PO & TO wizard "tricks" [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Garktz

2015-05-31, 06:47 AM

A thing I would like to know...
Given the title of the thread, are you interested in what kind of tricks? there's a difference between TO and PO...
Because some of the ones you've listed are TO, and shouldn't be used in real games (except for very particular campaigns, and some of them absolutely NEVER... for example, are you familiar with Pun-Pun (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1013486)?)

(edit: if you're afraid by the wall of text, Pun-Pun is a build that abuses the rules to make a character that can get any ability and arbitrarily high stats)

Well, actually, to some degree, in my opinion, there is little difference between TO and high PO, mainly because you wont see them in a regular table.
Yes, you can see mid/high PO but even then, thats not really common....

Im also familiar with Pun-Pun (but not really that interested in Pun-Pun itself but more of a wizard focused "tricks (abuses or whatever you want to call them)"
What i mean, is that even if I get a chance to play Pun-Pun in my table, i wouldn.t use it besides a bunch of really big numbers....

What Im looking after are "combos?" dont really know how to say it....
i.ll post a couple of examples and i think i.ll make my point clear

1º example "anti magic hat"
Build/fabricate/buy a really big cone ---> shrink said cone with magic ----> wear it as a hat
If im hit by an antimagic zone, hat will revert to original size, blocking the antimagic zone and letting me get out of if

2º example
Animate object on little rock, cast silence on animated rock, tell the rock to follow around enemy caster

3º example
Ice assassin of enemy, mind rape said ice assassin, learn all of enemy´s tricks

4º example
Ice assassin then aleax then mindswich

what im looking for are clever ways to use spells, feats, or class features in a high PO or TO context to see the full power of a wizard.
Its not about wich spells are strong but more about how to combine spells...

as for the 3º example, i can know how ice assassin works and how mindrape works, but i have to mix them together to go for a higher impact than if both spells are not mixed....

Chronos

2015-05-31, 07:18 AM

The difference between TO and high PO is that, by definition, PO is something that you could see at a table. So if it doesn't see use at a table, it's not PO any more, but TO.

Note, of course, that where the line is drawn between the two varies from table to table. What one person calls PO, another might call TO. But there still is that difference for any given table.

Garktz

2015-05-31, 07:41 AM

The difference between TO and high PO is that, by definition, PO is something that you could see at a table. So if it doesn't see use at a table, it's not PO any more, but TO.

Its not about if something is considered TO or PO but more about the kind of optimization im looking for....

What i mean is high PO its something you could see but, as i believe you can agree with me, regular tables are not Tippy table....

lets say "high end tricks" and that includes both TO and PO?
dunno

lsfreak

2015-05-31, 11:03 AM

Its not about if something is considered TO or PO but more about the kind of optimization im looking for....

What i mean is high PO its something you could see but, as i believe you can agree with me, regular tables are not Tippy table....

lets say "high end tricks" and that includes both TO and PO?
dunno

No, by definition PO is something you could see at a table. That's the whole point of it. PO looks very different depending on the table in question. One group's PO requires matching to a healerbot cleric and blaster wizard, another will be at a different level because they include a DMM:Persist "paladin," shadowpouncing rogue/swordsage, and synchronicity-(ab)using blaster psion. A PO trick for a low-powered group might just be casting dimension step to allow full attacks and help set up flanking for the rogue, but I think we can assume you're asking about higher level of PO tricks than that.

jiriku

2015-05-31, 11:28 AM

My particular favorite with wizards involves "jailbreaking" the class features -- removing the restrictions on how magic functions. For example, changing and refreshing spells without resting, increasing caster level to be substantially higher than your character level, casting spells of higher level than is normally possible for your level, or adding metamagic without paying for it. You can wreck a world economy very quickly when you can cast fabricate 500+ times per day, and when you can occasionally bust out metamagicked 9th level spells around ECL 10-12, you have reliable panic buttons to protect your party if an encounter begins to go badly.

Cruiser1

2015-05-31, 01:48 PM

Many classic tricks rely on a generous interpretation of rules text, and definitely aren't RAI. It's like healing by drowning, in that even if grammar technically says that happens, it's more a rules dysfunction as opposed to a cool optimization trick to take advantage of it. Many cheesy tricks don't work if you just interpret rules text a different way. If nothing else, it makes for a more balanced game, and explains why the multiverse hasn't already been conquered by the first Wizard to read mid-level. For example:

Ice assassin of an aleax of myself
Spell fails. An Ice Assassin can only duplicate existing creatures, and not theoretical creatures. Unless there's already an Aleax of yourself out there hunting you, Ice Assassin can't create a hunter of the hunter. Also, if Ice Assassin duplicates the features of the creature, it also duplicates the fact that a deity can only have one Aleax at a time, which also makes it fail. Finally, it says an Aleax with its abilities can only be created by a deity, so a mere 9th level spell shouldn't be able to duplicate one.

Embrace dark chaos - shun dark chaos to swap all the feats
Shuffled feats remember their type and method of origin. For example, you can shuffle a Fighter bonus feat gained by the Heroics spell into a Abyssal Heritor feat, however that Abyssal Heritor feat can only be shuffled back into a different Fighter bonus feat, and either way it goes away once the underlying Heroics spell expires.

wish for a blessed book with all the spells
Even though a Blessed Book allows you to adds spells to it for zero cost, the value of a Blessed Book (i.e. how much it would cost in a store) with spells in it still increases. A Blessed Book has 1000 pages, so the effective cost of a completely full book is 12500 + 1000*50 = 62500 gp, and an equivalently higher XP value to manifest.

shapechange into zodar for free wishes
Ok, but it costs you at least 5000 XP. But wait you say, that's a houserule because (Sp) and (Su) abilities don't cost XP. Actually, I claim that's a misprint and that RAI is that even (Sp) and (Su) abilities cost XP! Here's proof: In the epic adventure Kerleth's Tower from ELH, you can save an Efreeti's life, and in return he'll offer you a single Wish. That suggests the NPC only has 5000-9999 XP available to spend on his Wish SLA. If Efrett could give out 3 Wishes a day that could create any magic item no matter how powerful, then each Efreeti would have a human cohort that they would give 3 wishes to every day. With millions of Efreeti casting millions of free wishes for infinitely powerful items, they would quickly take over the multiverse. Since they haven't, it's obvious that Dweomerkeepers and others with powerful (Su)/(Sp) abilities still have to spend XP to activate them. This one "houserule" fixes the game in many ways, in that it prevents all ways of freely wishing for infinite wishes or infinitely powerful items, because otherwise the XP cost would be too high.

private demiplanes with metamagic traits to get free metamagic
The Genesis spell/power only allows you to set the environment of your demiplane (e.g. rock, air, water). It doesn't allow you to set any actual traits of your demiplane (e.g. time, magic, etc). Later printings of Genesis clarify this and even say you can't set traits.

Brova

2015-05-31, 02:15 PM

AvatarVecna

2015-05-31, 02:54 PM

PO is something that can fly at a table. While this generally varies from table to table, it generally includes anything that is both RAW and RAI, as long as it's fairly reasonable. TO is pure RAW, and the point of TO is using the rules in ways they were never expected to work to do things that should never have been possible. I'm gonna quote myself from the Sorcerer vs. Wizard thread, when this topic came up there:

Funny story, I used to think TO stood for Tippy-Level Optimization.Is there a difference?In a word, yes. Tippy's stuff is, to the best of my abilities to determine, highly optimized, but also usually pretty in line with the RAI. That is to say, each item/feat/spell/skill/ability used is almost always being used in the way it was written, or at the very least in a reasonable interpretation of the way it's written out. It's just being combined with other things in ways the developers never considered when writing the whatever it is. Theoretical Optimization is about using the word of the rule to twist the meaning of the rule in ways that were never intended to achieve results that were never meant to be anywhere in the realm of possibility.

PO is about Half-Minotaur Half-Ogre Centaur Hulking Hurlers throwing giant-sized magical adamantine bowling balls at demigods and dealing damage that is most easily listed in scientific notation. TO is about Hulking Hurlers "suffering" from a magical-illness-induced hulk rage long enough that they can throw the planet out of orbit.

PO is about a mid-level caster somehow sending an Allip after the tarrasque to kill it. TO is about a Commoner 1 killing the tarrasque by optimizing his own name.

PO is about using handmade Epic Spells to summon up Solars to assist you in designing Epic Spell to summon up Solars, etc, etc, so that you eventually (read: within 1 year) have enough Solars assisting you that you can disintegrate the world with a single Epic Spell. TO is about doing the exact same thing at first level, with just a single feat and a racial breath weapon.

Grod_The_Giant

2015-05-31, 03:07 PM

I like Uncanny Forethought. At PO levels, it's Int Mod slots of spontaneous casting, albeit at a slightly longer time-- perfect for all those utility spells you may or may not need. At higher levels of optimization, we notice that the feat doesn't specify anything about using the spell's original casting time if it's longer than a full-round action. How bout whopping someone with a geas/quest spell to end a fight, no save allowed?

Spell fails. An Ice Assassin can only duplicate existing creatures, and not theoretical creatures.
I'll give you that one.

