Fallacy of Elven Generalist+Domain Wizard "Leapfrog Wizard"

[RedMage125]

There is a common misconception that certain bit of "cheese" regarding wizards can be done to allow a 1st level wizard access to 9th level spells here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=10197586&postcount=9) is dextercorvia explaining the trick in full.
Special credit to forum user Endarire for coining the name "Leapfrog Wizard" to refer to this trick (even though I am debunking the validity of it, it's still a great name for it).

The short version is: Be a Grey Elf Wizard with an INT of 20, and take the Elf Wizard Racial Substitution Level at level 1, giving you Elven Generalist Wizard (EGW). Also take the Domain Wizard (DW) variant from Unearthed Arcana. Take a flaw to get an extra feat and take Alacritous Cogitation (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/complete-mage--58/alacritous-cogitation--55/index.html) (AC) from the Complete Mage. Then take Versatile Spellcaster (http://alcyius.com/dndtools/feats/races-of-the-dragon--83/versatile-spellcaster--3057/) (VS) from Races of the Dragon. Use AC+VS to cast a second level spell, using your DW's ability to "know" the level 2 (L2) spell as soon as you are "able to cast" a spell of that level. Get bonus 2nd level spell slots from high INT, bonus domain spell slot, and EGW spell slot, since that is your new "highest level" of spell. Then use 2 L2 spells to get a L3, and so on, wash-rinse-repeat until you get L9 spells as a 1st level Wizard.

THIS DOES NOT WORK.

There are a number of reasons why it does not work, most of which hinge on a not-thorough reading of the class features and feats in question. I am going to break down the process and explain, on each level, why it fails. In order to do so, I will explain why each step fails, and then move onto the next step, which DOES assume the previous steps did not fail, but for the sake of argument, I am going to act as if the previous step did not fail, to show why the successive ones STILL fail.

DISCLAIMER: I am talking about Rules As Written (RAW) here. Anyone can, of course, feel free to ask their DM to allow it, or alow it themselves as a DM. But I am not discussing houserules. This is what is rules-legal in a strict-RAW game, such as if one was playing in an RPGA or Organized Play game (back when they used 3.5e for such).

Making a Grey Elf Wizard is fine. Grey Elves taking EGW is fine. Taking flaws (assuming your DM allows it) is okay. Alacritous Cogitation DOES, in fact, allow you to qualify as "able to cast spells spontaneously", so you qualify for Versatile Spellcaster. Do note, however, that because VS requires the spontaneous casting of spells, only spell slots that are left empty during spell preparation (as per AC) can be "sacrificed" to cast a higher level spell. This will be important later. Might as well take a second flaw and pick up Heighten Spell.

Step 0: The combination of Elven Generalist Wizard with Domain Wizard. These cannot be used together, but as this is almost a separate argument, I am going to spoiler-block this point.

Elven Generalist Wizard is an Alternate Class Feature (ACF) for elf wizards. The text says:
"Generalist Wizardry: A 1st-level elf wizard begins play
with one extra 1st-level spell in her spellbook. At each new
wizard level, she gains one extra spell of any spell level that
she can cast. This represents the additional elven insight and
experience with arcane magic.
The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of
her highest spell level each day. Unlike the specialist wizard
ability, this spell may be of any school.
This substitution feature replaces the standard wizard’s
ability to specialize in a school of magic."

Domain Wizard from Unearthed Arcana is a Class Variant. The text says:
"A wizard who uses the arcane domain system (called a domain
wizard) selects a specifi c arcane domain of spells, much like
a cleric selects a pair of domains associated with his deity. A
domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange
for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead
of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells
with increased power.
Some of the arcane domains described below have the same
name as a divine domain. Regardless of any apparent similarity,
these domains have no connection to one another."

Now, I have heard all the arguments in favor of saying that this combination is legal. And they hinge on the words in domain wizard of "cannot also be a specialist wizard", whereas EGW replaces the ability to specialize.

Fact is, as I have shown from the bolded text, that DW is still specializing, but in a domain instead of a school of magic. The EGW traded away his ability to specialize in a school of magic class feature in favor of the ACF. DW is using a variant form of that same class feature. One that an EGW no longer has. If you do not have "ability to specialize in a school of magic" as a class feature, you are not eligible for a VARIANT of that class feature.

To wit: A Barbarian who is using the Spiritual Totem (Lion) ACF from Complete Champion has traded away his Fast Movement class feature at level 1. Said character CANNOT also take the Lion Totem variant in Unearthed Arcana, which trades away fast movement, uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features, because he no longer has fast movement as a class feature to give up. But he COULD take the Horse totem from Unearthed Arcana, which trades away uncanny dodge, trap sense, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features. That Horse/Lion barbarian could still take the level 7 ACF from Complete Champion, because that trades away Damage Reduction, but could not take the level 5 ACF in Complete Champion, because he has already traded Improved Uncanny Dodge.

Make sense? Good. Moving on.

Step 1: Prepare your spells for the day. As an EGW/DW with an INT of 20, you have 5 L1 spell slots. At least 2 of which you must leave empty, in order to use the AC+VS combo.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Domain Wizard specifies that the bonus spell per day slot for DW "must be filled with the spell from that level of the domain spell list". Which means THAT slot may not be left empty. EGW says that the character "may also prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day". So THAT spell slot may not be left empty. This means that if the EGW/DW is trying to leave ALL her spell slots empty, then she only has 3. Because both of those bonus slots MUST be filled, by the RAW.

Step 2: Spend 2 L1 spells to get a L2 spell slot, and successive bonus spell slots (high INT, DW bonus slot, and EGW bonus slot, which "floats" to L2 because one can now cast L2 spells).

WHY IT FAILS: First of all, VS does not grant you a "spell slot" from burning the 2 L1 spells. You burn two L1 spells to CAST a L2 spell, which must be one that you "know" (more on that later)*. So once that L2 spell is cast, it is in effect and the EGW/DW only has L1 spell slots available.

Second, the assumption that a wizard HAS a L2 spell "known" hinges on the text of the DW which says that she "automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells as soon as she becomes able to cast it." HOWEVER, wizard spells "known" are different from sorcerer ones in that a wizard "knows" every spell in her spellbook (and/or has used Spell Mastery on). So does this new L2 spell just "appear" in her spellbook? The assumption for the trick is that as soon as she burns the 2 L1 spells to cast a L2 spell that it may be the L2 spell for her domain, because she now "knows" it. This also flies into the face about rules for the minimum caster level of a spell (PHB, page 171), which state that the minimum caster level for a spell is the lowest caster level that a character of that class may cast a spell (so for wizards a L2 spell has a minimum CL of 3, for sorcs it would be 4). This is also another argument point within itself, so I will address it in a spoiler block at the end. For now, though, let's use a Heightened L1 spell (thanks to Endarire for pointing this out). Since the Leapfrog Wizard is spontaneously casting this spell, it follows the rules for spontaneous spellcasting and metamagic, which means it takes a full-round action. It's still Caster Level 1, but is considered a 2nd level spell, so the DC is 12+INT mod.

Third, the PHB specifies on pages 7-8, that bonus spell slots from high INT for spell levels above 1 are NOT granted until the character is of an appropriate level to cast a spell of that level. They even use Mialee the wizard as the example, and specify that a wizard does not get a bonus L2 spell from high INT until wizard level 3. Not only is that explicit, but we can use the Bard, Ranger, and Paladin as further examples. They eventually get spells with a "0" under a given spell level instead of a "-". This allows them to get a bonus spell slot from a high stat at that level. But until the "-" becomes a "0" or a whole number, a character gets ZERO bonus spell slots for a high stat.

Fourth, a Domain Wizard, as per Unearthed Arcana "prepares and casts spells like a normal wizard." So a DW must rest for 8 hours to refresh her spell slots. At the culmination of that rest, she gets an additional slot of each spell level she can cast. Since she only HAS L1 spell slots, she only GETS a bonus L1 spell slot. Casting a L2 spell by burning 2 L1 slots does not somehow "refresh" the DW, so she gets no bonus L2 spell slot for her domain.

Fifth, an EGW, like mentioned before, may PREPARE one extra spell per day of her highest level spell. Well, she already HAS her bonus EGW spell prepared. There is no "floating" of the EGW's "bonus slot". Like the point for the DW, the EGW is still a wizard and must rest to regain spells. At the culmination of her rest, her highest spell level is L1, so she may prepare and extra L1 spell. There is no reason to assume that the CASTING of a L2 spell suddenly makes that EGW "bonus slot" (heavy sarcastic emphasis there) "float" up to L2. There are no rules to support this claim, and one cannot claim RAW that something is "true" just because of lack of text saying something is false. That way lies Munchkin Fallacy. No, EGW gets to PREPARE one extra spell per day, and that is it.

NOTE: All of this alone is enough to make the Leapfrog Wizard not work. As I said before, I will continue as if the DM ignored all of these RAW factors up until now, and allowed the "trick" to proceed. i will continue to debunk it.

Step 3: Spend two L2 slots to get a L3 slot, with bonus slots.

