Are there any ways to get a martial character to apply for Swiftblade?

[SangoProduction]

Swiftblade: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327

You need the ability to cast haste, and must have used all of your 3rd level spell slots to cast haste last level.

Well, what about non-casters? Sure, if you're one, then you're missing out on the bonus caster levels, but let's ignore that, assuming it's possible.
The special prerequisite of spending all your spell slots is also possible to bypass if you don't have any such spell slots to begin with.

So. Is there a way for a non-caster class to "cast" haste? All options are open, as long as they are first-party. Homebrew *might* be possible.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Pick up planar touchstone for the catalogues of enlightenment for the time domain, charge its higher order power, cast haste 3 times over the course of leveling up between (presumably) levels 5 & 6.

[SangoProduction]

Pick up planar touchstone for the catalogues of enlightenment for the time domain, charge its higher order power, cast haste 3 times over the course of leveling up between (presumably) levels 5 & 6.

I can't seem to find what you are referring to. Do you mind adding citations, or at least the books in which you are referring?

[Troacctid]

You can get haste with just one level of Trapsmith.

[Curmudgeon]

Planar Touchstone is a feat which can give you a power linked to a magical location if you can acquire a 250 gp token from that location. The Catalogues of Enlightenment is one such magical location (see Planar Handbook on pages 166-167) which gives you the granted power of a domain. There's also this:
Higher-Order Ability: Once per day, you may cast a spell from the cleric domain you have chosen, as though you had prepared the spell normally. You must be of sufficient character level to cast the spell and have a Wisdom equal to 10 + the spell’s level.
Higher-Order Uses: 3.
Time domain (Spell Compendium, page 281) has Haste as its level 3 spell.

The problem is that Swiftblade has specific language:
Special: Must have spent the entire previous level using all 3rd level spell slots to exclusively cast haste.
Even though you could cast Haste 3 times in the year previous to level advancement, you wouldn't have been doing so from any spell slots, 3rd level or otherwise. Thus, this approach fails.



You can get haste with just one level of Trapsmith.
That's in a 1st level slot, not 3rd. This approach fails as well.

[Troacctid]

You don't need to have 3rd level spell slots, you just need to use all the ones you do have exclusively on haste.

[Curmudgeon]

You don't need to have 3rd level spell slots, you just need to use all the ones you do have exclusively on haste.
The null set does not a qualification make. If you do not have 3rd level spell slots, you can neither confirm nor deny that you have spent the entire previous level using all 3rd level spell slots to exclusively cast Haste.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Curmudgeon has accurately described where the method I described came from but we have a conflicting point of view on whether it works.

The higher order power says, as curmudgeon quoted, that the spells cast are cast as though they had been prepared normally. Normally, they'd be prepared in a spell slot. Therefore, those hastes are cast as though from spell slots of 3rd level.

Given that this is the case, it meets the requirement of swiftblade in spite of your lack of any spell slots of your own.

[Curmudgeon]

Curmudgeon has accurately described where the method I described came from but we have a conflicting point of view on whether it works.
...
Normally, they'd be prepared in a spell slot. Therefore, those hastes are cast as though from spell slots of 3rd level.
"As though" and actually cast from 3rd level spell slots are the essence of the disagreement, yes.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Why not just go Warblade 6/ Suel Arcanamach 4/ Swiftblade 10?

[torrasque666]

Why not just go Warblade 6/ Suel Arcanamach 4/ Swiftblade 10?
Gonna have a hard time getting the Spellcraft requirement. This lists (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=6832.0) only two ways of getting it as a class skill (aside from dipping) one of which requires you to be an Elf and eats your 1st level feat and the other has some... less than savory connections. Otherwise you're stuck waiting until level 8 before you can start taking Arcanamach levels. Which prevents you from getting the Swiftblade capstone pre-epic.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Gonna have a hard time getting the Spellcraft requirement. This lists (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=6832.0) only two ways of getting it as a class skill (aside from dipping) one of which requires you to be an Elf and eats your 1st level feat and the other has some... less than savory connections. Otherwise you're stuck waiting until level 8 before you can start taking Arcanamach levels. Which prevents you from getting the Swiftblade capstone pre-epic.

Then just go Warblade 1/ Duskblade 2/ Warblade 3 into it, you still get 3rd level maneuvers and you can actually get a 3rd level stance that way as well. Plus it saves you a feat, and on that note be sure to get Iron Will via the Otyugh Hole in CS without spending a feat on it.

[SangoProduction]

You must use all your 3rd level spell slots on haste. When your 3rd level spell slots = none, then all of your spell slots = none. So, you don't need to cast it as 3rd level. You simply need to cast it and not have 3rd level spell slots.

[ZamielVanWeber]

You must use all your 3rd level spell slots on haste. When your 3rd level spell slots = none, then all of your spell slots = none. So, you don't need to cast it as 3rd level. You simply need to cast it and not have 3rd level spell slots.

You cannot spend what you do not have. Since you have spent 0 slots you cannot have spent all slots.

[SangoProduction]

You cannot spend what you do not have. Since you have spent 0 slots you cannot have spent all slots.

If I don't spend anything, then that's the same as saying I spent nothing, or I spent 0.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Whether or not spending all zero of your 3rd level spell slots on Haste will qualify you for Swiftblade is up to your DM, not what someone says on the internet.

[SangoProduction]

Whether or not spending all zero of your 3rd level spell slots on Haste will qualify you for Swiftblade is up to your DM, not what someone says on the internet.

Meh. Perhaps. Although it makes no logical sense why spending none does not equate to spending all of your none, I'll say it's up to DM discretion.

However, considering the thread in question specifically asks for non-caster class solutions, let's assume that the DM says spending 0 is the same as spending all, when all == 0.

[torrasque666]

However, considering the thread in question specifically asks for non-caster class solutions, let's assume that the DM says spending 0 is the same as spending all, when all == 0.
Contention: All does not equal 0 in this case, all equals null. There's a difference.

[Rubik]

Contention: All does not equal 0 in this case, all equals null. There's a difference.If you have null and spend null, you have spent all of your null slots...