Shuffled feats remember their type and method of origin. For example, you can shuffle a Fighter bonus feat gained by the Heroics spell into a Abyssal Heritor feat, however that Abyssal Heritor feat can only be shuffled back into a different Fighter bonus feat, and either way it goes away once the underlying Heroics spell expires.
While Embrace the Dark Chaos says that Shun may undo it, Shun merely says "any other feat for which the subject qualifies." No text about having to qualify for the feat at the original level, as retraining often specifies. No text about having to match the original feat, no text about needing a matching feat. Just "any other feat for which the subject qualifies." I can see someone making the argument that Embrace's text overwrites Shun's, and Shun merely gives you back your original feat, but your reading seems way farther removed from RAW.

Ok, but it costs you at least 5000 XP. But wait you say, that's a houserule because (Sp) and (Su) abilities don't cost XP. Actually, I claim that's a misprint and that RAI is that even (Sp) and (Su) abilities cost XP!
What follows is the very definition of a houserule, since the book explicitly states the spell-like abilities "[have] no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor [do they] require a focus or have an XP cost." The fact that efreet don't rule the multiverse isn't a sign that the designers meant spell-likes to have a cost and accidentally wrote the exact opposite thing, it's one more sign that no thought was put into how the abilities they wrote could interact with a standard fantasy setting.

The Genesis spell/power only allows you to set the environment of your demiplane (e.g. rock, air, water). It doesn't allow you to set any actual traits of your demiplane (e.g. time, magic, etc). Later printings of Genesis clarify this and even say you can't set traits.[/QUOTE]
The psionic version of Genesis clarifies this; the arcane version is extremely vague in its most recent printing (ELH). It's not limited to "factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain," especially since that's way too little information to really specify anything. Time is one of the handful of listed traits in the DMG, which makes it kind of hard to argue against.

Now, I'm not saying that your proposals aren't good, logical, balance-improving rulings, but they're just that-- rulings. Your own houserules, not RAW text.

Mato

2015-05-31, 03:53 PM

First, Oberoni fallacy.Not really.

The oberoni fallacy is about how something isn't broke if a DM intervenes with houserules. What he spoke of was misinterpretation of the rules and outright illegal methods.

Like he is right on several counts but one that stands out are his points on the Zodar. This is an inversion of an oberoni fallacy, it assumes the DM has intervened but instead of for balance it's for player empowerment.

Ultimately, words are a method for expressing an idea to one another. - You can watch the video in my signature for an in depth coverage on this. - So the ideology of "RAW" is built on the presumption that willful misinterpretation of conveyed intent allows you to fabricate your own idea as a substitution to the original. And it's not a D&D-only deal, new criticism roughly came into it's own in the 1950s but has since been dismissed from universities, through it is widely spread is media. Mostly prevalent in edited statements by the media and religious based topics.

Kind of makes you feel bad when you realize half the people posting on here share the same ideology as CNN doesn't it?

Lorddenorstrus

2015-05-31, 04:44 PM

AvatarVecna

2015-05-31, 04:46 PM

As much of a stupid question as this might be, I've always been curious of the details of the Ice assassin / Aleax / Mind swap combo. Specifically because I'm not quite sure how the Wizard is getting access to the Aleax in the first place. As I don't believe they can just wish for that crap.. or can they :smallconfused:

If you can find a way to summon an efreeti and force them to grant you a wish (and there's ways to do that in Core), you can get a component free, action free, XP cost free wish; basically, the only limit is the "effects greater than these can backfire, maybe".

Endarire

2015-05-31, 06:05 PM

The difference between pracitcal optimization (PO) and theoretical or 'Tippy Optimization' (TO) is subjective. TO is, by its very name and nature, theoretical. It's not mean to be used in a serious game, or likely in any game at all. (TO usually involves loops or totally bypassing EXP/GP costs on expensive abilities without batting an eyelash - just because power is there and the game lets you.) TO is usually about winning the game by yourself, even if it involves summoning/calling other creatures.

PO is meant to make you better as a character in an actual game. Again, subjectivity. Your GM still determines how practical your PO is. If a trick involves a loop, expect that that loop to be prevented or merely closed after the first iteration. PO doesn't emphasize winning the game by yourself, though it may seem that way to your GM, or may unwittingly turn into that.

Threadnaught

2015-05-31, 08:32 PM

Spell fails. An Ice Assassin can only duplicate existing creatures, and not theoretical creatures. Unless there's already an Aleax of yourself out there hunting you, Ice Assassin can't create a hunter of the hunter.

Multiverse though, gives us a discussion about the multiverse theory. If it's possible for it to exists, then an Ice Assassin could be made from it.

Also, if Ice Assassin duplicates the features of the creature, it also duplicates the fact that a deity can only have one Aleax at a time, which also makes it fail. Finally, it says an Aleax with its abilities can only be created by a deity, so a mere 9th level spell shouldn't be able to duplicate one.

An Ice Assassin of an Aleax of your character is not an Aleax of your character, it is an Ice Assassin, in the same way an Ice Assassin of your character, isn't your character. Ice Assassins are Ice Assassins.

Shuffled feats remember their type and method of origin. For example, you can shuffle a Fighter bonus feat gained by the Heroics spell into a Abyssal Heritor feat, however that Abyssal Heritor feat can only be shuffled back into a different Fighter bonus feat, and either way it goes away once the underlying Heroics spell expires.

That seems a reasonable ruling.

Ok, but it costs you at least 5000 XP. But wait you say, that's a houserule because (Sp) and (Su) abilities don't cost XP. Actually, I claim that's a misprint and that RAI is that even (Sp) and (Su) abilities cost XP!

Okay? Amuse me.

Here's proof: In the epic adventure Kerleth's Tower from ELH, you can save an Efreeti's life, and in return he'll offer you a single Wish. That suggests the NPC only has 5000-9999 XP available to spend on his Wish SLA.

Or perhaps the Efreeti feels that one Wish is a generous enough gift to someone who had saved their life? Or perhaps they only have one Wish and they're using it as a reward for the person/people who saved their life? Or perhaps they're planning to leverage their other two Wishes in exchange for a palace with blackjack and hookers?

The Genesis spell/power only allows you to set the environment of your demiplane (e.g. rock, air, water). It doesn't allow you to set any actual traits of your demiplane (e.g. time, magic, etc). Later printings of Genesis clarify this and even say you can't set traits.

I'm unsure what the official version that is constantly abused looks like. Though if you are correct, then there goes my solid gold solar system.

Kazyan

2015-05-31, 08:51 PM

Multiverse though, gives us a discussion about the multiverse theory. If it's possible for it to exists, then an Ice Assassin could be made from it.

"Exists" is not the same thing as "can exist".

jiriku

2015-05-31, 09:20 PM

The difference between pracitcal optimization (PO) and theoretical or 'Tippy Optimization' (TO) is subjective. TO is, by its very name and nature, theoretical. It's not mean to be used in a serious game, or likely in any game at all.

To speak in defense of Emperor Tippy, he and his gaming group DID use his optimization examples. They were the foundation of his homebrew setting and by all accounts many years of happy gaming have been played out in that setting and with those optimization levels. Emperor Tippy strikes me, above all, as a practical man who is interested in using the rules to accomplish results with his game.

Chronos

2015-06-01, 08:48 AM

And that just gets back to what I and others said about the line being different for different groups. Most tables would never even consider allowing componentless Ice Assassins and custom fast-time demiplanes and so on, so for most tables, those things are TO. At Tippy's table, however, those things are allowed, and so at that table, they're PO. Note that there are some things that even Tippy doesn't allow, and so those things remain TO even at his table.

Uncle Pine

2015-06-01, 09:17 AM

As much of a stupid question as this might be, I've always been curious of the details of the Ice assassin / Aleax / Mind swap combo. Specifically because I'm not quite sure how the Wizard is getting access to the Aleax in the first place. As I don't believe they can just wish for that crap.. or can they :smallconfused:

This has been recently discussed. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416809-Aleax-s-Singular-Enemy)

Mato

2015-06-02, 02:16 PM

{scrubbed}

atemu1234

2015-06-02, 03:21 PM

{scrubbed}

Do you want to get smote? Because that's how you get smote.

Segev

2015-06-02, 03:22 PM

I find the accusation of being a "reposter" interesting. On what do you base it?

Emperor Tippy

2015-06-02, 03:53 PM

Spell fails. An Ice Assassin can only duplicate existing creatures, and not theoretical creatures. Unless there's already an Aleax of yourself out there hunting you, Ice Assassin can't create a hunter of the hunter.
This is the only part of your "counter" that is even arguably true.

Also, if Ice Assassin duplicates the features of the creature, it also duplicates the fact that a deity can only have one Aleax at a time, which also makes it fail.
No, you don't create an Aleax. You create an Ice Assassin with all of the same abilities as an Aleax. That does not make it an Aleax.

Finally, it says an Aleax with its abilities can only be created by a deity,
That is why you are creating an Ice Assassin and not an Aleax.

so a mere 9th level spell shouldn't be able to duplicate one.
That is a personal opinion lacking in rules support.

Shuffled feats remember their type and method of origin. For example, you can shuffle a Fighter bonus feat gained by the Heroics spell into a Abyssal Heritor feat, however that Abyssal Heritor feat can only be shuffled back into a different Fighter bonus feat, and either way it goes away once the underlying Heroics spell expires.
That's nice, please provide source book, chapter, and page for that rules claim.