WHY IT FAILS: Honestly, this step is more of the same. The fact that EGW bonus spell must be "prepared"...the fact that it does not "float"...the fact that the PHB EXPLICITLY says you must be of a level to get normal slots for a spell level before you get bonus slots for high INT...etc.

Step 4: Wash-rinse-repeat the process until you have level 9 spells.

WHY IT FAILS: Ok, still assuming your DM allowed all the other shenanigans, this process would stop at 6th and 7th level spells. Why? Because an INT of 20 doesn't grant a bonus 6th level spell. Even allowing all the shenanigans of the "floating EGW spell slot", and granting the Leapfrog Wizard the bonus DW slot each time they leapfrog the spell levels, and granting the high-INT bonus slots...she now ONLY has the DW bonus slot and the the EGW bonus slot at 6th level. Which means that in order to use the AC+VS trick to cast a 7th level spell (or get a L7 spell slot, since we're hypothetically ignoring why THAT doesn't happen), she has now SPENT her EGW "bonus slot" for the day. Which means the ONLY bonus 7th level spell slot she would get is the one from Domain Wizard.

Now the section on Minimum Caster Level for spells:
I've heard arguments ranging from "that rule only applies to scrolls" to people actually claiming it only applies to the Fireball spell, which is used as the example. Both of those arguments are bull.

FROM THE PLAYER'S HANDBOOK, page 171:
"You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the
caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell
in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the
same caster level. For example, at 10th level, Mialee can cast a fireball
to a range of 800 feet for 10d6 points of damage. If she wishes, she
can cast a fireball that deals less damage by casting the spell at a lower
caster level, but she must reduce the range according to the selected
caster level, and she can’t cast fireball with a caster level lower than
5th (the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball)."

From the SRD:
"You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level."
Bold added for emphasis, underline for more emphasis. Also added bold to the words "for example", for the people who insist on the ridiculous claim that this rule only applies to the spell Fireball.

So, the minimum caster level in question varies from character to character, based on the class that allows them to cast that spell.

So a Monk 13/Ur-Priest 7 has a minimum caster level for 3rd level spells of 3.
A Wizard 13/Ur-Priest 7, even though he has a MAXIMUM (default) caster level of 13 for his divine spells (half Wiz CL, rounded down+Ur-Priest levels), may cast 3rd level divine spells with a minimum caster level of 3, because 3 is the lowest caster level that an Ur-Priest may cast 3rd level divine spells.

The reason this rule is also mentioned in scrolls is because it affects the price-point of scrolls. An NPC scroll creator/vendor who is a Sorceror with Scribe Scroll will have slightly different prices than what is mentioned in the DMG for the scrolls he makes. But the listed prices for scrolls based on Spell Level in the DMG assumes that the person making the scrolls was the class with the lowest caster level possible (except Flame Strike, which, oddly, is not listed as a 4th level spell, even though it's 4th level for druids).
Note the spell Glibness. It is a 3rd level spell, but the price point for the scroll is 525, instead of 375, like most other 3rd level spells. That is because the spell is ONLY a Bard spell, and minimum CL for L3 Bard spells is 7, while the other spells, which appear on the Wizard spell list, have a minimum CL of 5 for the scroll. The math for a scroll's price (assuming no expensive material component) is 25gpxSpell LevelxCaster Level. If you doubt what I am saying, go check the math for yourself.

CONCLUSION: The "trick" to get 9th level spells as a 1st level Wizard does not work.

HOWEVER, the lesson we have learned from this is not worthless, even with a fully-RAW view of things. You just don't need Elven Generalist Wizard. Or Domain Wizard, for that matter. You just need Alacritous Cogitation, Versatile Spellcaster, and Heighten Spell.
You still need to leave 2 slots empty when you prepare spells in order to cast a "higher level spell". BUT, if you have Heighten Spell and use it on another spell you know, you can cast THAT spell as a higher-level spell. Let's say your 3rd level wizard burns 2 L2 slots to cast a Heightened Melf's Acid Arrow. It will just raise the DC, and your caster level won't change, but...
You ARGUABLY meet Feat/Prestige Class requirements of "able to cast level x spells". Because a Heightened Melf's Acid Arrow cast from a 3rd level slot is as level 3 spell. You're not violating the Caster Level/Spell Level rules because your caster level is still low enough to cast MAA, even though the Heightened MAA now counts as a 3rd level spell. You still don't meet prereqs of "able to prepare and cast x level spells", but you DO meet "able to SPONTANEOUSLY cast x level spells" requirements.
That's still kind of cheesy, and expect most DMs to disallow it. But TECHNICALLY it's RAW.

[Name1]

You're not violating the Caster Level/Spell Level rules because your caster level is still low enough to cast MAA, even though the Heightened MAA now counts as a 3rd level spell.

I don't get this: Why does it matter if you can cast MMA? You still can't cast 3rd level spells, so the Heightened MMA could still not be cast, since it is a 3rd level spell.

[eggynack]

I'ma just address a few main claims, and leave the rest to folks more knowledgeable about this combo.


Do note, however, that because VS requires the spontaneous casting of spells, only spell slots that are left empty during spell preparation (as per AC) can be "sacrificed" to cast a higher level spell.
Untrue. Spontaneity is only a prerequisite, and not a requirement on the spells you give up. The spells lost can be any spells, not just ones that happen to be spontaneous.

Fact is, as I have shown from the bolded text, that DW is still specializing, but in a domain instead of a school of magic. The EGW traded away his ability to specialize in a school of magic class feature in favor of the ACF. DW is using a variant form of that same class feature. One that an EGW no longer has. If you do not have "ability to specialize in a school of magic" as a class feature, you are not eligible for a VARIANT of that class feature.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the domain wizard is still specializing in a sense, but doing so doesn't involve trading. The only requirement to taking domain wizard is that you haven't specialized, and you haven't. You are still getting the versatility offered by specialization. That that wasn't an option to you anyway is irrelevant.


To wit: A Barbarian who is using the Spiritual Totem (Lion) ACF from Complete Champion has traded away his Fast Movement class feature at level 1. Said character CANNOT also take the Lion Totem variant in Unearthed Arcana, which trades away fast movement, uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features, because he no longer has fast movement as a class feature to give up. But he COULD take the Horse totem from Unearthed Arcana, which trades away uncanny dodge, trap sense, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features. That Horse/Lion barbarian could still take the level 7 ACF from Complete Champion, because that trades away Damage Reduction, but could not take the level 5 ACF in Complete Champion, because he has already traded Improved Uncanny Dodge.
The difference here is that both of those ACF's involve trades. Domain wizard doesn't have one.



Step 1: Prepare your spells for the day. As an EGW/DW with an INT of 20, you have 5 L1 spell slots. At least 2 of which you must leave empty, in order to use the AC+VS combo.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Domain Wizard specifies that the bonus spell per day slot for DW "must be filled with the spell from that level of the domain spell list". Which means THAT slot may not be left empty. EGW says that the character "may also prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day". So THAT spell slot may not be left empty. This means that if the EGW/DW is trying to leave ALL her spell slots empty, then she only has 3. Because both of those bonus slots MUST be filled, by the RAW.
As per my above note, this is not an issue. Leaving spells empty is irrelevant.


Second, the assumption that a wizard HAS a L2 spell "known" hinges on the text of the DW which says that she "automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells as soon as she becomes able to cast it." HOWEVER, wizard spells "known" are different from sorcerer ones in that a wizard "knows" every spell in her spellbook (and/or has used Spell Mastery on). So does this new L2 spell just "appear" in her spellbook?
Not necessarily. The spellbook is the primary way that a wizard knows a given spell. New things are allowed to add to that set that constitutes wizard spell knowledge, however. This is one of those things. You know this new spell in spite of it not being in your book. It's not like the domain wizard was built for non-wizards. This spontaneous added spell knowledge is a part of the system.

[RedMage125]

I'ma just address a few main claims, and leave the rest to folks more knowledgeable about this combo.


Untrue. Spontaneity is only a prerequisite, and not a requirement on the spells you give up. The spells lost can be any spells, not just ones that happen to be spontaneous.
No, because once you prepare a spell in that slot it is a "prepared spell" and not just a "spell slot". You must expend 2 "spell slots". Spontaneous casters have "spells known" and "spell slots" from which to cast them. And as the feat REQUIRES spontaneous casting, they MUST be spontaneous cast-able "spell slots".

Don't believe me? Check out PHB pages 177-178. They very clearly use language about "spell slots" and "prepared spells".

Thus, in order to even BE a "spell slot" there must be no prepared spell in that slot.


Yes, the domain wizard is still specializing in a sense, but doing so doesn't involve trading. The only requirement to taking domain wizard is that you haven't specialized, and you haven't. You are still getting the versatility offered by specialization. That that wasn't an option to you anyway is irrelevant.

The difference here is that both of those ACF's involve trades. Domain wizard doesn't have one.
You can't use a Variant Class Feature for a Class Feature you do not have. Everyone who tries to push for this is so focused on the words "you cannot also be a specialist wizard" that they choose to ignore "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school". Which is part of the same freaking sentence. They do this intentionally so they can get what they want.

Ignoring text so you can get your way does not make your way RAW compliant.