[torrasque666]

If you have null and spend null, you have spent all of your null slots...
As I said, there's a difference between null and 0. Null is Null Value, as in, there is no value to be assigned a number. 0 is a value. You can spend 0, but you can't spend Null as Null is not something that exists, but 0 is. Null is not a number, nor a value. 0 is both of these things.

[Necroticplague]

Hmmm....I can think of a way that technically only needs two levels, but requires pulling so many feats out of thin air as to be implausible to get in less levels than just sucking up for 5 levels of casting.

Practiced spellcaster (trapsmith)+Heighten Spell+Eldritch Corruption+Sanctum Spell+Extra Slot.

Extra slot gives a spell of one lower than the highest level you can cast. Eldritch Corruption and Sanctum Spell can inflate the highest level of a spell you can cast by three, thus allowing a one level trapsmith dip to provide you with a third-level spell slot from Extra Slot (one less than a level 4 spell you could cast). Cast a Heightened Haste from this spell slot, and you're good to go.

The other level, aside from Trapsmith, is Factotum for the Trapfinding needed to qualify.

Hmmmm.....how many feats can you get for selling your soul?

[Kraken]

Did anyone save the post from the Wizards forums where the author of the swiftblade class mentioned that, from an intent perspective, trapsmith would be an okay entry into swiftblade? Based on my recollection of the post, it wouldn't surprise me if the author wouldn't mind a planar touchstone entry either. Planar touchstone would have a cool interaction with swiftblade's pseudo timestop ability, in that each charge can be used for any level, so you can just pick how many rounds you want.

[Curmudgeon]

Did anyone save the post from the Wizards forums where the author of the swiftblade class mentioned that, from an intent perspective, trapsmith would be an okay entry into swiftblade? Based on my recollection of the post ...
You don't have to go by your recollections; the Wizards community content is still available for another couple of weeks.

[Kraken]

Ah, well, here it is (http://community.wizards.com/comment/20683486#comment-20683486). Quoted here for posterity, too:


Speaking from an intent perspective (which I know counts for very little in the optimized forums) the idea is for the swiftblade candidate to use all spell slots (of the level in which haste is gained) to cast haste. The Dungeonscape book did not exist when Brian and I originally created the swiftblade, leaving us completely unaware of the trapsmith prestige class when it was finally released. If we had been aware, the special prerequisite would have read...

Special: Must have spent the entire previous level using all spell slots of the level in which haste is gained to exclusively cast haste.

It sounds clumsy, but there you go.

As for completing the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage at the last possible moment before attaining a new level ... let's say you are a 6th level kobold sorcerer who took fireball as their 3rd level spells known (using the variant rule that grants the heavy pick and light pick as bonus Martial Weapon Proficiency feats to kobolds).

Later on, exactly 1 XP away of attaining 7th level, the kobold sorcerer completes the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage, gains one 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells known, and chooses haste as their new 3rd level spell. Regardless of whether the kobold cast haste or not before attaining 7th level, they can no longer fulfill the prerequisite of casting haste for "the entire previous level". The entire previous level consisted of 5,999 other experience points, during which time haste was never cast.

The same is true of a 1st level fighter/5th level sorcerer who completed the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage 1 XP away from attaining 7th level. Even though the 3rd level spell slot was created at the last possible moment, it was not used to cast haste during "the entire previous level".

I hope that helps. :smallsmile:

Didn't preserve bolding and italics, but meh.

[Waddacku]

Contention: All does not equal 0 in this case, all equals null. There's a difference.

It does not. You have no 3rd level slots. The set of your 3rd level slots is empty, and thus null. This does not mean that the number of slots you have is null, but that you have 0 of them.
Ergo, spending 0 3rd level slots on casting Haste matches up exactly with how many 3rd level slots you had available.

[bekeleven]

There are multiple ways to define spending "all 3rd level spell slots to exclusively cast haste."

1. Positive Proof: Every spell slot you had was used to cast haste. You meet this.

2. Counterexample: No spell slots were used on anything besides haste (the converse). You also meet this.

Put simply, the sign of a correct assertion is that there is no case where the premise is true and the conclusion is false. This can lead to silly things in formal logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion), but this case seems fairly straightforward to me.

[Solaris]

So. Is there a way for a non-caster class to "cast" haste? All options are open, as long as they are first-party. Homebrew *might* be possible.

I don't know about getting it on a non-caster, but I'm homebrewing up a conversion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?451156-Swift-Like-a-Bunny-The-Martial-Swiftblade-(PrC-ToB-conversion-PEACH)&p=19957229#post19957229) of Swiftblade over to ToB.

[Curmudgeon]

There are multiple ways to define spending "all 3rd level spell slots to exclusively cast haste."
...
2. Counterexample: No spell slots were used on anything besides haste (the converse). You also meet this.
I don't think so. With that logic, anyone could instead just as accurately claim you used no spell slots on anything besides Slow. Because that's true, you fail the Swiftblade entrance requirement.

[Nifft]

Arcane spellcasting Swordsage variant, maybe?

Take haste as your first (and only) level 3 Maneuver, and "cast" it for a level. Then go into Swiftblade as a pure Swordsage.

[Rebel7284]

As per Complete Arcane, you can use SLAs to qualify as being able to cast a particular spell.



SPECIFIC SPELL REQUIREMENTS
A requirement based on a specific spell measures whether
the character or creature in question is capable of producing
the necessary effect, and as such, invocations and spell-like
abilities that generate the relevant effect meet the require-
ments for specific spell knowledge. For example, a prestige
class with a spellcasting requirement of “Must know (or be
able to cast) darkness” is met by a warlock who chooses
darkness as one of her invocations, or by any creature with
darkness as a spell-like ability.


The easiest way I know of getting haste SLA would be a Spellstiched Necropolitan.

You still need to talk to the DM about the whole slots issue though.

[Inevitability]

1. Get an arcane spellcaster level. There are various ways to do this, such as a 1-level dip in warlock or any arcane caster or the Magical Training feat.

2. Take Precocious Apprentice to gain the ability to cast Haste 1/day (it is a second-level spell for Telflammar Shadowlords).