Even though a Blessed Book allows you to adds spells to it for zero cost, the value of a Blessed Book (i.e. how much it would cost in a store) with spells in it still increases. A Blessed Book has 1000 pages, so the effective cost of a completely full book is 12500 + 1000*50 = 62500 gp, and an equivalently higher XP value to manifest.
The reason for a Blessed Book is that it is a magic item while a regular spell book is not. As a magic item it can exceed the 25,000 GP limit of a safe wish for a non magical item. And the XP cost is negated via Zodar, Solar, Thought Bottle, Efreeti, or any of the numerous other methods of negating the XP cost of Wish.

Ok, but it costs you at least 5000 XP. But wait you say, that's a houserule because (Sp) and (Su) abilities don't cost XP.
{scrubbed}

Actually, I claim that's a misprint and that RAI is that even (Sp) and (Su) abilities cost XP!
{scrubbed}

The Genesis spell/power only allows you to set the environment of your demiplane (e.g. rock, air, water). It doesn't allow you to set any actual traits of your demiplane (e.g. time, magic, etc). Later printings of Genesis clarify this and even say you can't set traits.

D&D does not specifically define "enviroment", ergo we use the dictionary definition of the word.
" the conditions that surround someone or something : the conditions and influences that affect the growth, health, progress, etc., of someone or something"

Time, magic, etc. are environmental traits.

{scrubbed}
That's nice, you've been here since 2007. Otherwise known as more than 7 years. You were here when I was most consistently active on these forums, so a claim of being an "outsider walking in" is at least moderately disingenuous.

{scrubbed}
That's nice.

jiriku

2015-06-02, 09:13 PM

You fools! You said his name three times! Now you've called him from the nether realms and we're all doomed! :smallbiggrin:

Yo, Tippy, what up.

Garktz, the trouble with your "challenge". Without leaving the sourcebooks you defined for the challenge, it's possible to gain infinities of several kinds of resources, cast 9th level spells well before their time, cast hundreds or thousands of spells per day, command infinite numbers of outsiders, and otherwise break the game into itty bitty pieces. Listing out the "lesser" tricks becomes kind of pointless once you establish that you can break the game.

Mato

2015-06-02, 11:00 PM

That is why you are creating an Ice Assassin and not an Aleax.

An ice assassin spell creates a living, breathing creature that is a near-perfect duplicate of an existing creature. The duplicate is formed entirely out of ice, but once the spell is in effect, it appears as an exact duplicate to all but its source, who always sees the ice assassin as an animated ice statue of himself. The ice assassin possesses all the skills, abilities, and memories possessed by the original, but its personality is warped and twisted by an all-consuming need to slay the original. It also constantly uses locate creature on its duplicate at a caster level equal to your own.The point is, a deity needs to create the Aleax you wish to duplicate.

That is a personal opinion lacking in rules support.

An aleax does not exist until it is called into being by a deity.And without DM/deity intervention, this is not possible.

{scrubbed}And that is not very respectful, insulting someone doesn't invalidate their point.

D&D does not specifically define "enviroment"

This entry in a statistics block describes the type of climate and terrain where the creature is typically found. This is a preference, but is not exclusionary. Note that these environments can also exist in portions of dungeons due to magical effects or other supernatural interference, or as features in dungeons or other environment areas.

Any: No preferred environment.
Cold: Arctic and subarctic climes. Any area that has winter-like conditions for the greater portion of the year.
Temperate: Any area that has alternating warm and cold seasons.
Warm: Tropical and subtropical climes. Any area that has summer conditions for the greater portion of the year is warm.
Aquatic: Fresh or salt water.
Deserts: Any dry area with sparse vegetation.
Forests: Any area covered with trees.
Hills: Any area with rugged but not mountainous terrain.
Marshes: Low, flat, waterlogged areas; including swamps.
Mountains: Rugged terrain, with a higher elevation than hills.
Plains: Any fairly flat area that is not a desert, marsh, or forest.
Plane Name: An extraplanar creature's home plane.
Underground: Subterranean areas.
Source: MM, MM3Because D&D did define environment.

Time, magic, etc. are environmental traits.
Time is a physical trait and magic is it's own magic trait, both are a subset of planar traits. Not environmental.

PLANAR TRAITS
Each plane of existence has its own properties—the natural laws of its universe. Planar traits are broken down into a number of general areas. All planes have the following kinds of traits.
Physical Traits: These traits determine the laws of physics and nature on the plane, including how gravity and time function.
Elemental and Energy Traits: These traits determine the dominance of particular elemental or energy forces.
Alignment Traits: Just as characters may be lawful neutral or chaotic good, many planes are tied to a particular moral or ethical outlook.
Magic Traits: Magic works differently from plane to plane, and
magic traits set the boundaries for what it can and can’t do.

Normal Time: This trait describes the way time passes on the Material Plane. One hour on a plane with normal time equals one hour on the Material Plane. Unless otherwise noted in a description, every plane in the D&D cosmology has the normal time trait.To quote someone I suspect you know, the lack of rules isn't rules proving you right.

Grod_The_Giant

2015-06-02, 11:15 PM

Time is a physical trait and magic is it's own magic trait, both are a subset of planar traits. Not environmental.
The spell also specifies "most any desire the spellcaster can visualize," with only two listed exceptions. That leaves everything else pretty much in the hands of the GM. There's a total lack of rules on that front. Is "physical traits default to material plane values" a valid interpretation? Sure. So is "the caster decides about things like gravity and time."

General Sajaru

2015-06-03, 01:17 AM

I'd say the biggest thing separating PO from TO is the lack of a DM saying "No, it doesn't work like that." Now, you may be able to find a DM who's like that, but I'm guessing your table would either have fun with D&D as a free-form RPG or be really boring because everyone is Pun-Pun.

Threadnaught

2015-06-03, 10:47 AM

And that is not very respectful, insulting someone doesn't invalidate their point.

True on both counts, but Cruiser1's argument about Sp and Su Abilities costing XP was self defeating and relied on delusion.
Why would the developers know how the rules they wrote work, or why would anyone here who reads exactly what is written, as exactly what is written, know how the game works, when the only person who is capable of knowing how the game works is Cruiser1?
I don't want to have that discussion again.

Because D&D did define environment.

Forest Environment is impossible, Desert is shaky at best. Other Planes can be replicated, including every single Magic boosting Plane and Dal Quor. Oh dear, Gravity, Magic and Time Traits.
Just overlap all of the beneficial Plane Names.

Time is a physical trait and magic is it's own magic trait, both are a subset of planar traits. Not environmental.

Planes are Environments.

Mato

2015-06-04, 02:39 PM

True on both counts, but Cruiser1's argument about Sp and Su Abilities costing XP was self defeating and relied on delusion.I got those two mixed but, but it's not a delusion since he has rules say as much. What it is it you disagreeing with is how he has prioritized those rules, but honestly, a lot of you people throw out the FAQ because opinion! so I laughably think it's fair share for everyone to have it thrown back at them. :smallwink:

Forest Environment is impossible,Yes it is.

Like, yes D&D says it is and that's all that matters and yes it is because the real life definition of environment says it is. Look, you can bog this down with a pointless language debate all you want, since the DMG treats them different you can freely substituent the words with pretty much anything without changing the meaning of what's said. Even if you replace the terms used with the same exact word, the DMG says it needs to be specifically noted if those traits are different but genesis only specially says atmosphere, water, temperature, and general shape so you do not have the required specification you think you do.

If you want to disagree with me that's fine. It really is, like the rules as written being about the rules that are written down and where they take things. - Not what they could subjectively mean if various sections are ignored based on the user's desire for a pre-chosen end result. - Is after all, just my opinion on the matter. So "RAW" is just another label that leads into a language debate and my definition can be, and probably is, different than yours and there really isn't a reason to get into a ruffle over it.

Segev

2015-06-04, 03:15 PM

As a general meta-rule, if the RAW can be interpreted in one of a number of ways, and you have a choice between ways which make sense with other rules and with common sense, and ways which strain credulity or create conflicts and strange behaviors in conjunction with other rules, it is best to choose the interpretation which does not create all the problems.

This is not house ruling; it is reading the RAW sensibly.

This is distinct from house-ruling away inconsistencies because you are still following the letter of the RAW; you have simply chosen a non-ludicrous interpretation out of equally-valid interpretations.

Threadnaught

2015-06-05, 08:41 AM

I got those two mixed but, but it's not a delusion since he has rules say as much.

What it is it you disagreeing with is how he has prioritized those rules, but honestly, a lot of you people throw out the FAQ because opinion! so I laughably think it's fair share for everyone to have it thrown back at them. :smallwink:

If you want to disagree with me that's fine. It really is, like the rules as written being about the rules that are written down and where they take things. - Not what they could subjectively mean if various sections are ignored based on the user's desire for a pre-chosen end result. - Is after all, just my opinion on the matter. So "RAW" is just another label that leads into a language debate and my definition can be, and probably is, different than yours and there really isn't a reason to get into a ruffle over it.

Wow, how dishonest of you.

I'm not disagreeing with him, that he could houserule Sp and Su Abilities to have an XP cost.
I'm one of the people pointing out that, to read...

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp)
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A few spell-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.

A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.

..As "requires an XP cost" is delusional.

It isn't quite so delusional to believe it "should" be that way, but it's the belief that it "is" that way is what we're arguing against. I'd like to be able to build a character around a Magic Item without being grossly over powered with it, or inhibited too savagely when separated from it, or have the item have flaws that make it suck. That doesn't mean I can without using homebrew/houserules though. If I were to create a houserule/homebrew that allowed me to do this and claimed it was actually RAW "because misprint", I'd be delusional and I might as well call myself King Arthur and start a cult.