Not necessarily. The spellbook is the primary way that a wizard knows a given spell. New things are allowed to add to that set that constitutes wizard spell knowledge, however. This is one of those things. You know this new spell in spite of it not being in your book. It's not like the domain wizard was built for non-wizards. This spontaneous added spell knowledge is a part of the system.
Prove, with RAW, what you are claiming. Because RIGHT AFTER it says you "know the spell as soon as you are able to cast spells of that level" it specifies that the domain spell does NOT count as one of the 2 known per wizard level (both of which go in your spellbook). It's literally the next sentence. The domain spell is supposed to go in your spellbook.

Furthermore, you STILL can't cast a 2nd level spell at level 1 because you don't meet Caster Level Requirements.

I'll concede that if someone also had Precocious Apprentice (which offers a Specific exception to the General Rule about casting spells of 2nd level below minimum caster level), they could burn 2 L1 spell slots to cast that L2 spell, but that's about it.

[AnachroNinja]

I think there are points to be made in both directions. I do agree with the prepared spell vs spell slot thing though. The magic item set in the MIC that all let you sacrifice a slot to cast fireball/teleport/whatever all use the specific language "you can sacrifice a prepared spell or a spell slot" which at least indicates they are different.

That said, you are wrong about the EGW and Domain Wizard thing. A key rule is that you apply effects in the order most beneficial to you. When you apply EGW, you are not specialized and so it is valid. When you apply domain wizard it prevents you from specializing normally. It does not cause you to be a specialist wizard, so you are still a valid target for both ACFs.

I find it hilarious that you seriously spent so much time trying, quite clearly desperately, to prove this doesn't work. Not only that but you definitely over stated your case in several areas in your rush to prove it so very wrong. Not sure why it seems to be such a personal issue for you.

[Doc_Maynot]

Using an excerpt from the D&D Glossary to bring in some potentially clarifying information.



spell slot
The "space" in a spellcaster's mind dedicated to holding a spell of a particular spell level. A spellcaster has enough spell slots to accommodate an entire day's allotment of spells. Spellcasters who must prepare their spells in advance generally fill their spell slots during the preparation period, though a few slots can be left open for spells prepared later in the day. A spellcaster can always opt to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell, if desired.

Source: PHB

[eggynack]

No, because once you prepare a spell in that slot it is a "prepared spell" and not just a "spell slot". You must expend 2 "spell slots". Spontaneous casters have "spells known" and "spell slots" from which to cast them. And as the feat REQUIRES spontaneous casting, they MUST be spontaneous cast-able "spell slots".

Don't believe me? Check out PHB pages 177-178. They very clearly use language about "spell slots" and "prepared spells".

Thus, in order to even BE a "spell slot" there must be no prepared spell in that slot.
Where in your cited text does it say that a spell slot with a spell in it is no longer a spell slot? You're filling the spell slot with a prepared spell, but that doesn't strictly imply that a filled slot is not a slot.


You can't use a Variant Class Feature for a Class Feature you do not have. Everyone who tries to push for this is so focused on the words "you cannot also be a specialist wizard" that they choose to ignore "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school". Which is part of the same freaking sentence. They do this intentionally so they can get what they want.

Ignoring text so you can get your way does not make your way RAW compliant.

It's not a variant class feature. It's a variant class. You are a domain wizard, as opposed to a normal wizard. You are still specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, so that text isn't being ignored at all. It doesn't matter if that's actually an option for you, because you're still choosing one, the one you can choose, over the other, the one you can't. And, more specifically on that point, the text you keep pointing to does not strictly imply a trade. Or imply a trade at all. Domain wizard is rather unique in this, in that it specifically does not indicate this sort of trade. Said uniqueness means that there doesn't really exist parity between this ACF and others.


Prove, with RAW, what you are claiming.
Sure? "A domain wizard automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells." So, they're on your list of known spells. This is all pretty direct. You can ask the exact way they're in your known spells, but no matter how you work it, these spells are explicitly known spells.

[Quertus]

And I challenge the caster level bit.

Spell slots are tied to class level, not caster level.

Items that boost caster level do not add slots.

Temporary negative levels ("energy drain"?) explicitly do remove spell slots, but not in a way consistent with interpreting the quoted rules as requiring minimum caster levels to cast spells.

The quoted rules seem best interpreted as, "casters may not voluntarily lower their caster level below the minimum class level at which they receive slots with which to cast the spell".

[DarkSoul]

The quoted rules seem best interpreted as, "casters may not voluntarily lower their caster level below the minimum class level at which they receive slots with which to cast the spell".Agreed, with an addition of "even if they receive 0 slots." This accounts for things like Ur-Priest 9 and 9th level spells.

I think a quick and dirty solution is to say that EGW only checks for whether the floating slot moves whenever you gain a level that advances your wizard casting. That gets rid of the "spell slot level changes from day to day or round to round" nonsense. That's my interpretation anyway.

[RedMage125]

And I challenge the caster level bit.

Spell slots are tied to class level, not caster level.
Caster Level is ALSO tied to class level. Shock.


Items that boost caster level do not add slots.

Temporary negative levels ("energy drain"?) explicitly do remove spell slots, but not in a way consistent with interpreting the quoted rules as requiring minimum caster levels to cast spells.
Actually they do. If a level 6 wizard has 3 L3 spells prepared, and gets hit with 2 negative levels, she loses 2 of her prepared L3 spells. But she can no longer CAST the other one, because her CL is too low to cast L3 spells. This is no different than the rules for intentionally lowering one's caster level. The difference is, once the cleric hits her with Restoration, she can cast that other L3 spell. The two that she lost are gone for the day.


The quoted rules seem best interpreted as, "casters may not voluntarily lower their caster level below the minimum class level at which they receive slots with which to cast the spell".
Your "interpretation" aside, the RAW are actually quite clear that you CANNOT cast a spell with a lower CL than the minimum for YOUR CLASS to cast that spell. So Wizards with CL below 3 cannot cast L2 or higher spells.

Precocious Apprentice is a very specific exception to this rule, spelled out in that feat description.


Where in your cited text does it say that a spell slot with a spell in it is no longer a spell slot? You're filling the spell slot with a prepared spell, but that doesn't strictly imply that a filled slot is not a slot.
I went through the PHB on Wizards and spells. Re-read pages 177-178 of the PHB and get back to me. At NO point do they ever refer to wizard "spell slots" as anything but the empty ones.

Also, as mentioned, there are magic items that allow the user to expend "a prepared spell OR a spell slot".




It's not a variant class feature. It's a variant class. You are a domain wizard, as opposed to a normal wizard.
Just a note here, this undercuts your idea that they can be used together, as the ACF is for Elf Wizard, not Elf Domain Wizard.



You are still specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, so that text isn't being ignored at all. It doesn't matter if that's actually an option for you, because you're still choosing one, the one you can choose, over the other, the one you can't. And, more specifically on that point, the text you keep pointing to does not strictly imply a trade. Or imply a trade at all. Domain wizard is rather unique in this, in that it specifically does not indicate this sort of trade. Said uniqueness means that there doesn't really exist parity between this ACF and others.
Spoken like every other min-maxer who wants to get the rules to say what benefits himself.

I bolded your words there, because if you do not have the class feature "ability to specialize in a school", then how can you take an option that is explicitly an additional choice of specialization?

If your Class features are A, B, and C. You take a substitution level that trades B for X. And you also want to take an option that says "you can use this option to do R instead of B, but you can't do B and R together, they are mutually exclusive". You no longer have "B" as a class feature, so you cannot take the other option. You don't get A, X, C and R. You can have A,B,C or A,X,C, or A,R,C. You people only want to see "can't have B and R together" and think "I have X instead of B, so I can also have R". No. That's willfully ignorant, selfish and greedy. And it's not in keeping with the RAW.



Sure? "A domain wizard automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells." So, they're on your list of known spells. This is all pretty direct. You can ask the exact way they're in your known spells, but no matter how you work it, these spells are explicitly known spells.
That's just repeating the same garbage, doing no work, finding no RAW support.

Prove that a wizard has "spells known" that are not in his spellbook, or taken with the feat Spell Mastery.

You can run through every RAW book, but you won't find it.

And it's moot, anyway, because EVEN IF you were right, a wizard can't cast a L2 spell with a CL of 1.


I think there are points to be made in both directions. I do agree with the prepared spell vs spell slot thing though. The magic item set in the MIC that all let you sacrifice a slot to cast fireball/teleport/whatever all use the specific language "you can sacrifice a prepared spell or a spell slot" which at least indicates they are different.

That said, you are wrong about the EGW and Domain Wizard thing. A key rule is that you apply effects in the order most beneficial to you. When you apply EGW, you are not specialized and so it is valid. When you apply domain wizard it prevents you from specializing normally. It does not cause you to be a specialist wizard, so you are still a valid target for both ACFs.

I find it hilarious that you seriously spent so much time trying, quite clearly desperately, to prove this doesn't work. Not only that but you definitely over stated your case in several areas in your rush to prove it so very wrong. Not sure why it seems to be such a personal issue for you.
It's really because the very first time I heard of this years ago, I looked at the books and immediately saw about 5 different reasons why it doesn't work.