3. Spend a level using all of your nonexistent third-level slots to cast Haste.

4. You now qualify for Swiftblade.

[Flickerdart]

A 3-level dip into Divine Crusader (Time Domain) gives you haste in an actual 3rd level spell slot. It's pitifully easy to get in (all you need is BAB +7 and Weapon Focus). Swiftblade won't progress your casting since it only advanced arcane spellcasters, but if all you care about is getting in, then this is the fastest and most bulletproof way.

[Nifft]

@ Rebel7284 - Spellstiched Undead is very clever, I like that a lot.


3. Spend a level using all of your nonexistent third-level slots to cast Haste.

If spending 0 uses of a resource which you don't have meets the requirement about exclusive use of that resource, then simply having no level 3 slots would always qualify many different characters, who don't have access to haste at all.

I find that interpretation very dubious, and doubt the internal consistency of the argument.

[Inevitability]

If spending 0 uses of a resource which you don't have meets the requirement about exclusive use of that resource, then simply having no level 3 slots would always qualify many different characters, who don't have access to haste at all.

I find that interpretation very dubious, and doubt the internal consistency of the argument.

There you are mistaken, good forum-user! To enter Swiftblade, you already need to be able to cast Haste. To put it simply, having no ability to cast the spell at any level would not allow you to enter, but being able to cast it on a level different from 3rd might just work.

[Curmudgeon]

To enter Swiftblade, you already need to be able to cast Haste. To put it simply, having no ability to cast the spell at any level would not allow you to enter, but being able to cast it on a level different from 3rd might just work.
Then a Rogue with a wand and Use Magic Device could qualify for the class. Activating a spell trigger item counts as casting the spell (Dungeon Master's Guide, page 245). If you don't need to have any spell slots, you also don't need to be able to cast Haste unassisted. And as soon as you get to Swiftblade 3, Sudden Casting makes you a spellcaster without the wand.

[SangoProduction]

I don't think so. With that logic, anyone could instead just as accurately claim you used no spell slots on anything besides Slow. Because that's true, you fail the Swiftblade entrance requirement.

That would not counter the argument that you "didn't use spell slots on anything besides Haste", because you can accomplish both at the same time by simply not using anything, thus failing neither prerequisite.
This "inverse argument" still doesn't work if you had spell slots that could be used. In which case, not casting anything means you didn't use all your last level spell slots. Because the prereq is not "not casting anything besides haste", it's "casting all (which happens to be 0) of your slots on haste".
So, yes, the argument is wrong, but your argument does not prove him wrong.

[Rubik]

I take it a domain wizard without the Time domain cannot qualify for swiftblade? What happens if you have multiple spellcasting classes? Or a wizard/psion that doesn't have slots for one of the classes?

[Nifft]

I take it a domain wizard without the Time domain cannot qualify for swiftblade? What happens if you have multiple spellcasting classes? Or a wizard/psion that doesn't have slots for one of the classes?

If preparing (but not casting) a non-haste spell would prevent qualification, then I wonder if failing to cast haste even once -- i.e. preparing haste but not casting it before re-preparing spells, or being a Sorcerer with an unexpended level 3 spell-slot -- would also prevent qualification.

The words "all" and "exclusive" can be interpreted in some rather absolute ways:


Special: Must have spent the entire previous level using all 3rd level spell slots to exclusively cast haste.

[Troacctid]

I take it a domain wizard without the Time domain cannot qualify for swiftblade? What happens if you have multiple spellcasting classes? Or a wizard/psion that doesn't have slots for one of the classes?

Domain Wizards are presumably out of luck if their domain doesn't have Haste, although the domain you're looking for is Transmutation, not Time. (There might be some way of getting around it with something like a runestaff, I'm not sure off the top of my head.) Multiclass casters must use all their 3rd level spell slots to exclusively cast Haste, as per the requirement. The Wizard/Psion is fine, since psionic classes don't have spell slots.

[Abithrios]

If preparing (but not casting) a non-haste spell would prevent qualification, then I wonder if failing to cast haste even once -- i.e. preparing haste but not casting it before re-preparing spells, or being a Sorcerer with an unexpended level 3 spell-slot -- would also prevent qualification.

The words "all" and "exclusive" can be interpreted in some rather absolute ways:

Do you ever lose unused spell slots? Now that I look at it again, if you level up with any third level spell slots, then you didn't use them to cast haste. In that case, you better spam haste as fast as you can once get your spell slots back, lest you level up. The result is that meeting that requirement vacuously is the safest way iff your DM has studied formal logic.

[Kraken]

iff your DM has studied formal logic.

That made me burst out laughing. :smallbiggrin:

[Hal0Badger]

That would not counter the argument that you "didn't use spell slots on anything besides Haste", because you can accomplish both at the same time by simply not using anything, thus failing neither prerequisite.
This "inverse argument" still doesn't work if you had spell slots that could be used. In which case, not casting anything means you didn't use all your last level spell slots. Because the prereq is not "not casting anything besides haste", it's "casting all (which happens to be 0) of your slots on haste".
So, yes, the argument is wrong, but your argument does not prove him wrong.

You do not have "0" 3rd level spell slots though. A 7th level Bard with 13 charisma has "0" 3rd level spell slots. The value for a non-caster, is simply "Null".

Null=/=0. As mentioned above, putting 0 value means it is something that can "change", Null means you don't have a value at all.

Maybe, simply ask the DM, but your argument will not work as for RAW.

[SangoProduction]

You do not have "0" 3rd level spell slots though. A 7th level Bard with 13 charisma has "0" 3rd level spell slots. The value for a non-caster, is simply "Null".

Null=/=0. As mentioned above, putting 0 value means it is something that can "change", Null means you don't have a value at all.

Maybe, simply ask the DM, but your argument will not work as for RAW.

Nowhere is "null" (as you are using it) defined in RAW. So saying that "Null" == RAW is kinda self contradictory.

But, since it has no RAW definition, let's use Google "Null Definition."



adjective
adjective: null

1.having no legal or binding force; invalid.