But you want to argue opinions?
So, you think anything you said has any merit? Well that's just your opinion.

I think purely opinion based discussions fall apart far too easily under the weight of the "that's just your opinion" counter. It may just be my opinion, but I know I'm right because in my opinion, my opinions are the best.
Rude and dismissive? Yes, but that'd be just your opinion.

Ruethgar

2015-06-05, 08:47 AM

Improved Familiar Mirror Mephit for NI Divine Rank from copies of the peasant god giving you one at a time.

Mato

2015-06-05, 08:28 PM

Improved Familiar Mirror Mephit for NI Divine Rank from copies of the peasant god giving you one at a time.That one doesn't work as is either, but the trick through just the method.

Simulacrum, like ice assassin, creates a duplicate creature. And as far as I know, all printed deities have more than twenty hit dice which is higher than the mephit's limitation (16hd). So you either need the DM to invent a custom deity for you or increase the caster level so you can duplicate the existing one unless you know of a printed deity with very little hd that'll make things run without having to patch it up.

Ruethgar

2015-06-05, 08:36 PM

That one doesn't work as is either, but the trick through just the method.

Simulacrum, like ice assassin, creates a duplicate creature. And as far as I know, all printed deities have more than twenty hit dice which is higher than the mephit's limitation (16hd). So you either need the DM to invent a custom deity for you or increase the caster level so you can duplicate the existing one unless you know of a printed deity with very little hd that'll make things run without having to patch it up.

Erbin the Beggar God(Lesser Deity) has 10HD and a Divine Rank of 6. He also has Quasi-Deity(1HD DR 0), Demigod(2HD DR 1), Intermediate Deity(20HD DR 11), and Greater Deity(40HD DR 16) stat blocks.

Edit: Here he is (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20020406a)

nyjastul69

2015-06-05, 09:24 PM

Wow, how dishonest of you.

I'm not disagreeing with him, that he could houserule Sp and Su Abilities to have an XP cost.
I'm one of the people pointing out that, to read...

..As "requires an XP cost" is delusional.

It isn't quite so delusional to believe it "should" be that way, but it's the belief that it "is" that way is what we're arguing against. I'd like to be able to build a character around a Magic Item without being grossly over powered with it, or inhibited too savagely when separated from it, or have the item have flaws that make it suck. That doesn't mean I can without using homebrew/houserules though. If I were to create a houserule/homebrew that allowed me to do this and claimed it was actually RAW "because misprint", I'd be delusional and I might as well call myself King Arthur and start a cult.

But you want to argue opinions?
So, you think anything you said has any merit? Well that's just your opinion.

I think purely opinion based discussions fall apart far too easily under the weight of the "that's just your opinion" counter. It may just be my opinion, but I know I'm right because in my opinion, my opinions are the best.
Rude and dismissive? Yes, but that'd be just your opinion.

Where is the dishonesty? Also, I think it's unfair to say he is being delusional. It seems he just made a mistake. Mistakes are not usually dishonest or delusional. I agree with everthing else though.

Mato

2015-06-06, 09:14 AM

Edit: Here he is (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20020406a)Cool. He has some really nice abilities too.

Where is the dishonesty? Also, I think it's unfair to say he is being delusional. It seems he just made a mistake. Mistakes are not usually dishonest or delusional. I agree with everthing else though.I'm not sure if that's directed at me of Crusier1.

My deal is the obvious, Crusier1 asserted he had specific rules and I really shouldn't have to quote the RC's basic text hourly here. Specific rules are always higher priority than a general rule in the same activity. No quote from base rules can prove him incorrect. So ultimately, bad rebuttal try again.

The other part is half-and-half an agreement to disagree and a euphemism. The rules want a specifically mentioned exception and distinctly differentiate between two things. If someone wants to fabricate and interpretation based on a language debate that ignores that, then they just have to accept that every time they use the word RAW I'm going to assume they mean houserule. :smallwink:

Brookshw

2015-06-06, 09:44 AM

nyjastul69

2015-06-06, 12:00 PM

Cool. He has some really nice abilities too.

I'm not sure if that's directed at me of Crusier1.

Neither. Just the bits in Threadnaught's quote that I addressed. Sorry, for the confusion.

Threadnaught

2015-06-06, 03:55 PM

Where is the dishonesty? Also, I think it's unfair to say he is being delusional. It seems he just made a mistake. Mistakes are not usually dishonest or delusional. I agree with everthing else though.

The dishonesty is in Mato's response where he defends Cruiser1's house rule as RAW, declares opposition to be using arguments of pure opinion with sketchy sources and uses a veiled "it's just your opinion" defence.

Cruiser1 is the one I'm asserting would have to be delusional to believe his own argument, that his own not RAW fix to what RAW probably should be, is what RAW is. I'm more charitable to Cruiser1 than Mato in this discussion, perhaps Cruiser1 didn't fully consider what they were typing when they posted, perhaps English isn't their first language. Perhaps they meant simply to make it clear that they don't allow most over powered tricks as a DM, because of certain rulings and house rules, such as the ones mentioned in the post which provoked this particular line of discussion.
Either way, it is possible that Cruiser1 isn't the kind of DM certain members of the playground should worry about.

I like how Mato goes further in his next post.

Okay Mato, you want to do that then please respond to me in the same way that, if I were to ask for RAW, you'd give RAW. Your silence is appreciated.

atemu1234

2015-06-06, 04:07 PM

Garktz

2015-06-06, 04:53 PM

Ok guys, this is going a bit ti far and while I personally enjoy this kind of arguments about the game itself, beyond classes or spells or whatever, that was not the point of this thread.
I was wondering about how everyone says wizards are tier 1, how can they over come pretty much anything trown at them and how the can command armyes, level cities and so on...
I just wanted the details on all this stuff a wizard can do.
I know you can become a "god" without divine ranks, but, as (and take it as an example) tippy said once, he conquers the 9 layers of hell....
Ok, im possitive he can do it, but the question is, how does he (or anyone playing a wizard on those levels of power/op/po/whatever you want to call it) acomplishes that... thats what im looking for.

Edit. And again, sorry for my english, is not as good as i would like it to be

TheNivMizzet

2015-06-07, 01:44 AM

gooddragon1

2015-06-07, 02:10 AM

The classic:

Explosive Runes on Postage Stamps stuck to an arrow. Ready an action to cast dispel magic at CL 5 (the minimum). Ally fires arrow at 5 foot square (AC 10). Readied action to dispel activates. Depending on your caster level you may fail on some or all of the dispel checks. Some arbitrarily large number of explosive runes detonate. Let's say 3000. 3000*6d6=18000d6 damage. Assuming you roll all 1's for damage, your opponent succeeds on every reflex save, half of them are dispelled, and spell resistance stops half of the runes... 18000/2=9000/2=4500/2=2250 damage. Not bad for a level 5 wizard with nothing better to do with his 3rd level spell slots in his down time.

It's a lot more accurate if you just have a skeleton (covered with them) teleport||dimension door/invisibility their way into range and you detonate them then.

Even just 3 explosive runes is 18d6 damage. That's pretty good for 5th level too.

Brova

2015-06-07, 08:13 AM

My current build for a wizard is Wizard 5/Ultimate Magus X, through Spontaneous Divinations to qualify as "Able to spontaneously cast 1st level spells".
I'm stacking CL increases as much as I can:
13 Base
+6 from draconic age catagory
+2 from Arcane spell power
+1 to Electricity spells from Evoker specialist variant
+1 to Electricity spells from Storm bolt feat
+1 to Evocation, -1 to non-evocation spells from Spell-gifted Trait
+1-+3 from Reserves of strength
+2 to Chain Lightning from Arcane Thesis
CL 27 for Chain Lightning at level 10 because fun

That isn't really all that impressive for Ultimate Magus. Wizard 4/Trickster Spellthief 1/Beguiler 1/Ultimate Magus 10 has a caster level of 43 (4 Wizard levels + 1 Trickster Spellthief + 1 Beguiler + 4 Practiced Spellcaster [Beguiler] + 4 Practiced Spellcaster [Trickster Spellthief] + 12 Ultimate Magus CL boosts + 7 Ultimate Magus Beguiler progression + 10 Ultimate Magus Wizard progression). That's without taking Nar Demonbinder or something. At level 10 you're looking at a caster level of 26 without any of the stuff you've stacked on top of it, and it gets to count most of those things three times.

NNescio

2015-06-07, 09:14 AM

Spontaneous Divination ACF + Versatile Spellcaster.

On a more practical basis that is unlikely to result in a book thrown your way, just ACFs and variant character classes (e.g. domain wizard) in general. Spontaneous Divination is quite decent without being too overpowered by itself ('though it does make Diviners [Divination specialists] pointless).

There's the martial wizard variant which swaps out scribe scroll for a fighter feat (which is almost always going to be Improved Initiative) and change the rest of your wizard bonus feats to fighter bonus feats instead. Generally not worth it except for Master Specialist builds that are going to prestige out after Level 3, because it means forgoing your 5th level ACF.

Focused Specialist is another tradeoff. Ultimately it's going to result in a weaker wizard (even if you pick Conj/Trans), but tactically the extra spell slots can be very fun to play around with. I personally find it to be a very solid choice in most tables, but then again I don't usually rely on minions/pokemons or other methods to get more effective spell slots, and I like the idea of having a few things I can't cover which can be taken advantage of by the DM to give other players a chance to shine.