It has nothing to do with the combination of EGW and DW anyway. That's a side argument, which is why it was spoiler blocked.

The main thing...the "leapfrogging" of spell levels, does not work. No matter what way you twist it, the bonus spell per day from EGW does not "float". It is an extra spell that may be PREPARED each day. And at the time a level 1 wizard PREPARES her spells, the EGW bonus one would have to be L1. VS does not grant "a L2 slot", it lets the wizard CAST a L2 spell (or, more correctly by RAW, a Heightened L1 spell). The Leapfrog Wizard fails to follow RAW, and is thus invalid.

That is the main point. If people wish to continue debating only the EGW+DW thing, they can start their own thread.

[Name1]

VS does not grant "a L2 slot", it lets the wizard CAST a L2 spell (or, more correctly by RAW, a Heightened L1 spell).

Again, why is the fact that it's a heightened spell so important? Why are they exempt from the CL-rule?

[AnachroNinja]

Don't try to point out the "many" reasons something doesn't work, and then when people dispute specific ones claim that those ones you listed weren't the point of the thread. If you didn't want that discussed, you shouldn't have typed anything about it, spoiler or no.

Again, I'm in agreement that aspects of this concept probably do not work. But your arguing utter nonsense half the time. No one is claiming that versatile spellcaster gives them a slot, so there's no reason for you to be vehemently denying that it does. No one thinks it does. It does make you able to cast a second level spell, which does by a very strict reading grant you a domain spell slot and an extra slot for EGW. And yes I saw your argument about how you can't sacrifice those spell slots because they disappear after you finish casting whatever you used versatile spell caster for. That's also wrong.

Let's break this down. If I can cast spells of a given level, I immediately know my domain spell, gain a domain slot, and then gain an extra spell slot due to EGW. Once I have them, they become self supporting. Because I have a 2nd level slot from EGW, I can cast second level spells so I keep my domain slot. Because I have a domain slot, I can cast second level spells and so retain my EGW bonus slot. It's circular, but valid. I gained them both simultaneously, and each one qualifies me for the other. The same thing occurs when I sacrifice those slots for a third level spell. That aspect of this works flawlessly.

[DarkSoul]

Again, why is the fact that it's a heightened spell so important? Why are they exempt from the CL-rule?

It's not that they're exempt, it's because you heighten a level 1 spell you already know, thus getting around the problem with domain wizard spells or having to figure out how a level 1 wizard knows a second level spell. Granted, a mastered spellbook and a good spellcraft check sidesteps the problem rather neatly, but heighten does it with minimal extra equipment. Also, Versatile Spellcaster creates a specific exception to the CL rule in the same way that Precocious Apprentice does.

[eggynack]

.
I went through the PHB on Wizards and spells. Re-read pages 177-178 of the PHB and get back to me. At NO point do they ever refer to wizard "spell slots" as anything but the empty ones.

Also, as mentioned, there are magic items that allow the user to expend "a prepared spell OR a spell slot".
The glossary, as was noted, does indicate that a spell slot is something that can be filled. There is no implication anywhere that a spell slot filled discontinues its spell slot nature.



Just a note here, this undercuts your idea that they can be used together, as the ACF is for Elf Wizard, not Elf Domain Wizard.
Eh, you're still a wizard. It's not a different class.


Spoken like every other min-maxer who wants to get the rules to say what benefits himself.
There's no reason to make this stuff personal. Either it works or it doesn't.


I bolded your words there, because if you do not have the class feature "ability to specialize in a school", then how can you take an option that is explicitly an additional choice of specialization?
Because it's not modifying your specialization. It's granting a wholly new form of specialization.


If your Class features are A, B, and C. You take a substitution level that trades B for X. And you also want to take an option that says "you can use this option to do R instead of B, but you can't do B and R together, they are mutually exclusive". You no longer have "B" as a class feature, so you cannot take the other option. You don't get A, X, C and R. You can have A,B,C or A,X,C, or A,R,C. You people only want to see "can't have B and R together" and think "I have X instead of B, so I can also have R". No. That's willfully ignorant, selfish and greedy. And it's not in keeping with the RAW.

I disagree, obviously. None of this is an actual argument. It's just obfuscating the issue with letters.


That's just repeating the same garbage, doing no work, finding no RAW support.
The book says you get this as a spell known. That's the highest possible RAW support that exists. It's an absolute and explicit mention. I don't need anything else.


Prove that a wizard has "spells known" that are not in his spellbook, or taken with the feat Spell Mastery.
Again, sure. It's right in that text. Whether any spells known exist outside of the spellbook, spell mastery, or domain wizard is irrelevant, because it's explicitly granted by those three things. And, y'know, whatever else grants it, cause I don't want to arbitrarily exclude obscure stuff.


You can run through every RAW book, but you won't find it.
Oh, hey, look, I just did. In domain wizard. It could be literally the only other source of spells known, and it'd still be such a source.


And it's moot, anyway, because EVEN IF you were right, a wizard can't cast a L2 spell with a CL of 1.
Maybe, or maybe not. Honestly, it seems like the caster level thing is the only plausibly correct element of your argument, and it's one that's been made by Tippy for awhile. It feels like a lot like you're packaging a decent rules argument in a bunch of weird and inaccurate claims.

[Troacctid]

Eh, you're still a wizard. It's not a different class.
It may be. Unearthed Arcana is wishy-washy on whether variant classes count as the same class as the normal version, and even suggests that you may be able to multiclass between them.

For variants that are wholly separate from the character class—such as the bardic sage or the urban ranger—multiclassing, even into multiple variants of the same class, is probably okay. Identical class features should stack if gained from multiple versions of the same class (except for spellcasting, which is always separate).

[eggynack]

It may be. Unearthed Arcana is wishy-washy on whether variant classes count as the same class as the normal version, and even suggests that you may be able to multiclass between them.
Yeah, but it's really similar. You're not altering any class features, or casting, or really much of anything besides this one element. Moreover, my point was that, even if you're not the same class, you're still a wizard, and you're still taking a level in wizard.

Anyway, it doesn't matter all that much. You're not taking domain wizard and then elven generalist. That doesn't work. Domain wizard says you have zero normal specialization ability, and elven generalist demands you have the specialization ability to trade away. If you go that direction, then it fails however you read it. The order of operations here is elven generalist and then domain wizard. Thus, you pick up this generalist wizardry ability, and then some modification happens through domain wizard, either to your class or specifically to your specialization, but it doesn't matter because the generalist wizardry is already yours.

[animewatcha]

I've always taken one of them as "I can't be an evoker" and the other as being "I can't be a force missile mage."

[TheifofZ]

An important thing to note here that's getting bypassed by LITERALLY EVERYONE is the note that a Wizard may fill any empty spell slot with any spell he knows from his spellbook at any time, so long as the Wizard spends 15 minutes (Or less with the right cheese) in meditation, as if the wizard were preparing his spells for the day.

Long and short of it: Wizards can never instantly prepare a spell they know without a boatload of cheese to reduce meditation time.
Even using Spell Mastery to always have the ability to prepare the spell, the spell is not instantly prepared. You, the wizard, must sit down and spend a period of time translating the formula of the spell into the prepared energy of the spell.
It's the same with Domain Wizard; you know the spell. That does not instantly give you the spell prepared as soon as a spell slot opens up.

If, at any time, a wizard has open slots and wishes to fill them, he must meditate to do so.

It's basically saying 'hey, so you can leave slots open so you can be flexible with your spells over the day, but you still have to sit down and prepare them beforehand. You just can find out what you need first.'

[DarkSoul]

An important thing to note here that's getting bypassed by LITERALLY EVERYONE is the note that a Wizard may fill any empty spell slot with any spell he knows from his spellbook at any time, so long as the Wizard spends 15 minutes (Or less with the right cheese) in meditation, as if the wizard were preparing his spells for the day.

Long and short of it: Wizards can never instantly prepare a spell they know without a boatload of cheese to reduce meditation time.
Even using Spell Mastery to always have the ability to prepare the spell, the spell is not instantly prepared. You, the wizard, must sit down and spend a period of time translating the formula of the spell into the prepared energy of the spell.
It's the same with Domain Wizard; you know the spell. That does not instantly give you the spell prepared as soon as a spell slot opens up.

If, at any time, a wizard has open slots and wishes to fill them, he must meditate to do so.

It's basically saying 'hey, so you can leave slots open so you can be flexible with your spells over the day, but you still have to sit down and prepare them beforehand. You just can find out what you need first.'This has no effect at all on the process; that's why no one's mentioning it. A wizard could prepare 0 spells for the day and do this, assuming it worked in the first place. It's all spontaneous casting of spells the wizard knows.

[RedMage125]

Again, why is the fact that it's a heightened spell so important? Why are they exempt from the CL-rule?
It's important because they are NOT exempt from the CL-rule.


Don't try to point out the "many" reasons something doesn't work, and then when people dispute specific ones claim that those ones you listed weren't the point of the thread. If you didn't want that discussed, you shouldn't have typed anything about it, spoiler or no.
The "leapfrogging" trick doesn't work even if EGW+DW is allowed, which is why it was a side argument. Proving that the two cannot be used together is tangential to the point of the thread.