2. having or associated with the value zero.

noun literary
noun: null; plural noun: nulls
1. a zero.

verb ELECTRONICS
verb: null; 3rd person present: nulls; past tense: nulled; past participle: nulled; gerund or present participle: nulling

1.combine (a signal) with another in order to create a null; cancel out.

So, all definitions that are relevant actually say "zero" (actually, the adjective one isn't as relevant, but it's close). So, sure. I agree, it's "Null". Thanks for saying I'm correct.

[Curmudgeon]

Nowhere is "null" (as you are using it) defined in RAW.
Excepting use of the specific word, D&D has equated "null" with the symbol "—". It's used for spells per day, spells known, and damage reduction, among other aspects of the game. At least in the context of spells per day, 0 and "—" are never equivalent.

[SangoProduction]

Excepting use of the specific word, D&D has equated "null" with the symbol "—". It's used for spells per day, spells known, and damage reduction, among other aspects of the game. At least in the context of spells per day, 0 and "—" are never equivalent.

OK. I'll accept "--" == Null. Null still means 0. All the additional meaning that "--" has in D&D is that you don't get bonus spells in a category with this value.

[Dgrin]

The null set does not a qualification make. If you do not have 3rd level spell slots, you can neither confirm nor deny that you have spent the entire previous level using all 3rd level spell slots to exclusively cast Haste.


I don't think so. With that logic, anyone could instead just as accurately claim you used no spell slots on anything besides Slow. Because that's true, you fail the Swiftblade entrance requirement.

As someone who's studied set theory, I have to say that that's exactly how empty set works. Every statement about empty set is true. And, given the statement that you have used all you 3rd level slots to exclusively cast haste is true, you qualify for the class (even if the opposite statement is also true). That sounds weird but the prerequisite is still met. See vacuous truth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth) for more details.

[Necroticplague]

Excepting use of the specific word, D&D has equated "null" with the symbol "—". It's used for spells per day, spells known, and damage reduction, among other aspects of the game. At least in the context of spells per day, 0 and "—" are never equivalent.

Also, very similarly, it's used for nonabilities, one of the biggest places where not having something and having 0 of something are very different. Not having a con score means your not alive. Having a con of zero means you're dead.

[Ger. Bessa]

It's a thing for nonabilities, because there is something called nonabilities. There is nothing such like "nonspellslots".

I think a Nar-Demonbinder with arcane disciple for a lv4 haste is the coolest entry. You have lv8 spell slots to trade for the class abilities, and a good set of out-of-combat spells. And you have speed from hell !

(Entry by that tainted feat that heightens by +2)

[Hal0Badger]

It's a thing for nonabilities, because there is something called nonabilities. There is nothing such like "nonspellslots".

Actually there is something as "nonspellslots" : http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm

You can easily see, a level 1-2 wizard exactly has "null (-)" spell slots for higher level than 1.

It is clear that non-spell casters have no access to spells slots, and its value is not "0". Both example of "null" spell slots and "0" spell slots (for example 1 level bard has 0 spell slots for level 1 spells) are there.

[Nifft]

Do you ever lose unused spell slots? Now that I look at it again, if you level up with any third level spell slots, then you didn't use them to cast haste. In that case, you better spam haste as fast as you can once get your spell slots back, lest you level up. The result is that meeting that requirement vacuously is the safest way iff your DM has studied formal logic.
Indeed. Formal logic is the bane of poorly-written requirements.

Leveling up in a non-video game usually happens between sessions, so that's not much of a concern IMHO. You can always say you cast any remaining haste slots right before you did whatever people in your game do to level up.

- - -

Regarding Null -- it's not really helpful here, thanks to the word "exclusively" in the requirement.

See, exclusively means the requirement is not merely a requirement for the truth value of this statement, but also the falsification of a large number of other statements.

The Null set can give you a vacuous truth like "You used all level 3 slots to cast haste", but it also gives you all other vacuous truths, including "You used all level 3 slots to cast slow" which violates exclusivity.

- - -

A more sneaky -- but also more robust -- work-around might be to interpret "your slots" as plural, but not all-encompassing. So you must have 2 (or more) level 3 spell-slots which you dedicate to casting haste exclusively. Draw them in a different color on your character sheet. Enjoy your functional character with a mild RP limitation.

[Abithrios]

Indeed. Formal logic is the bane of poorly-written requirements.

Leveling up in a non-video game usually happens between sessions, so that's not much of a concern IMHO. You can always say you cast any remaining haste slots right before you did whatever people in your game do to level up.

- - -

Regarding Null -- it's not really helpful here, thanks to the word "exclusively" in the requirement.

See, exclusively means the requirement is not merely a requirement for the truth value of this statement, but also the falsification of a large number of other statements.

The Null set can give you a vacuous truth like "You used all level 3 slots to cast haste", but it also gives you all other vacuous truths, including "You used all level 3 slots to cast slow" which violates exclusivity.

- - -

A more sneaky -- but also more robust -- work-around might be to interpret "your slots" as plural, but not all-encompassing. So you must have 2 (or more) level 3 spell-slots which you dedicate to casting haste exclusively. Draw them in a different color on your character sheet. Enjoy your functional character with a mild RP limitation.

Here is the problem with the slow argument: Let's say you do have exactly two spell slots per day at that level. Once you have cast haste twice each day, what is there to keep you from accidentally spending all 0 of your remaining spell slots on slow?

[Nifft]

Here is the problem with the slow argument: Let's say you do have exactly two spell slots per day at that level. Once you have cast haste twice each day, what is there to keep you from accidentally spending all 0 of your remaining spell slots on slow? Using a positive, non-vacuous truth value and excluding *all* vacuous truth values -- that's what.

It's only when you try to qualify a vacuous truth as a real truth that you get into trouble with exclusivity.

[Rubik]

May the Seven Heavens help anyone who wants to enter swiftblade with access to Versatile Spellcaster.

[Dgrin]

The statement that you've used all you slots exclusively to cast Haste is still true, like any other statement about empty set, so you meet the prerequisite. That is all that is required. You can have any other statements but they do not make this one a lie, so the prerequisite is still met. There's nothing in rules that supports your claim that all other contradicting statements should be excluded for you to enter the class.