Also, the Abrupt Jaunt ACF. Results in a very hard-to-kill wizard starting from Level 1, but again, this is going very solid choice for players starting off from low levels, and it gives newbies plenty of opportunities to familirize themselves with the immediate Action (and related Swift Action) mechanic. Might piss off some DMs though. '

Abrupt Jaunt does again result in an ultimately weaker wizard, as the familiar lets you pull off some spell combos and break the action economy even more (especially when Contingent Spells are in play). Share Spells is very useful after all. Then again, you could always reacquire the familiar later on, I believe there's a feat for that.

To me, practical optimization also suggests making a build that is fun (and effective) to play from a given starting level until when you expect the build to mature, instead of just optimizing the final build, which may result in a weaker character on the way there (which may be a hypothetical build that can never happen. Or alternatively, you only get to play that Lv. 20 build for one session.).

thethird

2015-06-07, 10:52 AM

That isn't really all that impressive for Ultimate Magus. Wizard 4/Trickster Spellthief 1/Beguiler 1/Ultimate Magus 10 has a caster level of 43 (4 Wizard levels + 1 Trickster Spellthief + 1 Beguiler + 4 Practiced Spellcaster [Beguiler] + 4 Practiced Spellcaster [Trickster Spellthief] + 12 Ultimate Magus CL boosts + 7 Ultimate Magus Beguiler progression + 10 Ultimate Magus Wizard progression). That's without taking Nar Demonbinder or something. At level 10 you're looking at a caster level of 26 without any of the stuff you've stacked on top of it, and it gets to count most of those things three times.

My favorite ultimate magus build is:

Wizard 5 (with spontaneous divination) / Knight of the Weave 1 / Ultimate Magus 10 (advancing wizard and knight of the weave) / Spellthief 1 / Uncanny Trickster 3 (Advancing Ultimate Magus)

This counts as having 12 levels of ultimate magus so you can use the knight of the weave sixth level spells to persist your wizard buffs (even 9th level). Your caster level is basically yes.

Wizard: 5 + 12 (Ultimate Magus + Uncanny Trickster advancement) + 3 (Practiced Spellcaster) + 4 (Ultimate Magus Bonus) = 24
Knight of the Weave is your Wizard caster level 24 + 1 Knight of the weave levels + 9 (Ultimate Magus + Uncanny Trickster advancement) + 4 (Ultimate Magus Bonus) = 38
Spellthief (through mater spellthief) = 24 + 38 + 1 = 63 and makes it be your spellcaster level for both Wizard and Knight of the weave spells.

Mato

2015-06-07, 03:48 PM

if I were to ask for RAW, you'd give RAW.I doubt you would ever ask for RAW.

This entry in a statistics block describes the type of climate and terrain where the creature is typically found. This is a preference, but is not exclusionary. Note that these environments can also exist in portions of dungeons due to magical effects or other supernatural interference, or as features in dungeons or other environment areas.
Because D&D did define environment.

Time is a physical trait and magic is it's own magic trait, both are a subset of planar traits. Not environmental.

PLANAR TRAITS
Each plane of existence has its own properties—the natural laws of its universe. Planar traits are broken down into a number of general areas. All planes have the following kinds of traits.
Physical Traits: These traits determine the laws of physics and nature on the plane, including how gravity and time function.
Elemental and Energy Traits: These traits determine the dominance of particular elemental or energy forces.
Alignment Traits: Just as characters may be lawful neutral or chaotic good, many planes are tied to a particular moral or ethical outlook.
Magic Traits: Magic works differently from plane to plane, and
magic traits set the boundaries for what it can and can’t do.

Normal Time: This trait describes the way time passes on the Material Plane. One hour on a plane with normal time equals one hour on the Material Plane. Unless otherwise noted in a description, every plane in the D&D cosmology has the normal time trait.
Forest Environment is impossible, Desert is shaky at best.

Planes are Environments.
Yes it is.

Like, yes D&D says it is and that's all that matters and yes it is because the real life definition of environment says it is. Look, you can bog this down with a pointless language debate all you want, since the DMG treats them different you can freely substituent the words with pretty much anything without changing the meaning of what's said. Even if you replace the terms used with the same exact word, the DMG says it needs to be specifically noted if those traits are different but genesis only specially says atmosphere, water, temperature, and general shape so you do not have the required specification you think you do.Because ever since it came up, all you've done is claim RAW is impossible, incorrect, and complain about me. :smallwink:

Ironically the first post in the RAW thread even mentions using the FAQ to support a position on rules.And yet all five of the threads people jump into it claiming the FAQ doesn't count, and this is also a continuation of the LordDrako where several posters also claimed it wasn't including atemu1234 who is here now currently saying it isn't.

And speaking of,

In several places, their rulings disagree with the actual rulesCan provide citations for those and prove they are not misinterpretation based? IE your proof cannot be the result of purposely misreading the rules and/or be based on defining an ambitious statement contrary to the FAQ. Because the goal here of course is to prove the FAQ is incorrect and not anyone's opinion.

My current build for a wizard is Wizard 5/Ultimate Magus X, through Spontaneous Divinations to qualify as "Able to spontaneously cast 1st level spells".I'm going to use this as a spring board to demonstrate the difference between following the rules (RAW) instead of selectively interpreting the rules based on the desired outcome as my final attempt to explain the difference between RAW and opinion.

Other Spontaneous Casting
Some spellcasters prepare spells, but they can cast certain spells spontaneously as detailed in their class description. A good-aligned cleric or a cleric of a good-aligned deity can spontaneously cast a cure spell in place of a prepared spell of the same level or higher, but not in place of a domain spell. A druid can spontaneously cast a summon nature’s ally spell in place of a prepared spell of the same level or higher. Such spontaneous casting follows special rules for spontaneous spellcasting, such as how metamagic feats interact with casting time, but otherwise functions as normal spellcasting.
You could say following the rules isn't the same as meeting the requirements of prerequisites for a big no just as easily as you could say the green text when heavily empathized for a yes. But let's quantify the last part and see where the rules take us instead of where an opinion does.

Spontaneous Casting
Some characters can cast spells, but they don’t need spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast any spell they know using a daily allotment of spell slots. These characters are called spontaneous spellcasters.
According to the rules you can be called a spontaneous spellcaster if you don't prepare spells and use spell slots. So we need to see if both of those can be met.

Spontaneous Divination
Benefit: You can spontaneously cast any spell of the divination school by sacrificing a prepared spell of equal or greater level. For example, if you suddenly have need of the 2nd-level spell locate object, you can sacrifice a prepared 2nd-level spell (such as mirror image) or any prepared spell of a higher level to cast it on the spotSpontaneous divination is inherently reliant on spell preparation and cannot work if the caster doesn't prepare a spell.

Moving on to spell slots.

Spell Slots
The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spontaneous spellcaster always has the option to use a higher-level spell slot to cast a lower-level spell.A spontaneous spellcaster uses his spell slots to cast spells.

Arcane Preparation
Arcane spellcasters, also known as arcanists, prepare spells in a particular way, following specific rules. A character’s level in an arcane spellcasting class limits the number of spells that character can prepare and cast. Arcane spellcasters can prepare the same spell more than once, but each such preparation counts as one spell toward the daily limit.

Spell Slots
A class table shows how many spells of each level a spellcaster of that class can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. As they gain levels, spellcasters who lack a high enough ability score to cast higher-level spells still gain access to the lots associated with those spells. Those slots must be filled with lower-level spells.

Spell Preparation (edited for length)
Unil arcane spellcasters prepare spells, the only spells they have available to cast are the ones already prepared and not yet used from the previous day.But a prepared spellcaster fills his spell slots and uses prepared spells.

Repeating, a spontaneous spellcaster uses his spell slots to cast spells but a prepared spellcaster fills his spell slots and uses prepared spells. These are two separate mechanics that are completely different.

So according to page 139 of the rules compendium, a wizard with spontaneous divination cannot be called a spontaneous spellcaster (RAW) and it still uses their normal, completely different, spellcasting mechanics (RAW).

Now go back to that green text because everyone else will so you can consider this a little preemptive observation. Someone will claim spontaneous divination makes a wizard a spontaneous spellcaster either based on the green text, or based on what they define is a spontaneous spellcaster or not, or even based on how they define how you can meet requirements or not. But the core point is that is not rules as written but the end process of manufacturing a reason for a desired outcome based on selective interpretation and opinion. See also, the definition of the word fabrication (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+fabrication).
That's the third time I've explained this and in my opinion I've already wasted to much time on this. So if you still don't understand then it's impossible for me to explain it any better and if anyone disagrees well then good for them for standing what they believe in I suppose.

Brookshw

2015-06-07, 04:54 PM

And speaking of,
Can provide citations for those and prove they are not misinterpretation based? IE your proof cannot be the result of purposely misreading the rules and/or be based on defining an ambitious statement contrary to the FAQ. Because the goal here of course is to prove the FAQ is incorrect and not anyone's opinion.

That exercise aside, what would it prove if there were several such instances? 700 + dysfunctions and counting (or has 800 been broken now?), several errors in the FAQ would be perfectly inline with every other publication.