Again, I'm in agreement that aspects of this concept probably do not work. But your arguing utter nonsense half the time. No one is claiming that versatile spellcaster gives them a slot, so there's no reason for you to be vehemently denying that it does. No one thinks it does.
Some people DO argue for that, actually. Which is why I pointed that out.


It does make you able to cast a second level spell, which does by a very strict reading grant you a domain spell slot and an extra slot for EGW.
No and no.
By no reading you get a domain slot. The idea of that is antithetical to "A domain wizard prepares and casts spells like a normal wizard" from the RAW
And...since the distinction between "spell slot" and "prepared spell" has been brought up, why don't you re-read EGW again for yourself. EGW may PREPARE an extra spell. Nothing ever calls it a "spell slot", and there is NOTHING in the RAW that directly states or implies that the slot would somehow "float" throughout the day.


And yes I saw your argument about how you can't sacrifice those spell slots because they disappear after you finish casting whatever you used versatile spell caster for. That's also wrong.
You think you can expend spell slots and then...not have them be expended?


Let's break this down. If I can cast spells of a given level, I immediately know my domain spell, gain a domain slot, and then gain an extra spell slot due to EGW.
Incorrect on so many levels.
First of all, the closest thing you have to a coherent argument is that you "know your domain spell", because of the way DW words that particular feature. Your next step...where you think you get a bonus slot...you're going off books. The sentence that mentions the DW's bonus slot comes after "prepares and casts spells like a normal wizard". Normal wizards are ineligible for any kind of bonus slot, whether from high INT or school specialization, until their class level is high enough. You know, because of what the rules say.
Player's Handbook, page 7:
"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. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.) For instance, the wizard Mialee has an Intelligence score of 15, so she’s smart enough to get one bonus 1st level spell and one bonus 2nd-level spell. (She will not actually get the 2nd-level spell until she is 3rd level wizard, since that’s the minimum level a wizard must be to cast 2nd-level spells.)"

Twice in one paragraph. So you may KNOW your domain spell, but cannot cast it, even when you use AC+VS combo, because you don't have kind of special exemption from the rules saying that a level 1 character can't cast a L2 spell.
And the EGW bonus spell is one that must be PREPARED. At the time of your spell preparation, you only had L1 spells, so you can prepare that EGW spell as a L1 spell.


Once I have them, they become self supporting. Because I have a 2nd level slot from EGW, I can cast second level spells so I keep my domain slot. Because I have a domain slot, I can cast second level spells and so retain my EGW bonus slot. It's circular, but valid. I gained them both simultaneously, and each one qualifies me for the other. The same thing occurs when I sacrifice those slots for a third level spell. That aspect of this works flawlessly.
You have no RAW proof for any of this. It's completely circular. It has no foundation. The "starting point" of your argument hinges on points in the middle that depend, in turn, on that starting point.
And all of it based on flawed reasoning. You don't get a "bonus slot" from EGW. I've been over this point so many times.


An important thing to note here that's getting bypassed by LITERALLY EVERYONE is the note that a Wizard may fill any empty spell slot with any spell he knows from his spellbook at any time, so long as the Wizard spends 15 minutes (Or less with the right cheese) in meditation, as if the wizard were preparing his spells for the day.

Long and short of it: Wizards can never instantly prepare a spell they know without a boatload of cheese to reduce meditation time.
Even using Spell Mastery to always have the ability to prepare the spell, the spell is not instantly prepared. You, the wizard, must sit down and spend a period of time translating the formula of the spell into the prepared energy of the spell.
It's the same with Domain Wizard; you know the spell. That does not instantly give you the spell prepared as soon as a spell slot opens up.

If, at any time, a wizard has open slots and wishes to fill them, he must meditate to do so.

It's basically saying 'hey, so you can leave slots open so you can be flexible with your spells over the day, but you still have to sit down and prepare them beforehand. You just can find out what you need first.'
Ummm...you may want to follow the link for the Alacritous Cogitation spell. It's in the OP.

The glossary, as was noted, does indicate that a spell slot is something that can be filled. There is no implication anywhere that a spell slot filled discontinues its spell slot nature.
There's also no indication, from anywhere in the RAW, that you can, with VS, expend a "prepared spell" in the place of a "spell slot". Because that's what you're claiming.



There's no reason to make this stuff personal. Either it works or it doesn't.

Because it's not modifying your specialization. It's granting a wholly new form of specialization.
Unearthed Arcana is full of VARIANTS. Each Class VARIANT exchanges something from the core class' features for some new variation on it.


I disagree, obviously. None of this is an actual argument. It's just obfuscating the issue with letters.
I was trying to make it MORE clear, actually.


The book says you get this as a spell known. That's the highest possible RAW support that exists. It's an absolute and explicit mention. I don't need anything else.

Again, sure. It's right in that text. Whether any spells known exist outside of the spellbook, spell mastery, or domain wizard is irrelevant, because it's explicitly granted by those three things. And, y'know, whatever else grants it, cause I don't want to arbitrarily exclude obscure stuff.

Oh, hey, look, I just did. In domain wizard. It could be literally the only other source of spells known, and it'd still be such a source.
Saying "the only proof for my claim is the one sentence that makes me think it's true to begin with" is not support.
You could support this claim if you could find something for the core wizard, which is what I was asking, since domain wizards "prepare and cast spells like a normal wizard".

PROVE, with RAW support, that a wizard can have a "spell known" that is not in her spellbook or taken with the Spell Mastery feat.

I'll wait.


Maybe, or maybe not. Honestly, it seems like the caster level thing is the only plausibly correct element of your argument, and it's one that's been made by Tippy for awhile. It feels like a lot like you're packaging a decent rules argument in a bunch of weird and inaccurate claims.
LOL.
That's the only thing you see as correct? So you're willing to buy into all the other garbage nonsense about "floating spell slots" that suddenly appear in the middle of the day, despite no RAW support, which in fact flies in the face of RAW regarding how wizards refresh slots, and all text regarding the EGW's bonus prepared spell, and everything else that is just Munchkin Fallacy after Munchkin Fallacy?

[EdRed]

Is OP a troll or actually serious about discussing in this ...odd manner?
Why take the bait when he obviously will not budge on a single letter he wrote regardless of what proof you produce.

[RedMage125]

Is OP a troll or actually serious about discussing in this ...odd manner?
Why take the bait when he obviously will not budge on a single letter he wrote regardless of what proof you produce.

I'm actually serious. There are a lot of people who seem to think this "trick" is, in any way, supported by RAW.

Those that claim such are deliberately ignoring the way a lot of the rules actually work, equating "prepares an extra spell each day" with "gets an extra spell slot", and generally making a lot of assumptions that the rules work in a certain way that the text does not support.

To assume that something IS permissible due to the absence of text explicitly saying it is NOT is Munchkin Fallacy.

And I started the thread because the topic came up again recently in another thread.

And I would welcome any counter-points that were actually supported by text from the RAW that doesn't require flat-out IGNORING the rest of the text. It's not "bait", it's an open invitation to actually produce PROOF that disproves what I've said.

[Name1]

It's not that they're exempt, it's because you heighten a level 1 spell you already know, thus getting around the problem with domain wizard spells or having to figure out how a level 1 wizard knows a second level spell. Granted, a mastered spellbook and a good spellcraft check sidesteps the problem rather neatly, but heighten does it with minimal extra equipment. Also, Versatile Spellcaster creates a specific exception to the CL rule in the same way that Precocious Apprentice does.

Oh ok, now I get it. Thanks for clearing that up for me :D

[bean illus]

Let's break this down. If I can cast spells of a given level, I immediately know my domain spell, gain a domain slot, and then gain an extra spell slot due to EGW. Once I have them, they become self supporting. Because I have a 2nd level slot from EGW, I can cast second level spells so I keep my domain slot. Because I have a domain slot, I can cast second level spells and so retain my EGW bonus slot. It's circular, but valid. I gained them both simultaneously, and each one qualifies me for the other. The same thing occurs when I sacrifice those slots for a third level spell. That aspect of this works flawlessly.
Not in Microsoft Excel. The spreadsheet would alert you that your lack of logic was impossible to reconcile, and refuse to calculate further equations extrapolated from the result in question.

[Quertus]

Not in Microsoft Excel. The spreadsheet would alert you that your lack of logic was impossible to reconcile, and refuse to calculate further equations extrapolated from the result in question.

I really don't see the point of this being 2 threads...

As I said in the original thread, to paraphrase, if you write your excel spreadsheet to accept "has 2 slots available of level x" to qualify you for "can cast spells of level x+1", and you write your floating slot s.t. it can count as one of those two slots, and you write your level y domain bonus spell to trigger as soon as you "can cast" a spell of level y, then your sheet should auto populate to infinity and beyond (and the domain spell will, by itself, continue to qualify for itself, once the alternate mechanic has subsidies it in the first place).

Unlike the op, I contend that "can cast" is very poorly defined reserve words, that mean something like, "has, through class levels / class features, access to 0 or more slots of the given level".