[Curmudgeon]

The statement that you've used all you slots exclusively to cast Haste is still true, like any other statement about empty set, so you meet the prerequisite. That is all that is required.
No, it's not all that's required. You would first need to show that empty set rules apply in D&D (which I doubt). D&D has its own math rules, such as for multiplying.

[Rubik]

No, it's not all that's required. You would first need to show that empty set rules apply in D&D (which I doubt). D&D has its own math rules, such as for multiplying.The multiplication rules only apply to bonuses. Real world values are multiplied normally.

[Dgrin]

No, it's not all that's required. You would first need to show that empty set rules apply in D&D (which I doubt). D&D has its own math rules, such as for multiplying.

In absence of definitive wording we are using real world logic (unless you can provide rules text supporting your claims)

[SangoProduction]

In absence of definitive wording we are using real world logic (unless you can provide rules text supporting your claims)

Like null being 0?

[Nifft]

In absence of definitive wording we are using real world logic (unless you can provide rules text supporting your claims)

Allowing vacuous Null-set "all possible statements are true" would contradict a lot of the rest of D&D rules.

For example, every turn, every creature which does not move takes a Null-distance Move action which is not a 5-ft step nor a Withdraw action, and therefore provokes an Attack of Opportunity.

Is this absurd? Yes, of course it's absurd. All consequences of treating vacuous truths as non-vacuous are absurd.

[Curmudgeon]

In absence of definitive wording we are using real world logic
What gave you that idea? The rules say something quite different:

Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign.
"Real world logic" is insufficient by this constraint. Absence of disqualification is not enough. You need positive proof of qualification.

[bekeleven]

Allowing vacuous Null-set "all possible statements are true" would contradict a lot of the rest of D&D rules.

For example, every turn, every creature which does not move takes a Null-distance Move action which is not a 5-ft step nor a Withdraw action, and therefore provokes an Attack of Opportunity.

Is this absurd? Yes, of course it's absurd. All consequences of treating vacuous truths as non-vacuous are absurd.

There's no textual basis for this being the case. All actions are defined as actions and this isn't in the text.

[Dgrin]

What gave you that idea? The rules say something quite different:

The rules you quote encourages something, not providing the rule. GM has the last word in any case.


"Real world logic" is insufficient by this constraint. Absence of disqualification is not enough. You need positive proof of qualification.

I did not say anything about absence of disqualification. The statement is true, so you qualify. That simple. Also there's no such thing as disqualification in D&D. There is qualification (meeting the prerequisites) and lack of qualification (not meeting them).


Allowing vacuous Null-set "all possible statements are true" would contradict a lot of the rest of D&D rules.

For example, every turn, every creature which does not move takes a Null-distance Move action which is not a 5-ft step nor a Withdraw action, and therefore provokes an Attack of Opportunity.

Is this absurd? Yes, of course it's absurd. All consequences of treating vacuous truths as non-vacuous are absurd.

First of all, the problem in question was the following: if you have no 3rd level spell slots, do you meet the prerequisite? As it is already a empty set, there's nop non-vacuous truth about it
As for your example, it is false. Moving provokes AoO, not taking a move action. Even if it did, not using your move action at all does not mean taking a null-distance move action. You can choose what to do with your actions, and there is no rule to always take every action available.

[Hal0Badger]

The rules you quote encourages something, not providing the rule. GM has the last word in any case.



I did not say anything about absence of disqualification. The statement is true, so you qualify. That simple. Also there's no such thing as disqualification in D&D. There is qualification (meeting the prerequisites) and lack of qualification (not meeting them).



First of all, the problem in question was the following: if you have no 3rd level spell slots, do you meet the prerequisite? As it is already a empty set, there's nop non-vacuous truth about it
As for your example, it is false. Moving provokes AoO, not taking a move action. Even if it did, not using your move action at all does not mean taking a null-distance move action. You can choose what to do with your actions, and there is no rule to always take every action available.

Maybe we are talking about different things, but I doubt that.

This is the kind of null I use in my argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_(SQL)
I am not expert on subject, but I studied naval architecture, and used basic programing to calculate some equations.

Null means, lack of value, where as can be applied "empty", but it is not always the case. You do not have 0 spell slots, you lack a "value" for them. Vacuous truth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth) works in the example of cell phones as I understand, but the said person has access definition of cell-phone, being it turned on or off as well. Null is associated with "0" there, not "lack of value". The number cell phones, can be changed bringing in more cell phones into room.

When you try to apply this information to fighter, he cannot have a mean to change its spell slots "at all", because the value is not "0", actually there is no value in that.

Lack of value, does not mean it is 0 as in the meaning I try to use, eventhough it might be wrong, that's what I try to describe. As far as I understand, your "null" can be equaled to value of 0, where as I try to describe, there is no value to begin to tinker with.

[Nifft]

There's no textual basis for this being the case. All actions are defined as actions and this isn't in the text. Since your assertion is that Null evaluates to true, "no textual basis" is the same as "true", and I'm right.

If you're wrong, though, then "no textual basis" is false, and I'm also right.

[bekeleven]

Since your assertion is that Null evaluates to true, "no textual basis" is the same as "true", and I'm right.

If you're wrong, though, then "no textual basis" is false, and I'm also right.

What?

My assertion is not that null defaults to true. it's that If I can't cast spells, I've used every available spell slot to cast haste. (and every other spell you could name...) Understanding this statement requires only passing fluency in the english language.

From this you're getting "passing the round is a move action" through some nonsensical train of logic.


every creature which does not move takes a Null-distance Move action which is not a 5-ft step nor a Withdraw action, and therefore provokes an Attack of Opportunity.

Find me where in the movement rules or attack of opportunity rules this is even mentioned. Here, I'll help:


Provoking an Attack of Opportunity
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square.

Moving
Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

Performing a Distracting Act
Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule.

Basically, no matter how you look at it, your statement is false.

You're attempting to say that I'm saying 0 = 1.

I'm just saying that 0 = 0. A lot of logical statements sound silly when applied to 0, but are still true. And if we start with 0, we can't make any other statement, as Dgrin pointed out.