Kazyan

2015-06-07, 06:21 PM

That exercise aside, what would it prove if there were several such instances? 700 + dysfunctions and counting (or has 800 been broken now?), several errors in the FAQ would be perfectly inline with every other publication.

I don't know why, but this feels like a sick burn against WotC.

Threadnaught

2015-06-07, 09:07 PM

I doubt you would ever ask for RAW.
Because ever since it came up, all you've done is claim RAW is impossible, incorrect, and complain about me. :smallwink:

Inbelievable, I specifically worded my request for your future responses with this in mind.

they just have to accept that every time they use the word RAW I'm going to assume they mean houserule. :smallwink:

Which if you enforced, would mean you would not respond to me.
My point is that RAW, is dysfunctional in places and that I recognize how Cruiser1 may have a point with some of their house rules being more in line with how people would expect things to work, but would still be house rules and not RAW. Certain parts of RAW directly contradict others, which make one rule impossible to enforce while simultaneously enforcing the other, that's not to say that the rules are wrong about being rules, it just means they don't make all that much sense if combined. If viewed only in a vacuum each rule makes perfect sense, if viewed together dysfunctions abound. Like how Drown Healing is a well known dysfunction, not because Drowning set HP to 0, but because Drowning sets HP to 0 and Death is reached once a living creature reaches a HP total of -10 or less, with anywhere between 0 and -10 being Dying. The dysfunction is caused by the interaction of two contradicting rules.
Additionally, wanting RAW to be written in another way, doesn't make it written another way.

And yes, because you have been wrong and are gleefully ignorant of any wrongness on your part, I am pointing out your error and annoyed when you declare your own mistakes as, just an opinion of someone out to discredit you.
If you truly wish to discuss purely based on opinion, then I would be entirely dismissive of everything you say, without even considering the possibility that you could say anything of any merit. I will continue to post with a more factually based discussion in mind though, as it is the more honest thing to do and you deserve to be treated as another human being with their own thoughts.

And yet all five of the threads people jump into it claiming the FAQ doesn't count, and this is also a continuation of the LordDrako where several posters also claimed it wasn't including atemu1234 who is here now currently saying it isn't.

You're complaining that a thread was created, because another thread made the original poster of this thread want to know about something that would've been a little off topic for the other thread?
So what? Do you want any threads that have any relation to each other to be locked? That would be, a single thread for all your D&D 3.X/Pathfinder needs for this specific forum. Damn man, I don't even know where you're supposed to be going with this, the best response I have is something that looks exactly like the Slippery Slope fallacy.

And speaking of,
Can provide citations for those and prove they are not misinterpretation based? IE your proof cannot be the result of purposely misreading the rules and/or be based on defining an ambitious statement contrary to the FAQ. Because the goal here of course is to prove the FAQ is incorrect and not anyone's opinion.

I'm going to use this as a spring board to demonstrate the difference between following the rules (RAW) instead of selectively interpreting the rules based on the desired outcome as my final attempt to explain the difference between RAW and opinion.

The problem here has already been explained above. The rules are meant to interact with each other, the rules don't always interact functionally.

You could say following the rules isn't the same as meeting the requirements of prerequisites for a big no just as easily as you could say the green text when heavily empathized for a yes. But let's quantify the last part and see where the rules take us instead of where an opinion does.

According to the rules you can be called a spontaneous spellcaster if you don't prepare spells and use spell slots. So we need to see if both of those can be met.

Spontaneous divination is inherently reliant on spell preparation and cannot work if the caster doesn't prepare a spell.

Moving on to spell slots.
A spontaneous spellcaster uses his spell slots to cast spells.

But a prepared spellcaster fills his spell slots and uses prepared spells.

Repeating, a spontaneous spellcaster uses his spell slots to cast spells but a prepared spellcaster fills his spell slots and uses prepared spells. These are two separate mechanics that are completely different.

So according to page 139 of the rules compendium, a wizard with spontaneous divination cannot be called a spontaneous spellcaster (RAW) and it still uses their normal, completely different, spellcasting mechanics (RAW).

Now go back to that green text because everyone else will so you can consider this a little preemptive observation. Someone will claim spontaneous divination makes a wizard a spontaneous spellcaster either based on the green text, or based on what they define is a spontaneous spellcaster or not, or even based on how they define how you can meet requirements or not. But the core point is that is not rules as written but the end process of manufacturing a reason for a desired outcome based on selective interpretation and opinion. See also, the definition of the word fabrication (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+fabrication).

Oh dear. While it is true that Clerics, Druids and Wizards are Prepared Casters and Sorcerers are Spontaneous Casters, what you appear to be ignoring is the requirements that state Ability to spontaneously cast spells.
A Cleric can cast Cure/Inflict Spells Spontaneously.
A Druid can cast Summon Nature's Ally Spells Spontaneously.
A Spontaneous Divination Wizard can cast Divination Spells Spontaneously.
A Sorcerer can cast any Spell they Know Spontaneously.

They're still Prepared Casters, but they clearly qualify for the requirement Ability to spontaneously cast spells, because to be fair, there's the whole being able to Cast Spells Spontaneously thing they've got going.

To say otherwise, is a willful misrepresentation of RAW.

That's the third time I've explained this and in my opinion I've already wasted to much time on this. So if you still don't understand then it's impossible for me to explain it any better and if anyone disagrees well then good for them for standing what they believe in I suppose.

Here's the thing, I'm not just disagreeing with you for an opinion, nor am I failing to understand anything. You're wrong, you're objectively wrong and I am pointing it out. This is another black and white case where RAW is clearly this one thing and to interpret it any other way, would be to create a house rule.
Not all RAW is so clear cut black and white, want to discuss some of that instead? I would prefer it if I'd be able to consider something you said, over just declaring you wrong because the books said you were. Even with their fancy artwork.

Perhaps the Native Subtype with other Planes would be a good thing to discuss?

Brova

2015-06-07, 09:34 PM

Zale

2015-06-08, 09:25 AM

On the Genesis discussion: The spell doesn't implicitly give you the power to determine planar traits, nor does it implicitly deny this power. Choosing to interpret the rules such that it does is just as much of a houserule as interpreting it to not.

Once you move into the area of interpretation, you step outside of RAW.

Which is good because we all know RAW is insane.

Cruiser1

2015-06-08, 02:01 PM

Choosing to interpret the rules such that it does is just as much of a houserule as interpreting it to not. Once you move into the area of interpretation, you step outside of RAW. Which is good because we all know RAW is insane.
This. Indeed, just look at the seven "Dysfunctional Rules" threads to see many examples of how "RAW" doesn't necessarily mean good. Similarly, houserules (especially when applied to make the game actually playable) aren't necessarily something to be looked down upon in a snobbish fashion. The only thing RAW does is give us consistent set of dysfunctions to start from. :smallwink: However, it does raise the potential of the community being able to mostly agree on a set of houserules to make the game playable. For example, few DM's allow drowning to raise your hitpoints to 0, even though that's technically RAW.

What can help houserules is RAI. It's impossible to prove what was RAI, but the ideal can still be used to guide houserule creation. Most RAW dysfunctions are due to (1) Bad or ambiguous wording, or (2) Where the writer just didn't think of all the ramifications of the rule or how it can interact with other features. An example of #1 is drowning, where it obviously wasn't RAI that downing can potentially cause infinite healing.

An example of #2 is (Sp) and (Su) abilities not requiring XP. That seems okay in isolation, but applied to the spell Wish it allows you to create any magic item for free, including a +100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 weapon. Once you allow even one XP free Wish through Efretti or Dweomerkeeper, the game is ruined because everybody has +Google AC from their +Google armor. It's clearly RAI that the writers don't want everybody having +Google weapons, so you can say that XP free (Sp)/(Su) abilities is not RAI, and therefore a houserule in alignment with RAI (to prevent the game from turning completely insane) is that (Sp)/(Su) abilities should still require XP.

Another point in alignment with this is the Archmage PrC, which allows you to make a spell a (Sp) ability, however it explicitly says XP costs are still present for it. That shows that when the designers were actually thinking, they realized that XP-free spells are irredeemably abusive, because otherwise you have +Google equipment. (Archmage is actually one of the best designed PrC's IMHO, because it doesn't just give you things for free, but makes each ability cost a little something in return, while plugging abusive holes like XP-free Wishes. It's a PrC that builds sometimes include because it offers interesting options, but isn't overpowered such that everybody takes it whenever they can such as Incantatrix.)

thethird

2015-06-08, 02:53 PM

While I can even agree with you about houserules there is no point for them, houserules, by definition in a theoretical optimization discussion.

Threadnaught

2015-06-08, 02:57 PM

Most RAW dysfunctions are due to (1) Bad or ambiguous wording, or (2) Where the writer just didn't think of all the ramifications of the rule or how it can interact with other features. An example of #1 is drowning, where it obviously wasn't RAI that downing can potentially cause infinite healing.

Atually, Drown Healing is a problem caused by Drowning interacting with Death and Dying. It is clearly an example of #2.

An example of #2 is (Sp) and (Su) abilities not requiring XP. That seems okay in isolation, but applied to the spell Wish it allows you to create any magic item for free, including a +100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 weapon. Once you allow even one XP free Wish through Efretti or Dweomerkeeper, the game is ruined because everybody has +googoll AC from their +googol armor. It's clearly RAI that the writers don't want everybody having +googol weapons, so you can say that XP free (Sp)/(Su) abilities is not RAI, and therefore a houserule in alignment with RAI (to prevent the game from turning completely insane) is that (Sp)/(Su) abilities should still require XP.