[eggynack]

There's also no indication, from anywhere in the RAW, that you can, with VS, expend a "prepared spell" in the place of a "spell slot". Because that's what you're claiming.
If the spell slot doesn't vanish, then you're still expending the spell slot. The prepared spell happens to disappear at the same time, because it was in the slot, but the slot is the thing you're getting rid of.



Unearthed Arcana is full of VARIANTS. Each Class VARIANT exchanges something from the core class' features for some new variation on it.
The text in the class section of unearthed arcana does not indicate what you're saying here. It notes that there are a number of variant classes, with no indication of whether these variants will strictly involve some loss (and the word variant itself does not imply these either), and then there's a subset of those variants that trade one class feature for another, except those are strictly defined as trading a feature from one class for one of another class. And while the domain wizard is modeled after domains, the ability is not anything like a direct copy of that ability, and this variant does not come from that section of the chapter. So, no, there does not need to be an exchange. And there isn't necessarily one here.


I was trying to make it MORE clear, actually.
Didn't really work all that well. Especially because I already knew what your argument was. It didn't need clarity. It needed support.


Saying "the only proof for my claim is the one sentence that makes me think it's true to begin with" is not support.

You could support this claim if you could find something for the core wizard, which is what I was asking, since domain wizards "prepare and cast spells like a normal wizard".

PROVE, with RAW support, that a wizard can have a "spell known" that is not in her spellbook or taken with the Spell Mastery feat.

I'll wait.

The support given is the only support necessary. I'm not saying that non-spellbook spells are usually spells known, or even ever spells known without this. I'm saying that this gives you spells known, because it says it does. A thing saying it does something is the highest form of proof that exists for it doing that thing in a rule set. You may as well argue that "fly" doesn't actually let you fly, because no support for wizards typically flying exists in the core rules, and the only such support is in the spell itself (or you can use some non-core spell if you like). This is just how exception based rule systems work. Something always works one way, and then a thing lets you do them a different way.

I mean, you keep bringing up spell mastery, right? Well, does that let you have spells known without a spellbook? The only support for it doing so is coming from the feat itself, after all. The truth is that it doesn't really matter what mechanism exists here. Maybe the words do spontaneously appear in the book. I don't particularly care. The text says the spells become spells known as soon as you have the ability to cast them. You have the ability to cast them, so they're spells known. That's what the RAW is. There is no way around it. You keep trying to argue around that with some RAI argument about how it doesn't make sense for the spells to spontaneously appear, but that stuff doesn't matter. All that matters to RAW is what the text says, and the text says that you get these as spells known. You can figure out the mechanism on your own time.



LOL.
That's the only thing you see as correct? So you're willing to buy into all the other garbage nonsense about "floating spell slots" that suddenly appear in the middle of the day, despite no RAW support, which in fact flies in the face of RAW regarding how wizards refresh slots, and all text regarding the EGW's bonus prepared spell, and everything else that is just Munchkin Fallacy after Munchkin Fallacy?
Pretty much. The rest actually seems pretty well supported, including the floating spell slots. The ability explicitly says that you get to prepare a spell of your highest spell level each day. If you get the ability to prepare a higher spell level, and you don't yet have the slot, then in that moment you're not being granted the bonus spell slot of your highest spell level. You're only being granted one of your second highest spell level. Thus, the text absolutely dictates that said slot must be granted to you. If you somehow needed to refresh that slot, then you wouldn't have been given the ability to prepare that spell in that level in that day, going against the wording of the ability. So, yeah, that RAW claim holds up rather well, I think.

[RedMage125]

If the spell slot doesn't vanish, then you're still expending the spell slot. The prepared spell happens to disappear at the same time, because it was in the slot, but the slot is the thing you're getting rid of.
Lack of text saying "I cannot do this" =\= Text saying "I CAN do this"



The text in the class section of unearthed arcana does not indicate what you're saying here. It notes that there are a number of variant classes, with no indication of whether these variants will strictly involve some loss (and the word variant itself does not imply these either), and then there's a subset of those variants that trade one class feature for another, except those are strictly defined as trading a feature from one class for one of another class. And while the domain wizard is modeled after domains, the ability is not anything like a direct copy of that ability, and this variant does not come from that section of the chapter. So, no, there does not need to be an exchange. And there isn't necessarily one here.

Didn't really work all that well. Especially because I already knew what your argument was. It didn't need clarity. It needed support.
You mean like the phrase "specializing in a domain INSTEAD of an entire school"?

So you think it's MORE likely that of all the class variant in Unearthed Arcana, ONLY the one for Wizard was "not a tradeoff"? On top of that, you just IGNORE the text that says a DW is "specializing in a domain INSTEAD of an entire school"?
And you think the LESS likely scenario is that the DW, like every other variant in that book, was exchanging one class feature for an alternate variant, an idea which is supported by the line "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school"?
Especially because that's part of the same sentence as "cannot also be a specialist wizard", which is followed by a semicolon. English refresher for you here, but when a semicolon is used to connect two ideas in a sentence, it means both of them carry equal weight. Which means that, grammatically, "cannot also be a specialist" and "specializing in a domain INSTEAD of an entire school", both are equal in importance to that sentence.
I'm not trying to be condescending or sarcastic, but what does that say to you?
Because to me, it says that these two ideas, they are related. You cannot be a DW and a specialist because you have chosen to specialize in a domain instead. The word "instead" means "in the place of" "a substitute" or "an alternative".

So, once again, a wizard cannot take an ALTERNATIVE option for a class feature she DOES NOT HAVE.



The support given is the only support necessary. I'm not saying that non-spellbook spells are usually spells known, or even ever spells known without this. I'm saying that this gives you spells known, because it says it does. A thing saying it does something is the highest form of proof that exists for it doing that thing in a rule set. You may as well argue that "fly" doesn't actually let you fly, because no support for wizards typically flying exists in the core rules, and the only such support is in the spell itself (or you can use some non-core spell if you like). This is just how exception based rule systems work. Something always works one way, and then a thing lets you do them a different way.
Except that even the flimsy excuse being used to support that claim is only because the text is incomplete. The very next sentence is "These spells do not count against her two new spells known per wizard level." And THOSE spells go in a wizard's spellbook, right? So the domain spells, like EVERY OTHER SPELL that a wizard "knows", goes in her spellbook.

Also, the entire idea is rendered academic, because even by using AC+VS to sacrifice 2 L1 spell slots, she cannot CAST a L2 spell (PHB page 7 and again page 171). She can use the slot to cast a Heightened L1 spell, but Precocious Apprentice is the only specific exception to the general rule about minimum caster level and effective class level minimums for spells above L1. Since she cannot CAST a L2 spell, she doesn't trigger any kind "instant spell known" for her L2 domain spell.

The RAI for Versatile Spellcaster was for spontaneous casters to be able to use lower-level spell slots to power higher level spells once they ran out of high-level slots. For example, a Sorcerer 6 who runs out of 3rd level slots. He can use VS to burn two L2 slots to cast a L3 spell he KNOWS (see? Spells Known isn't ambiguous with spontaneous casters). That same Sorcerer 6 trying to burn two of his L3 spell slots to cast a L4 spell that he knows would be a waste, because he does not KNOW any L4 spells. Although I suppose he could Empower a L2 spell that way...



Pretty much. The rest actually seems pretty well supported, including the floating spell slots. The ability explicitly says that you get to prepare a spell of your highest spell level each day. If you get the ability to prepare a higher spell level, and you don't yet have the slot, then in that moment you're not being granted the bonus spell slot of your highest spell level. You're only being granted one of your second highest spell level. Thus, the text absolutely dictates that said slot must be granted to you. If you somehow needed to refresh that slot, then you wouldn't have been given the ability to prepare that spell in that level in that day, going against the wording of the ability. So, yeah, that RAW claim holds up rather well, I think.

Thank you.

[AnachroNinja]

I just want to try to bring logic to this point one last time. If your able to prepare an additional spell... What are you preparing it IN if not a spell slot?

[eggynack]

Lack of text saying "I cannot do this" =\= Text saying "I CAN do this"
That argument doesn't apply. Either the prepared spell is in a spell slot that exists, in which case it works, or the spell slot somehow disappears when you put a spell into it, in which case it presumably doesn't.



You mean like the phrase "specializing in a domain INSTEAD of an entire school"?
No. I mean something like, "A barbarian dedicated to the lion totem does not gain the standard fast movement, uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features." Something that implies it's an ability you're trading away, instead of just a possible option you're forgoing.


So you think it's MORE likely that of all the class variant in Unearthed Arcana, ONLY the one for Wizard was "not a tradeoff"? On top of that, you just IGNORE the text that says a DW is "specializing in a domain INSTEAD of an entire school"?
If the text says so, yes. I follow the text, not likelihoods. Also, arbitrary point, not all variants involve a trade. Zhentarim soldier, the first half-orc druid substitution level, and the wild shape hands ability of fangshields druid substitution levels don't, for example. They're all pure upside once you've met the prerequisites. You could claim lack of parity because the prerequisite is the trade off, but in the same sense I can and do claim that not specializing is itself a prerequisite. Not a hard prerequisite to meet in this case, obviously, but given the fact that fangshields is accessible through dragonborn anthropomorphic bats, it's not always a hardship hitting these marks.