Apply the logical test: If the statement "Must have spent the entire previous level using all 3rd level spell slots to exclusively cast haste" is false, then there must be at least one example of using a 3rd level spell slot to do anything besides casting haste.

You're literally equating my argument with "the rules don't say I can't!" munchkinry. Which, frankly, is a lot closer to 0=1 than anything I said.

[Dgrin]

This is the kind of null I use in my argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_(SQL)
I am not expert on subject, but I studied naval architecture, and used basic programing to calculate some equations.

Null means, lack of value, where as can be applied "empty", but it is not always the case. You do not have 0 spell slots, you lack a "value" for them. Vacuous truth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth) works in the example of cell phones as I understand, but the said person has access definition of cell-phone, being it turned on or off as well. Null is associated with "0" there, not "lack of value". The number cell phones, can be changed bringing in more cell phones into room.

When you try to apply this information to fighter, he cannot have a mean to change its spell slots "at all", because the value is not "0", actually there is no value in that.

Lack of value, does not mean it is 0 as in the meaning I try to use, eventhough it might be wrong, that's what I try to describe. As far as I understand, your "null" can be equaled to value of 0, where as I try to describe, there is no value to begin to tinker with.

In SQL Null value is applied in the case when the information you try to use in inapplicable. You do not lack a value for spell slots, there is definitive value for that in D&D rules. That (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set) is what I meant. I am pretty sure that fighter (or any other class not having 3rd level spell slots at the moment of qualifying, fighter is only an example) could in theory have spell slots, and someone with more optimisation experience than me could surely provide the way to do it :smallwink:. I understand your argument, and can see why you use that interpretation. But, in my opinion, this interpretation is applicable only for things that are not described in rules at all, while spell slots are.
As we know what spell slots are, and the only property which is important for us in that argument is using them exclusively to cast Haste, I interpret 3rd level spell slots as set of values, each of them having property with one of two values: "Used to cast Haste" or "Not used to cast Haste". So having no third level spell slots mean that it is an empty set.

[Hal0Badger]

In SQL Null value is applied in the case when the information you try to use in inapplicable. You do not lack a value for spell slots, there is definitive value for that in D&D rules. That (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set) is what I meant. I am pretty sure that fighter (or any other class not having 3rd level spell slots at the moment of qualifying, fighter is only an example) could in theory have spell slots, and someone with more optimisation experience than me could surely provide the way to do it :smallwink:. I understand your argument, and can see why you use that interpretation. But, in my opinion, this interpretation is applicable only for things that are not described in rules at all, while spell slots are.
As we know what spell slots are, and the only property which is important for us in that argument is using them exclusively to cast Haste, I interpret 3rd level spell slots as set of values, each of them having property with one of two values: "Used to cast Haste" or "Not used to cast Haste". So having no third level spell slots mean that it is an empty set.

I could agree with you , if the notion of spell slot (—) did not exist.

Value "0" is used for spell slots (like bard), however that value is "effected" by certain things, like a high casting modifier.

Let me elaborate: Lets take an example of 5 level wizard with 19 int. Due to table of Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, he gets a bonus spell for level 4 spells. However, he cannot apply this until he is level 4, simple because, there are "no values" for level 4 spell slots, till level 7 wizard. It means, (—)=/=0 for spell slot and related rules.

Eventhough it is not written in a clear language. This example, can be find quite the numerous times (as many times as you can encounter a spell slot table) so it is repeated enough to be considered true for the purpose of discussion.

This is exactly where I stand in the discussion, fighter (or other non-caster classes) has (—) spell slot, not "0".

Below the part, is just a pure thought exercise, not related to my main argue.
I would agree that using the notion of "Null", may cause confusion, because you are right about the empty product and statement of true-false relationship to it. However, to my knowledge, eventhough an empty statement also means every possible answer, the Null does not "qualify" as a positive answer or a specific answer for any calculation. Therefore eventhough you get the answer of Null for spell slots, shouldn't it fail to qualify? (this is how we used it basically, especially for engineering and programming).

[Troacctid]

I could agree with you , if the notion of spell slot (—) did not exist.

Value "0" is used for spell slots (like bard), however that value is "effected" by certain things, like a high casting modifier.

Let me elaborate: Lets take an example of 5 level wizard with 19 int. Due to table of Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, he gets a bonus spell for level 4 spells. However, he cannot apply this until he is level 4, simple because, there are "no values" for level 4 spell slots, till level 7 wizard. It means, (—)=/=0 for spell slot and related rules.

Eventhough it is not written in a clear language. This example, can be find quite the numerous times (as many times as you can encounter a spell slot table) so it is repeated enough to be considered true for the purpose of discussion.

That's incorrect. The lack of bonus spells for those levels isn't a result of the "—" value in the table. It's due to this rule, which specifically states that you only gain bonus spells for spell levels you have access to:

The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers; or Charisma for sorcerers and bards. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.
So it is absolutely written in clear language.

[Hal0Badger]

That's incorrect. The lack of bonus spells for those levels isn't a result of the "—" value in the table. It's due to this rule, which specifically states that you only gain bonus spells for spell levels you have access to:

So it is absolutely written in clear language.

That's the thing I am talking about though.

A wizard of level 5, do not have 0 spell slot of 4th levels. He has no access to that level at all, and this is not equal to "0 spell slots of 4th level", because as I stated earlier, if you have value of "0" spell slots, it is exclusively mentioned like case for bard, or assassin PRC.

Same goes with any non-spellcaster, for any spell slot. They simple don't have access to, and that does not mean it is "0".

[SangoProduction]

That's the thing I am talking about though.

A wizard of level 5, do not have 0 spell slot of 4th levels. He has no access to that level at all, and this is not equal to "0 spell slots of 4th level", because as I stated earlier, if you have value of "0" spell slots, it is exclusively mentioned like case for bard, or assassin PRC.

Same goes with any non-spellcaster, for any spell slot. They simple don't have access to, and that does not mean it is "0".

Yeah, you don't have access to the level. You can only cast 0, and it can't be modified by bonus spells.
Of course, you can still copy down spells of higher level, if you are a wizard, you simply can't cast it, as that would go over your spell limit.