Okay, let me just skip right to what appears to be a problem.

Another point in alignment with this is the Archmage PrC, which allows you to make a spell a (Sp) ability, however it explicitly says XP costs are still present for it. That shows that when the designers were actually thinking, they realized that XP-free spells are irredeemably abusive, because otherwise you have +googol equipment.

The problem isn't about XP free Sp or Su Wishes, as Monsters generally don't have the XP to spend themselves. The problem is Shapechange and other methods of players transforming into/summoning monsters and using their Su Abilities. There are Spells that allow players to gain a monster's XP free Wish, for themselves.

Nothing to do with a DM having access to XP free Wishes, everything to do with the players' access to XP free Wishes. Hence the limitation of the Archmage's SLAs.

Chronos

2015-06-08, 04:49 PM

Quoth Zale:

On the Genesis discussion: The spell doesn't implicitly give you the power to determine planar traits, nor does it implicitly deny this power. Choosing to interpret the rules such that it does is just as much of a houserule as interpreting it to not.
It does give you the power: It says you can create "anything you can envision". I can certainly envision different rates of time flow, or gravity, or powerful interactions with some kinds of magic. Now, one can certainly argue that it shouldn't give this, and rule that it doesn't. But that would be a houserule, because by RAW, it absolutely does.

Brookshw

2015-06-08, 05:22 PM

It does give you the power: It says you can create "anything you can envision". I can certainly envision different rates of time flow, or gravity, or powerful interactions with some kinds of magic. Now, one can certainly argue that it shouldn't give this, and rule that it doesn't. But that would be a houserule, because by RAW, it absolutely does.

reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize. The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain. emphasis mine and an important word you omitted, one which indicates there are limits, some of which I didn't bother copying but you can look up. The example "such" as indicate its not a complete list so presumably other things can be modified. It's not explicit which other things can be modified. As Mato has pointed out (elsewhere, if not in this thread itself) these things all fit inside of one of the categories of planar traits while time and magic fit into other categories of planar traits. The text is not definitive as to whether its only things within the first category are malleable or all categories, but the examples seem to only fit one category. At best it seems like we can definitively say its ambiguous. Another correlations people like to draw is that the psionic version has a specification that time can't be modified (iirc) and based on that the inference drawn is regular genesis does permit time modification. That's a false relationship however, just because something is explicitly denied in one instance does not mean its somehow automatically granted in another.

Personally I suspect the time element is mentioned in the psionic version as the demiplane is based in the timeless astral as opposed to the traditional demiplame based in the ethereal but that's neither here nor there.

Ultimately the wording does not yield the ironclad interpretation people oft claim.

Emperor Tippy

2015-06-08, 05:41 PM

Ultimate Magus question: Is there a way to count as both a "prepared arcane casting class" and a "spontaneous arcane casting class"? The spontaneous divination trick doesn't work, but is there some other Wizard trick or a Sorcerer trick that does?

Where do you get the idea that spontaneous divination doesn't work?

"Spontaneous Casting Class" is not actually a class attribute like BAB or Saves; if you want to be letter of the RAW strict, even Sorcerer doesn't qualify and thus UM is totally worthless for that half of the benefits.

If you want the ruling used for strict RAW Theoretical Optimization then any class that can, via class features, spontaneously cast spells is a spontaneous casting class. In which case Wizard with Spontaneous Divination is legal but whether you can use that trick for fast progression is still debatable.

Chronos

2015-06-08, 06:53 PM

Quoth Brookshw:

emphasis mine and an important word you omitted, one which indicates there are limits, some of which I didn't bother copying but you can look up.
Yes, and the spell then goes on to list those limits: You can't create life, and there's a limit to the plane's size, and so on. But it never lists limits on the time, magic, or gravity traits.

Brookshw

2015-06-08, 07:10 PM

Yes, and the spell then goes on to list those limits: You can't create life, and there's a limit to the plane's size, and so on. But it never lists limits on the time, magic, or gravity traits.

Sure, it explicitly denies certain things, no argument there. All the things it explicitly denies fall within the same category of physical properties as the vaguely quantified list of things that are permitted references. That's not definitive unfortunately. Neither side, thanks to vague language, can disprove the other interpretation so it remains ambiguous.

Melcar

2015-06-08, 07:10 PM

Ok, but it costs you at least 5000 XP. But wait you say, that's a houserule because (Sp) and (Su) abilities don't cost XP. Actually, I claim that's a misprint and that RAI is that even (Sp) and (Su) abilities cost XP! Here's proof: In the epic adventure Kerleth's Tower from ELH, you can save an Efreeti's life, and in return he'll offer you a single Wish. That suggests the NPC only has 5000-9999 XP available to spend on his Wish SLA. If Efrett could give out 3 Wishes a day that could create any magic item no matter how powerful, then each Efreeti would have a human cohort that they would give 3 wishes to every day. With millions of Efreeti casting millions of free wishes for infinitely powerful items, they would quickly take over the multiverse. Since they haven't, it's obvious that Dweomerkeepers and others with powerful (Su)/(Sp) abilities still have to spend XP to activate them. This one "houserule" fixes the game in many ways, in that it prevents all ways of freely wishing for infinite wishes or infinitely powerful items, because otherwise the XP cost would be too high.

A couble of questions:

Are you saying that you believe it to infer an exp cost to activate SP and SU abilities? Or are you saying that you are houseruling that it does? Or that the is should be house ruled?

Because: A )"A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability’s use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component. " (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm)

B) "The spell functions as it normally would and is expended normally, but the dweomerkeeper does not require any components [...]" (From the Dweomerkeeper on the topic of supernatural spell)

It would seem that this is very much how clear that they do indeed not cost any components. To me at least. Therefore I believe that you are wrong on this. Because I dont think they miss-type twice. :smallsmile:

Brova

2015-06-08, 07:19 PM

An example of #2 is (Sp) and (Su) abilities not requiring XP. That seems okay in isolation, but applied to the spell Wish it allows you to create any magic item for free, including a +100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 weapon. Once you allow even one XP free Wish through Efretti or Dweomerkeeper, the game is ruined because everybody has +Google AC from their +Google armor. It's clearly RAI that the writers don't want everybody having +Google weapons, so you can say that XP free (Sp)/(Su) abilities is not RAI, and therefore a houserule in alignment with RAI (to prevent the game from turning completely insane) is that (Sp)/(Su) abilities should still require XP.

Or just do the thing that involves changing only the problematic element and declare that you can't wish for anything worth over 15,000 GP. Problem solved. It also avoids the problem of asking genies to spend XP they don't actually have.

Where do you get the idea that spontaneous divination doesn't work?

Spontaneous divination clearly works for qualifying. The prerequisites require that you are able to "spontaneously cast 1st-level arcane spells". As there is more than one 1st level divination which is arcane, a Wizard with spontaneous divination can qualify. Not going to do him a whole lot of good unless he gets double progression, but what are you going to do?

If you want the ruling used for strict RAW Theoretical Optimization then any class that can, via class features, spontaneously cast spells is a spontaneous casting class. In which case Wizard with Spontaneous Divination is legal but whether you can use that trick for fast progression is still debatable.

Depends on whether you count the RC ruling about spontaneous casters. In general, I don't particularly consider RC or the FAQ to be "canon", but in this case it's the only instance (to my knowledge) of the term being defined in the rules. Also, the exploit in question is deeply cheesy. However, you should be able to do it the other direction with something like Arcane Preparation as a Sorcerer.

Max Caysey

2015-06-08, 07:47 PM

I have got to ask... Are we debating whether the arcane version of genesis can alter time or if the psionic version can?

Mato

2015-06-11, 12:34 PM

In general, I don't particularly consider RC or the FAQ to be "canon", but in this case it's the only instance (to my knowledge) of the term being defined in the rules.WotC and the RC consider them selves canon so you might have some issues there. I feel like I just had this massive point about reading the rules instead of selectively reading tiny portions of them in order to support fabricated, and typically grossly incorrect, ideas too.

In addition to the RC saying a wizard cannot be called a spontaneous spellcaster and the RC/PHB saying they use different mechanics. According to complete mage you can't say a wizard has any spontaneous spells available to cast for the purposes of meeting requirements either.

The primary benefit can only be activated if the caster has a spell of an appropriate variety (of a particular school, subschool, or descriptor) available to cast. The definition of "available to cast" depends on whether the character prepares spells or casts spontaneously from a list of spells known. A spellcaster who prepares spells each day (such as a wizard) must have an appropriate spell prepared and not yet cast that day. If the character has more than one appropriate spell prepared and uncast, she gains the benefit only from the highest-level spell; she can't gain multiple benefits, or stack benefits, by preparing more than one appropriate spell. A spellcaster who does not need to prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) must know an appropriate spell and must have at least one unused spell slot of that spell's level or higher. If the character has more than one appropriate spell known, he gains the benefit only from the highest-level spell for which he has an unused spell slot of that level or higher.And that also brings us to another mechanical difference.

A wizard does not have a list of spells known.