And you think the LESS likely scenario is that the DW, like every other variant in that book, was exchanging one class feature for an alternate variant, an idea which is supported by the line "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school"?
That's not precisely what I was saying, but again, I go by text and not likelihood. What I was saying was that being in that chapter does not strictly connote an exchange as you implied. It doesn't connote an exchange at all, actually. You need to prove that an exchange is occurring in this specific case, not point to surrounding cases, because you lack a general rule.


Especially because that's part of the same sentence as "cannot also be a specialist wizard", which is followed by a semicolon. English refresher for you here, but when a semicolon is used to connect two ideas in a sentence, it means both of them carry equal weight. Which means that, grammatically, "cannot also be a specialist" and "specializing in a domain INSTEAD of an entire school", both are equal in importance to that sentence.
I'm not trying to be condescending or sarcastic, but what does that say to you?
Because to me, it says that these two ideas, they are related. You cannot be a DW and a specialist because you have chosen to specialize in a domain instead. The word "instead" means "in the place of" "a substitute" or "an alternative".

So, once again, a wizard cannot take an ALTERNATIVE option for a class feature she DOES NOT HAVE.
The two sentences are related and relevant. It's just that you're also meeting the requirements of both sentences. You are indeed doing this instead of specializing. That you're getting paid to do so is irrelevant. Consider an analogous case. I could decide to go to the movies instead of taking a walk. The reason for this could be that I just want to do that, or it could just be because the relevant path is closed. It may make sense in a conversational form.

"Today, I shall go for a walk down cool guy avenue."
"Nah, cool guy avenue is closed for a weird roadside cool guy convention."
"Then, instead of going for a walk, I shall go to the movies."

That conversation holds up on a semantic level, so this in turn works.


Except that even the flimsy excuse being used to support that claim is only because the text is incomplete. The very next sentence is "These spells do not count against her two new spells known per wizard level." And THOSE spells go in a wizard's spellbook, right? So the domain spells, like EVERY OTHER SPELL that a wizard "knows", goes in her spellbook.
Who cares? Still spells known. Maybe they magically just appear in your book. It doesn't matter. The text says they're spells known, so they're spells known, and the ability says "as soon as" so it happens right away. This trick requires only that they be spells known, and they explicitly are.


Also, the entire idea is rendered academic, because even by using AC+VS to sacrifice 2 L1 spell slots, she cannot CAST a L2 spell (PHB page 7 and again page 171). She can use the slot to cast a Heightened L1 spell, but Precocious Apprentice is the only specific exception to the general rule about minimum caster level and effective class level minimums for spells above L1. Since she cannot CAST a L2 spell, she doesn't trigger any kind "instant spell known" for her L2 domain spell.
Other people are debating this point. I might at some point as well, but as I've already said, what you're doing here is repackaging what I think is an old Tippy argument with a bunch of inaccuracies. I take umbrage with the inaccuracies, because they have influence outside this particular trick. If you decide to agree on all the other points, I'll either stop arguing or start looking into the minutiae of caster level stuff. But you haven't, so I won't.


The RAI for Versatile Spellcaster was for spontaneous casters to be able to use lower-level spell slots to power higher level spells once they ran out of high-level slots. For example, a Sorcerer 6 who runs out of 3rd level slots. He can use VS to burn two L2 slots to cast a L3 spell he KNOWS (see? Spells Known isn't ambiguous with spontaneous casters). That same Sorcerer 6 trying to burn two of his L3 spell slots to cast a L4 spell that he knows would be a waste, because he does not KNOW any L4 spells. Although I suppose he could Empower a L2 spell that way...

Yeah, but I don't care all that much how it was intended. This is a RAW argument.

[RedMage125]

I just want to try to bring logic to this point one last time. If your able to prepare an additional spell... What are you preparing it IN if not a spell slot?

The difference is, the rules for regular wizard spell slots say that may prepare spells in them, or they may leave them blank, and spend like 15 minutes later in the day to prepare spells in them.

EGW says only that you may PREPARE an extra spell per day. So, by the most literal reading of that, if an EGW chose NOT to prepare that extra spell, she would NOT have an "empty slot" like one which she would use Alacritous Cogitation with. BUT, she COULD still prepare that spell later like a regular wizard could with normal slots.

But that's getting into some ridiculously nitpicky details. Because who keeps track of which of their spells are memorized in "regular" slots, vice the bonus slots from high INT? Who's to say that the person wasn't leaving REGULAR slots blank, and preparing a spell as the bonus provided by EGW? It's silly, but it's RAW. Because TECHNICALLY, there is a difference, but no one cares. But the point is, that EGW does NOT grant you a bonus "spell slot" that is as versatile as regular wizard slots. It explicitly MUST have a spell prepared in the "slot".

So the slot basically doesn't exist UNTIL you prepare a spell in it, for lack of a more concise explanation. It's Schrodinger's spell slot.

[eggynack]

The difference is, the rules for regular wizard spell slots say that may prepare spells in them, or they may leave them blank, and spend like 15 minutes later in the day to prepare spells in them.

EGW says only that you may PREPARE an extra spell per day. So, by the most literal reading of that, if an EGW chose NOT to prepare that extra spell, she would NOT have an "empty slot" like one which she would use Alacritous Cogitation with. BUT, she COULD still prepare that spell later like a regular wizard could with normal slots.

But that's getting into some ridiculously nitpicky details. Because who keeps track of which of their spells are memorized in "regular" slots, vice the bonus slots from high INT? Who's to say that the person wasn't leaving REGULAR slots blank, and preparing a spell as the bonus provided by EGW? It's silly, but it's RAW. Because TECHNICALLY, there is a difference, but no one cares. But the point is, that EGW does NOT grant you a bonus "spell slot" that is as versatile as regular wizard slots. It explicitly MUST have a spell prepared in the "slot".

So the slot basically doesn't exist UNTIL you prepare a spell in it, for lack of a more concise explanation. It's Schrodinger's spell slot.
The rules for elven generalist place no bounds on when you can prepare the spell. So your claimed difference doesn't really exist. And, critically, the elven generalist spell fully meets the definition of a spell slot. A spell slot, after all, is defined as the space in a casters head that holds a prepared spell. Well, the elven generalist's spell granted is necessarily that. In order to grant a new spell prepared each day, there must be a slot to contain that spell. The definitions here line up in such a way that your distinction is really not one.

[Emperor Tippy]

This substitution feature replaces the standard wizard’s ability to specialize in a school of magic.

A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard;

All Domain Wizard requires is that you not be a specialist wizard (which is a RAW defined term). Elven Generalist replaces the School Specialization class feature of Wizards.

Domain Wizard does not, specifically, strip or replace the School Specialization Class Feature; it is simply barred to any Wizard who has chosen to Specialize in a school of magic. There is also no RAW requirement that you need even have the option to specialize to take Domain Wizard.
Elven Generalist is open to any Elf wizard and replaces the School Specialization Class Feature with something else.

---
The reasons that the whole "leapfrog" scheme doesn't work are:
1) Alacritous Cogitation says that you may "If you leave an arcane spell slot open when preparing spells, you can use that open slot to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower and of casting time no longer than 1 round. Casting the spell requires a full-round action. You can use this feat only once per day, regardless of the number of slots you leave open."

While Versatile Spellcaster has as its prerequisite "Ability to spontaneously cast spells,".

AC provides the ability to cast a single spell spontaneously and VS requires the ability to cast multiple spells spontaneously. Ergo, AC alone can not qualify one for VS.

2) All spells have a minimum caster level that must be met to cast that spell. Versatile Spellcaster does nothing to change that rule. For a Wizard to cast a second level spell requires a CL of 3, a 3rd level spell requires a CL of 5, etc. If you don't meet the CL requirements than you can't cast the spell with Versatile Spellcaster and thus don't gain the spell (and spell slot) from Domain Wizard and thus Elven Generalist doesn't give you an additional Spell Slot of that highest level.

[RedMage125]

That argument doesn't apply. Either the prepared spell is in a spell slot that exists, in which case it works, or the spell slot somehow disappears when you put a spell into it, in which case it presumably doesn't.
It absolutely does apply. Throughout all the RAW for wizards "spell slots" are used exclusively to describe EMPTY spell slots. Once it is "filled" it is called a "prepared spell". Now, the term "spell slot" is used MUCH more often with spontaneous casters, whose slots are more versatile. This is why Alacritous Cogitation is necessary, to allow a prepared caster to cast their spells spontaneously.



No. I mean something like, "A barbarian dedicated to the lion totem does not gain the standard fast movement, uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features." Something that implies it's an ability you're trading away, instead of just a possible option you're forgoing.

If the text says so, yes. I follow the text, not likelihoods. Also, arbitrary point, not all variants involve a trade. Zhentarim soldier, the first half-orc druid substitution level, and the wild shape hands ability of fangshields druid substitution levels don't, for example. They're all pure upside once you've met the prerequisites. You could claim lack of parity because the prerequisite is the trade off, but in the same sense I can and do claim that not specializing is itself a prerequisite. Not a hard prerequisite to meet in this case, obviously, but given the fact that fangshields is accessible through dragonborn anthropomorphic bats, it's not always a hardship hitting these marks.

