking.

Well even native English speakers tend to only be conversationally fluent, thats where the false assumption that disallowed and allowed are a binary state came from. I didn't mean twisting as in some nefarious purpose, just twisting as in misused.

Allowed/disallowed are opposites, but the lack of one does not automatically make the other true. Absence of permission does not automatically mean something is forbidden, and absence of a forbiddance does not automatically grant permission.

Take for example a car. Without a license you are explicitly forbidden to drive a car.

With a drivers license you are allowed to drive a car. Possession of the license however does not automatically grant ownership of a car. So while you are allowed to drive you are still unable to do so.

Similarly, if the law forbidding you to drive without a license was revoked, you are permitted to drive, but still lack the ability to do so if you are not in possession of a vehicle.

Compare this to a Fighter vs a Forsaker.

A Forsaker has been explicitly forbidden the use of magic. A fighter is not.

Lack of that specific forbiddance does not grant spellcasting, it just means you may gain and use the ability if granted it.

Permission, and ability are two separate concerns. The problem arises in that one word "allow" can be used to grant either permission or denote ability depending on context. Because English is a silly language.

The fact that we are talking about a game system makes this pretty easy to sort out though. As I pointed out above, treating a lack of denial of an option as permission to use it falls apart pretty quickly, just name an ability you aren't supposed to have and point out that you aren't forbidden from possessing it. Fighters make better casters than Wizards if you go down that road. Wizards have specified spells per day, aren't allowed more. A fighter has no specified limit, so I'll take 50 of each level, because nothing says I can't.

Obviously that's simply silly, if your reading of one rule makes the rest of the game break, you read the rule wrong.

This is a 'dysfunction' only if you work really really hard to make it dysfunctional. RAI is blindly obvious, and generating any problems requires twisting the language into a pretzel.

Also, and this is what happens when you hang out with English majors, the wording actually tells us which "allow" they meant.


allow you to cast arcane spells

As distinct from "allows arcane casting".

This gives us the context for permissive vs ability. A Fighter's class does allow arcane casting, Compared to a Forsaker that forbids it, though neither grants the ability. A Fighter 1/Wizard 1 can cast spells, a Forsaker 1/Wizard 1, can not.

But neither Fighter or Forsaker grants the ability, allows for, the casting of spells in context of game rules. The game rules do not allow fighters to cast spell.

[Threadnaught]

Not reading through all the responses.

Vas: For determining the Familiar's capabilities, all levels in a classes that allow arcane spellcasting stack.

Pretty simple really. Take all levels in Bard, Sorceror, Wizard and Artificer, add them together and that's the Familiar's power level.
Even if you could include multi-class characters and use the "it doesn't disallow arcane casting" justification. The calculation isn't for working out what spells the character can cast, it's for deciding how powerful the Familiar is.
A standard misinterpretation doesn't turn a 1st level Fighter into Mordekainen, nay, it merely acts as a scaling, single use Natural Bond.
Giving a Fighter1, 9th level spells is the move of a munchkin, intentionally misinterpretating the rules (aka cheating) so they can lord it over everyone else.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Maybe you can choose to propose an interpretation of the words of that feat to mean what the OP suggests, but it must pass the acceptance of your GM.
DMG, page 6
ADJUDICATING
...you're the final arbiter of rules within the game. Good players will recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification.

You can try to pass off your interpretation, but I cannot imagine any GM agreeing to allow something that is so clearly not the intention of the designers.

If you tried to pull this sort of trick at my table, I'd cross out that word in your book, and write "grant" in its place.

[TypoNinja]

Maybe you can choose to propose an interpretation of the words of that feat to mean what the OP suggests, but it must pass the acceptance of your GM.
DMG, page 6

You can try to pass off your interpretation, but I cannot imagine any GM agreeing to allow something that is so clearly not the intention of the designers.

If you tried to pull this sort of trick at my table, I'd cross out that word in your book, and write "grant" in its place.

If you vandalized my book you'd be buying me a new one, so maybe a less flashy solution would be preferable?

[Altair_the_Vexed]

If you vandalized my book you'd be buying me a new one, so maybe a less flashy solution would be preferable?
A figure of speech - but you get the idea? (I was thinking more along the lines of saying "Okay, gimme your book and I'll fix that for you" *clicks pen*. I know some folk are precious about printed works.)
If the GM thinks an interpretation of the rule is dumb, she is advised by the creators to simply veto it.

[Crake]

in such an obviously unintended rule as this, does the absolute strictest interpretation of RAW actually matter? What kind of a DM would ever actually allow this?

[olentu]

in such an obviously unintended rule as this, does the absolute strictest interpretation of RAW actually matter? What kind of a DM would ever actually allow this?

Well, since absolute strictest interpretation of RAW is that neither side is correct under the rules as there can be no answer due to ambiguity then yes, I would say it matters.