A spell is a one-time magical effect. Spells come in two types: arcane (cast by bards, sorcerers, and wizards) and divine (cast by clerics, druids, and experienced paladins and rangers). Some spellcasters select their spells from a limited list of spells known, while others have access to a wide variety of options. Most spellcasters prepare their spells in advance—whether from a spellbook or through devout prayers and meditation—while some cast spells spontaneously without preparation. Despite these different ways that characters use to learn or prepare their spells, when it comes to casting them, the spells are very much alikeThe PHB admits there is a difference but doesn't go into detail.

However some of the content from complete mage does.

Expanded Spell Knowledge (Ex): At 2nd level, you can select one 0- or 1st-level arcane spell from your spellbook and add it to the list of arcane spells known for a spontaneous casting class, even if you can't yet spontaneously cast spells of that level. (In this case, you would know the spell but wouldn't be able to cast it until you had spell slots of the appropriate level.)
You can add another spell from your spellbook to your list of spells known every two levels thereafter. At 4th level, this can be a 0-, 1st-, or 2nd-level spell. At 6th level, this can be any spell of 3rd level or lower. At 8th level, this spell can be of 4th level or lower, and at 10th level it can be of 5th level or lower.

You'll face the complex conundrum of where to assign newly learned spells. Adding a spell to your spellbook means you're not necessarily stuck with it when you don't need it, but adding it to your list of spells known means you can cast it more frequently. It's probably best to focus on spells you need only occasionally for the bulk of your spellbook, such as identify, disguise self, resist energy, see invisibility, and the like.

Advanced Learning (Ex): At 2nd, 5th, and 8th level, you can add a new spell to your spellbook or list of spells known, representing the result of personal study and experimentation. The spell must be a divination spell of a level no higher than that of the highest-level arcane spell you already know. The spell can be from any class's spell list (arcane or divine). Once a new spell is selected, it is forever added to your spell list and can be cast just like any other spell on your list.
So complete mage brings up and sets the exact quantification between list of known and anything else.

Now lets cut into complete champion.

The primary benefit can be activated only if you have a spell of an appropriate variety (of a particular school, subschool, or descriptor) available to cast. The definition of "available to cast" depends on whether you prepare spells or cast spontaneously from a list of spells known. If you prepare spells each day (as a cleric does, for example), you must have an appropriate spell prepared and not yet cast that day. If you have more than one appropriate spell prepared and uncast, you gain the benefit only from the highest-level such spell; you can't gain multiple benefits, or stack benefits, by preparing more than one appropriate spell.

If you cast spells spontaneously (as a favored soul does, for example), you must know an appropriate spell and must have at least one unused spell slot of that spell's level or higher. If you have more than one appropriate spell known, you gain the benefit only from the highest-level spell for which you have an uncast spell slot.

If you have spells from more than one class, only spell slots that could actually be used to cast the appropriate spell count toward granting this benefit. For example, a paladin/cleric who knows the appropriate spell only as a paladin can't use her cleric spell slots to qualify for the reserve feat's primary benefit.

Once you no longer have an appropriate spell available— because you have cast it, have exhausted the appropriate spell slots, or have chosen a daily spell selection that does not include that spell—you can't activate the feat's power until you once again have that spell available for casting. You still retain the secondary benefit of the feat, however.This is probably even more relevant than the arcane side. because the cleric has "spontaneous casting" as part of their default nature. And even through the cleric has "spontaneous casting", he still must use, and only use, the prepared spellcasting rules. And that also is reflected in the RC's entry when it said that other spontaneous casting still functions as the class's normal spellcasting. The addition of being able to exchange prepared spells on the fly is not the truely the same thing as spontaneous spellcasting.

And that discussion is so old and repeated that even the FAQ has an entry on it that hammers on the list of spells known part.

Does the ability to spontaneously cast domain spells granted by the Domain Spontaneity feat (CD) fulfill the spell requirement of the reserve feats from CM?
Not technically. Since you don’t have a list of spells known, only a list of spells prepared and the ability to cast some spells spontaneously, having the ability to spontaneously cast domain spells that fulfill the requirements for reserve feats does not fulfill the reserve feat requirements. That said, there’s probably no harm in allowing it, and an unflinching DM confident in his ability to challenge you at every turn can have no problem hand-waving the technicality away.The rule text once again confirms a prepared spellcaster does not have a list of spells known.

But the good news for everyone wishing it worked, you do have a Sage suggestion for a DM-based ruling overlooking the technicality to support your arguments that a DM should houserule certain things in your favor. So that's something if we were discussing that. :smallsmile:

But I'm not.

Brova

2015-06-11, 01:46 PM

WotC and the RC consider them selves canon so you might have some issues there. I feel like I just had this massive point about reading the rules instead of selectively reading tiny portions of them in order to support fabricated, and typically grossly incorrect, ideas too.

Obviously if I'm going to have a discussion about what the rules say, they have to be accounted for. If I'm ruling on something for a home game, they won't be. It's the same principle as a "core only" or "no psionics" game. Those sources are bad, I'm not going to use them in a game I play.

The definition of "available to cast" depends on whether the character prepares spells or casts spontaneously from a list of spells known.

This doesn't do anything. You have two elements which you are conflating. Spontaneously is a method of casting, a list of spells known is a set of spells available to cast. A Cleric prepares spells from a list of spells known, a Wizard with spontaneous divination casts spells spontaneously from a set of spells which is not a list of spells known (the divination school).

Your entire argument hinges on a set-subset misunderstanding. All people who cast spells spontaneously from a list of known spells can cast spells spontaneously, but not all people who can cast spells spontaneously can do so from a list of known spells. Even the FAQ ruling on Clerics doesn't go in your favor as it concedes that Clerics cast spontaneously. The specific requirements for reserve feats and Ultimate Magus are different and you can't draw a meaningful equivalence.

Mato

2015-06-12, 12:42 PM

Those sources are bad, I'm not going to use them in a game I play.I'm sorry, are sitting at your table playing your game or are we on a forum discussing the rules of D&D?

This doesn't do anything. You have two elements which you are conflating.Not at all, you're deviating from RAW to opinion again.

I've covered six RAW facts.
* Other spontaneous spellcasting is still considered normal spellcasting.
* If you prepare spells you are not a spontaneous spellcaster.
* You do not have a spontaneous spell available unless it also comes of a list of spells known.
* Mechanical difference: one fills a spell slot and cast a prepared spell, the other expends a spell slot to cast a spell.
* Mechanical difference: one has a list of spells known, the other does not.
* Clerics and spontaneous divination wizards convert an already prepared spell with another.
Every single one of them oppose your interpretation and several of them directly refute it.

You're rebuttal to this, after claiming you do not accept FAQ rulings, is based on the interpretation of a FAQ ruling that ignores what it has to say. So even through the entry clearly states that a spontaneous casting cleric, or spontaneous divination wizard, never has any spontaneous spells available to cast. You ignore that and focus on what it doesn't say. Operating under the fallacy of denying the antecedent, or that the FAQ's chosen reason means all possible reasons must be false, you attempt to make your interpretation sound true.

Which is this entire discussion, repeated in thousands of different ways in a thousand other threads, in a nutshell.

Brova

2015-06-12, 01:08 PM

I'm sorry, are sitting at your table playing your game or are we on a forum discussing the rules of D&D?

Practical optimization includes questions of DM ruling. For example, if your DM bans Archmage or Supernatural Transformation, laundering the Archmage's spell-like wishes into supernatural wishes is TO regardless of power/complexity/legality concerns. Similarly, in practical optimization (i.e. actual games) Monks are proficient with unarmed strikes, despite the fact that they, by RAW, aren't. So in the sense of the "PO" section of the thread title, it is absolutely relevant what content you or I would allow.

* Other spontaneous spellcasting is still considered normal spellcasting.
* You do not have a spontaneous spell available unless it also comes of a list of spells known.

No, it's not. For the purposes of reserve feats "spontaneous casting from a list of known spells" does not include Cleric or Druid spontaneous casting. That's in no way surprising, because the Cleric and the Druid cast spontaneously from a specific set of spells rather than a list of known spells.

* Clerics and spontaneous divination wizards convert an already prepared spell with another.

Sort of, but not quite. First, the game makes no linguistic distinction between spontaneous divination and Sorcerer casting. Both are described as casting spells spontaneously. Compare that to Uncanny Forethought, which allows you to cast spells you know out of unassigned spell slots, almost exactly like a Sorcerer, but does not use the word "spontaneous" at any point. Second, while the mechanism you have described is broadly correct (giving up a prepared spell to cast another spell) the text says "You can spontaneously cast any spell of the divination school by sacrificing a prepared spell of equal or greater level". It is obvious that what is happening is in fact spontaneous casting.

You're rebuttal to this, after claiming you do not accept FAQ rulings, is based on the interpretation of a FAQ ruling that ignores what it has to say. So even through the entry clearly states that a spontaneous casting cleric, or spontaneous divination wizard, never has any spontaneous spells available to cast. You ignore that and focus on what it doesn't say. Operating under the fallacy of denying the antecedent, or that the FAQ's chosen reason means all possible reasons must be false, you attempt to make your interpretation sound true.

The FAQ is ruling on the question of whether spontaneous divination Wizards very specifically "casts spontaneously from a list of spells known." He does not do that. He casts spells spontaneously from a set of spells (the divination school). Regardless of whether a Wizard with spontaneous divination is or is not a spontaneous caster or is or is not capable of casting spells spontaneously, the sources you have cited are incapable of proving your point. You are conflating a specific kind of spontaneous casting in a specific circumstance with all spontaneous casting in all circumstances.