[bekeleven]

Thought experiment:

Spellcasters can cast spells over their level using versatile spellcaster, sanctum spell, earth spell, extra spell slot, and any number of other tricks forum-goers will recognize.

Which of those tricks, if any, grant bonus spells for high abilities?

[Hal0Badger]

Thought experiment:

Spellcasters can cast spells over their level using versatile spellcaster, sanctum spell, earth spell, extra spell slot, and any number of other tricks forum-goers will recognize.

Which of those tricks, if any, grant bonus spells for high abilities?

As far as I know, Versatile Spellcaster, Sanctum Spell or Earth Spell does not modify the "spell slots" you have. Sanctum Spell and Earth Spell modifies the spell level, while Versatile Spellcaster allows you to burn your lower spell slots to cast a higher level spell, corresponding the spell slots you burn.

I am not familiar with Extra Spell Slot.

[Dgrin]

I could agree with you , if the notion of spell slot (—) did not exist.

Value "0" is used for spell slots (like bard), however that value is "effected" by certain things, like a high casting modifier.

Let me elaborate: Lets take an example of 5 level wizard with 19 int. Due to table of Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, he gets a bonus spell for level 4 spells. However, he cannot apply this until he is level 4, simple because, there are "no values" for level 4 spell slots, till level 7 wizard. It means, (—)=/=0 for spell slot and related rules.

Eventhough it is not written in a clear language. This example, can be find quite the numerous times (as many times as you can encounter a spell slot table) so it is repeated enough to be considered true for the purpose of discussion.

This is exactly where I stand in the discussion, fighter (or other non-caster classes) has (—) spell slot, not "0".

I did not make my point clear enough - I think it is wrong to speak about number of spell slots for the purpose of that argument. You want to determine if you have used all your spell slots exclusively to cast Haste. I don't remember SQL well but I'll try to illustrate my point. Using SQL analogy, spell slots are not the number but the table. Every spell slot is a row, and there is a column determining what spell was cast from it. You want to know if every value in that column is Haste. You want to have the query along the lines of

(select count(*) from spell_slots_lvl3) == (select count(*) from spell_slots_lvl3 where spell_cast="Haste")

If the table is empty, that should return TRUE, if I am not mistaken.
I was using math, specifically, set theory, cause I am more familiar with it but the idea is the same.


Below the part, is just a pure thought exercise, not related to my main argue.
I would agree that using the notion of "Null", may cause confusion, because you are right about the empty product and statement of true-false relationship to it. However, to my knowledge, eventhough an empty statement also means every possible answer, the Null does not "qualify" as a positive answer or a specific answer for any calculation. Therefore eventhough you get the answer of Null for spell slots, shouldn't it fail to qualify? (this is how we used it basically, especially for engineering and programming).

Yes, that is correct to my knowledge but you don't need the number itself. You need the property to follow the requirements. There is no requirement of being able to cast 3rd level spells or something along this lines

What if I had 3rd level spell slots (and maybe even prepared different spells in them) but did not use them to cast anything at all or anything other then Haste for the duration of previous level? Do I fulfill the prerequisite?

What if I used my spell slots only to cast Haste but I had one spell slot left and not used at the end of the day? I did not use it to cast Haste, even it was prepared there. So I instantly fail to qualify?

In my opinion, if you did not cast from your slots, you did not use them so exclusivity is fulfilled. It is such a weird prerequisite, the more I think about it. Still, what is the difference between not having spell slots of 3rd level at all and having them but not using them to cast spells for the purpose of that prerequisite?

[Kelb_Panthera]

How's this for an argument; the crux of the prerequisite in question is that the designer of the class wants the applicant to have cast haste at every possible opportunity in the level preceding his entry to swiftblade. It's rather plain that failing to cast haste at all during that level fails to meet the spirit of the prerequisite. What's less plain is that, having acquired a means to cast haste and using every instance of that ability outside of actually being able to cast third level spells from third level spell slots and knowing haste as one of your spells known is still within the spirit of the prerequisite.

I believe it is. I'd probably allow a character who had acquired a pair of boots of speed that used them every day to qualify for largely the same reason.

Sometimes "RAW is law" is an idea taken too far and I believe that is what has happened in this thread. People say it's impossible to be certain of authorial intent but that's simply not true. It is -sometimes- not only possible to divine such intent but rather obvious to do so. This is not computer coding it's a pen and paper game where informal logic, sometimes skewed reason, and discretion filter the rules in a way to make things entertaining for the participants. If the character can cast haste and does so at every opportunity, that should be good enough.

[Hal0Badger]

I did not make my point clear enough - I think it is wrong to speak about number of spell slots for the purpose of that argument. You want to determine if you have used all your spell slots exclusively to cast Haste. I don't remember SQL well but I'll try to illustrate my point. Using SQL analogy, spell slots are not the number but the table. Every spell slot is a row, and there is a column determining what spell was cast from it. You want to know if every value in that column is Haste. You want to have the query along the lines of

(select count(*) from spell_slots_lvl3) == (select count(*) from spell_slots_lvl3 where spell_cast="Haste")

If the table is empty, that should return TRUE, if I am not mistaken.
I was using math, specifically, set theory, cause I am more familiar with it but the idea is the same.



Yes, that is correct to my knowledge but you don't need the number itself. You need the property to follow the requirements. There is no requirement of being able to cast 3rd level spells or something along this lines

What if I had 3rd level spell slots (and maybe even prepared different spells in them) but did not use them to cast anything at all or anything other then Haste for the duration of previous level? Do I fulfill the prerequisite?

What if I used my spell slots only to cast Haste but I had one spell slot left and not used at the end of the day? I did not use it to cast Haste, even it was prepared there. So I instantly fail to qualify?

In my opinion, if you did not cast from your slots, you did not use them so exclusivity is fulfilled. It is such a weird prerequisite, the more I think about it. Still, what is the difference between not having spell slots of 3rd level at all and having them but not using them to cast spells for the purpose of that prerequisite?