[SaintRidley]

I feel as if somebody in this thread is mistaken as to what the OED is for. The OED exists to collect and describe (via definitions) the myriad ways in which words in English are (or have been) used. It does not exist to define words and in so doing determine usage.


Also, Oxforddictionaries.com is not the Oxford English Dictionary Online, but the condensed and free version. So the "world renowned most trusted source on the English Language, as opposed to essentially a fan sourced website?" being cited is not, actually, any more than boiled down, rather pedestrian thing. If you want the actual OED, you're going to need institutional access via a university or through a personal subscription which will run a few hundred dollars annually. Good attempt to argue from authority, but you really want to get the real thing rather than the bite-sized version.


I've got the OED entry for allow sitting right in front of me. Let's take a whirl through it.


†I. To praise, approve.

1. trans. To laud, praise, commend. Obs.

Obsolete, irrelevant.

2.

a. trans. To approve of, sanction; to receive with favour or approval. Obs.

Obsolete, irrelevant.

b. intr. With of (also upon) in same sense. Obs.
N.E.D. (1884) comments ‘Still in some dialects as allow on’; however, no examples of this construction have been found.

Obsolete, not reflective of the structure of the verb's use under examination, irrelevant.

II. To acknowledge, admit, or declare.
3.

a. trans. To accept as true or valid; to acknowledge, admit, grant. Also: (of a statement) to enable (another statement) to be true or valid.

Irrelevant sense.

b. intr. With of in same sense.

Not reflective of the structure of the verb's use under examination, irrelevant.

4. trans. With complement, †for, or to be. To acknowledge or admit (a person or thing) to be something specified, or of a specified nature or quality.

Not reflective of the structure of the verb's use under examination, irrelevant.

5. trans. With clause or direct speech as object. To acknowledge, admit, or grant (that something is the case); to concede. Also with indirect object.

Not reflective of the structure of the verb's use under examination, irrelevant.

6. trans. Chiefly U.S. regional (chiefly south. and Midland) and Eng. regional (south.). With clause as object. To declare, claim, or state (that something is the case); to come to a specified conclusion.

Not reflective of the structure of the verb's use under examination, irrelevant.

III. To take into account.
7. trans.

†a. To take into account or give credit for (a person's action or intention). Also with to or indirect object. Obs.

Obsolete, irrelevant.

b. To grant (a sum) to someone by way of a deduction or rebate; to credit (a sum) to a person or account; to enter or recognize (an item) in an account. Also with person as direct or indirect object or as the object of a preposition. Now rare.

Irrelevant.

8. trans. gen. To add or deduct (a number, amount, etc.) in consideration of something; to provide or set aside for a purpose.

Irrelevant.

9. intr. With for. To make addition or deduction corresponding to; to take into consideration or account; to make allowance for.

Irrelevant.

IV. To permit, enable.
This branch covers a range of meaning from actively giving permission to passively not preventing something.
10. trans.

a. To give consent to the occurrence of or relax restraint on (an action, event, or activity); to consent to the presence or attendance of (a person); to permit, enable.

Potentially relevant.

b. With infinitive. To permit or give consent or freedom to (a person, animal, or thing) to do something; to give permission or opportunity for, enable. Also with bare infinitive (rare).

Ding Ding Ding. Reflects the structure of the phrasing, relevant. Note enabling here. The rare part is the version that takes the bare infinitive, not the whole thing.

c. With adverbial of place. To permit (a person or animal) to go, come, or be in, out, near, etc. Freq. in pass.

Not reflective of the structure of the verb's use under examination, irrelevant.

11. trans. With direct and indirect object.

a. To permit or enable (a person) to have (something).

Not reflective of the structure of the verb's use under examination, potentially relevant.

b. refl. To permit oneself to have (something, esp. an indulgence or luxury).

Not reflective of the structure of the verb's use under examination, irrelevant.

†12. trans. (refl.). With in, (also) to. To let oneself partake of; to indulge in. Cf. permit v. 3b. Obs.

Not reflective of the structure of the verb's use under examination, irrelevant.

13. intr.

a. With of, for. To permit the occurrence or existence of; to enable, facilitate.

Not reflective of the structure of the verb's use under examination, irrelevant.

b. Without construction. To permit something to exist or occur; to provide the opportunity or right conditions for something; to make something possible.

Not reflective of the structure of the verb's use under examination, irrelevant.

V. To pay, grant, or provide.

†14. trans. To pay, recompense, or reward (a person); to give an allowance to (a person), esp. in the form of regular payments; to endow. Obs.

Obsolete, irrelevant.

15. trans. With direct and indirect object. To pay (a sum) to (a person), esp. to cover an expense; to provide (a person) with (an allowance of something). Also with person as the object of a preposition. Now rare except as merged with sense 11a.

Irrelevant.


So if you're going to go around citing the OED as your source for your interpretation, I guess there's a lesson here. First of all, make sure you're actually using the OED and not a derived and incomplete version. Second of all, make sure that the authority you (think) are citing actually backs you up.