Yes, I understood your example earlier as well. But in this example, empty returns the value of "0" or some other value, if I am not mistaken.
What I am trying to say, the notion of "spell_slots_lvl3" is not defined at all, so it cannot return any value.

But we are going quite off-rail, especially with the terms. I think we both laid our arguments, but I will repeat one last time:

Non-spellcasters, do not have access to "spell slots", and this is not equal to having "0" spell slots. Having 0 spell slots, is defined within game (examples are Bard and Assassin PRC). Having no access to spell slots are also defined with the symbol "—", and this can also be observed in any spell caster's spell slot table. This is not a written rule, but repeated enough to be taken in consideration.

My argument is a non-spell caster has "—" for any spell slot, therefore "I used my every 3rd level spell slot to cast haste" cannot be applied to them.

I would continue to argue, if the counter-argument can also be supported via repeated examples, not just from real life or other forms of study, but from the rules of "DnD 3.5e".

[Dgrin]

How's this for an argument; the crux of the prerequisite in question is that the designer of the class wants the applicant to have cast haste at every possible opportunity in the level preceding his entry to swiftblade. It's rather plain that failing to cast haste at all during that level fails to meet the spirit of the prerequisite. What's less plain is that, having acquired a means to cast haste and using every instance of that ability outside of actually being able to cast third level spells from third level spell slots and knowing haste as one of your spells known is still within the spirit of the prerequisite.

I believe it is. I'd probably allow a character who had acquired a pair of boots of speed that used them every day to qualify for largely the same reason.

Sometimes "RAW is law" is an idea taken too far and I believe that is what has happened in this thread. People say it's impossible to be certain of authorial intent but that's simply not true. It is -sometimes- not only possible to divine such intent but rather obvious to do so. This is not computer coding it's a pen and paper game where informal logic, sometimes skewed reason, and discretion filter the rules in a way to make things entertaining for the participants. If the character can cast haste and does so at every opportunity, that should be good enough.

The purpose of this thread from the very beginning was to determine if someone who does not have access to 3rd level spell slots can take levels in Swiftblade. Swiftblade requires you to be able to cast Haste regardless of the result of that argument, and it can be acquired without taking 5 levels in full caster class. And I would allow character that acquired Haste as tried to cast it on every possible occasion to qualify too. But then people started to question this using special prerequisite as their argument. That is just the only thing left people disagree at, hence the argument. It is obviously up to GM to allow that or not, like every other rule problem. But in forum argument, there is no GM to decide, so we're using rules as written to prove our point.


Yes, I understood your example earlier as well. But in this example, empty returns the value of "0" or some other value, if I am not mistaken.
What I am trying to say, the notion of "spell_slots_lvl3" is not defined at all, so it cannot return any value.

But we are going quite off-rail, especially with the terms. I think we both laid our arguments, but I will repeat one last time:

Non-spellcasters, do not have access to "spell slots", and this is not equal to having "0" spell slots. Having 0 spell slots, is defined within game (examples are Bard and Assassin PRC). Having no access to spell slots are also defined with the symbol "—", and this can also be observed in any spell caster's spell slot table. This is not a written rule, but repeated enough to be taken in consideration.

My argument is a non-spell caster has "—" for any spell slot, therefore "I used my every 3rd level spell slot to cast haste" cannot be applied to them.

I would continue to argue, if the counter-argument can also be supported via repeated examples, not just from real life or other forms of study, but from the rules of "DnD 3.5e".

And I am not talking about "0" or "-" spell slots at all. I am talking about the situation not thought out by the designer of the class - qualifying for it while not having spells of 3rd level but still being able to cast Haste. As the designer of the class said that Trapsmith is an acceptable entry for the class despite having no 3rd level spell slots (being able to cast Haste at level 1), I still consider class without 3rd level spell slots as fulfilling the requirement. You can also use spell-like abilities to qualify for prestige classes, as written in, I think, Complete Arcane. Despite not having spell slots.
And I am not convinced that having "-" spell slots of level 3 disqualifies you from taking a level of Swiftblade. You provided the examples of not having 3rd level spell slots but nothing that proves that it disqualifies you. Furthermore, you are using "real world logic" in regard to "-" spell slots as much as I do. Provide me something about operations on "-" from D&D rulebooks which proves your point, then I can agree with you.

As a side note, examples do not prove the point, they just illustrate it.

[Hal0Badger]

How's this for an argument; the crux of the prerequisite in question is that the designer of the class wants the applicant to have cast haste at every possible opportunity in the level preceding his entry to swiftblade. It's rather plain that failing to cast haste at all during that level fails to meet the spirit of the prerequisite. What's less plain is that, having acquired a means to cast haste and using every instance of that ability outside of actually being able to cast third level spells from third level spell slots and knowing haste as one of your spells known is still within the spirit of the prerequisite.

I believe it is. I'd probably allow a character who had acquired a pair of boots of speed that used them every day to qualify for largely the same reason.

Sometimes "RAW is law" is an idea taken too far and I believe that is what has happened in this thread. People say it's impossible to be certain of authorial intent but that's simply not true. It is -sometimes- not only possible to divine such intent but rather obvious to do so. This is not computer coding it's a pen and paper game where informal logic, sometimes skewed reason, and discretion filter the rules in a way to make things entertaining for the participants. If the character can cast haste and does so at every opportunity, that should be good enough.

I agree it has gone off-the-rail quite much.

I agree the allowing PRC based on the uses of haste, but I would insist it should come from spell-slot, no matter the level. Class, to me, is intended as a Gish clearly, therefore some sort of innate casting ability is required to qualify, be it trap-smith or sorcerer.

[Waddacku]

Frankly, there isn't any reason to read "-" as a Null value anyway. It means you don't get spell slots of that level at this level of a class. This is only necessary to differentiate from an entry of 0 because of bonus spells per day. It is by no means the only or even the most intuitive way to interpret the table. There is no reason to differentiate between "having no spell slots" and "not having any spell slots."

[Chronos]

When you seek to enter Swiftblade, you must answer the question "How many times in the last level did I use a 3rd-level spell slot for anything other than Haste?". If your answer is "never", then you meet that qualification.