That's not precisely what I was saying, but again, I go by text and not likelihood. What I was saying was that being in that chapter does not strictly connote an exchange as you implied. It doesn't connote an exchange at all, actually. You need to prove that an exchange is occurring in this specific case, not point to surrounding cases, because you lack a general rule.
The dictionary definition of "instead", according to Mirriam-Webster is:
Definition of instead
1
: as a substitute or equivalent <was going to write but called instead>
2
: as an alternative to something expressed or implied : rather <longed instead for a quiet country life>

So if you are "going by the text", as you claim, you need to not IGNORE what the word "instead" means.

I am curious as to how you can say you "go by the text". How are YOU incorporating the "instead" part of that text? What does "instead" mean to you?


The two sentences are related and relevant. It's just that you're also meeting the requirements of both sentences. You are indeed doing this instead of specializing. That you're getting paid to do so is irrelevant. Consider an analogous case. I could decide to go to the movies instead of taking a walk. The reason for this could be that I just want to do that, or it could just be because the relevant path is closed. It may make sense in a conversational form.

"Today, I shall go for a walk down cool guy avenue."
"Nah, cool guy avenue is closed for a weird roadside cool guy convention."
"Then, instead of going for a walk, I shall go to the movies."

That conversation holds up on a semantic level, so this in turn works.
You show here that you understand the meaning of "instead". Since it means "as an alternative" or "as a substitute for", it means they are mutually exclusive, and not just mutually exclusive, but that one was a substitute for the other.

In your example, you are going to the movies and NOT going for a walk down cool guy avenue. Those two activities are mutually exclusive in your immediate future, and going to the movies was only an option because you had the time free for your original plan to take a walk. You have made this clear by use of the word "instead". If, for instance, you get called into work during that time, you wouldn't be available to walk down cool guy avenue OR go to the movies.


Who cares? Still spells known. Maybe they magically just appear in your book. It doesn't matter. The text says they're spells known, so they're spells known, and the ability says "as soon as" so it happens right away. This trick requires only that they be spells known, and they explicitly are.

Other people are debating this point. I might at some point as well, but as I've already said, what you're doing here is repackaging what I think is an old Tippy argument with a bunch of inaccuracies. I take umbrage with the inaccuracies, because they have influence outside this particular trick. If you decide to agree on all the other points, I'll either stop arguing or start looking into the minutiae of caster level stuff. But you haven't, so I won't.
Tippy DID bring this up, and he's right. It is just one of MANY things that deflates the entire "Leapfrog Wizard" trick. Those rules, found on the PHB page 7 and page 171, mean that a DW CAN'T cast a L2 spell until she is level 3. Unless she has Precocious Apprentice, she cannot cast L2 wizard spells below caster level 3, and PA explicitly creates a Specific exception to the General rule (and PA specifies that she may cast ONLY the L2 spell chosen with the feat with regards to the caster level exception). Since she CANNOT cast L2 spells, she does not gain her L2 domain spell "known" when she uses the AC+VS combo. She has to wait until level 3. The "as soon as she can cast" was never triggered, because she never COULD. The AC+VS combo used at level 1 can only Heighten a L1 spell, to cast it with a higher DC.
I don't know what "influence outside this trick" that point has, aside from being a part of RAW that some people ignore, or didn't realize was a thing.
For instance, Mialee the 6th level wizard has 3 3rd level spells prepared. She gets hit with 2 negative levels. She loses two prepared spells of her highest level (3rd). Her caster level is also reduced to 4, she is considered a 4-HD creature, and a 4th level wizard. So even though she still has one 3rd level spell prepared, she cannot cast it. When Jozan hits her with a Restoration spell and the negative levels go away, she can once again cast her 3rd level spells. PHB 310-311 have the rules regarding negative levels, and even specify that the caster gets their spells back when the negative level is removed "providing the caster would be capable of using it at that time."
These rules have always been there. You MUST have the minimum caster level in order to cast a spell of a particular level. The minimum caster level varies, because different classes get new spells at different levels. A Bard cannot cast L3 spells until level 7, Wizards get them at 5, Sorcerers at 6, and Ur-Priests at 3. Just because you can manage, through the expenditure of two feats, to access a spell slot above your prescribed maximum as a wizard does NOT create an exception that you can cast L2 spells below the minimum caster level. The very fact that we DO have one exception to this rule (Precocious Apprentice), and that said exception is VERY explicit in that it IS an exception, shows us that any exceptions to this rule will be THAT explicit. As there is nothing for this class or this trick, it does not happen.
If you're interested in the minutiae of the caster level thing, Quertus and I are having a discussion on the other thread, the "level 1 wizard/9th level spells" one. I ask that you read that (most of it's on the last page of the thread) before chiming in, so I don't end up repeating the same argument.


Yeah, but I don't care all that much how it was intended. This is a RAW argument.
That was just a point about how a Sorc cannot use this feat to cast spells above the max level he can cast by his class.

[Quertus]

2) All spells have a minimum caster level that must be met to cast that spell. Versatile Spellcaster does nothing to change that rule. For a Wizard to cast a second level spell requires a CL of 3, a 3rd level spell requires a CL of 5, etc. If you don't meet the CL requirements than you can't cast the spell with Versatile Spellcaster and thus don't gain the spell (and spell slot) from Domain Wizard and thus Elven Generalist doesn't give you an additional Spell Slot of that highest level.

Do you have a better source on this than the op?

[Mehangel]

Is there any actual RAW support that:
A) You must have a CASTER LEVEL of X before you can cast LEVEL Y spells.
and/or
B) If your CASTER LEVEL drops below X, you cannot cast LEVEL Y spells.

I am NOT talking about caster level loss through Enervation or Energy Drain. But rather lets say the character had an orange ioun stone (which grants +1 CL), or any number of feats which increase or decrease the caster level.

I have ALWAYS been under the assumption, that CASTER LEVEL had NO EFFECT on what SPELL LEVELS or SLOTS you had access to, but rather only contributed to DC, Duration, Range, Area and Effects of spells.

I ask because RedMage125 I think has mentioned multiple times that Class Z cannot cast spells of level Y if their CL is below X.

[RedMage125]

The rules for elven generalist place no bounds on when you can prepare the spell. So your claimed difference doesn't really exist. And, critically, the elven generalist spell fully meets the definition of a spell slot. A spell slot, after all, is defined as the space in a casters head that holds a prepared spell. Well, the elven generalist's spell granted is necessarily that. In order to grant a new spell prepared each day, there must be a slot to contain that spell. The definitions here line up in such a way that your distinction is really not one.
I actually addressed, in the post you quoted, that an EGW could prepare it later in the day.

And unless you are PREPARING a spell in that slot, you don't get a blank "spell slot".

And it still certainly doesn't "float"


All Domain Wizard requires is that you not be a specialist wizard (which is a RAW defined term). Elven Generalist replaces the School Specialization class feature of Wizards.

Domain Wizard does not, specifically, strip or replace the School Specialization Class Feature; it is simply barred to any Wizard who has chosen to Specialize in a school of magic. There is also no RAW requirement that you need even have the option to specialize to take Domain Wizard.
Elven Generalist is open to any Elf wizard and replaces the School Specialization Class Feature with something else.

Tippy, you're one of the most respected TO optimizers on the forums. You should know better than to post a fragment of the RAW text. Go back, and look at Unearthed Arcana and read the WHOLE sentence. Don't stop at the semicolon, because that is not a complete sentence.
Then fold in what the word "instead" means. "in something's stead" "as an alternative to" "as a substitute for"

If anyone reads this and chooses to ignore the rest of the sentence, because a few words say what they want to hear, where does it stop?


---
The reasons that the whole "leapfrog" scheme doesn't work are:
1) Alacritous Cogitation says that you may "If you leave an arcane spell slot open when preparing spells, you can use that open slot to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower and of casting time no longer than 1 round. Casting the spell requires a full-round action. You can use this feat only once per day, regardless of the number of slots you leave open."

While Versatile Spellcaster has as its prerequisite "Ability to spontaneously cast spells,".

AC provides the ability to cast a single spell spontaneously and VS requires the ability to cast multiple spells spontaneously. Ergo, AC alone can not qualify one for VS.
NICE. Didn't catch that.


2) All spells have a minimum caster level that must be met to cast that spell. Versatile Spellcaster does nothing to change that rule. For a Wizard to cast a second level spell requires a CL of 3, a 3rd level spell requires a CL of 5, etc. If you don't meet the CL requirements than you can't cast the spell with Versatile Spellcaster and thus don't gain the spell (and spell slot) from Domain Wizard and thus Elven Generalist doesn't give you an additional Spell Slot of that highest level.
Been saying that this whole time.


Do you have a better source on this than the op?


Is there any actual RAW support that:
A) You must have a CASTER LEVEL of X before you can cast LEVEL Y spells.
and/or
B) If your CASTER LEVEL drops below X, you cannot cast LEVEL Y spells.

I am NOT talking about caster level loss through Enervation or Energy Drain. But rather lets say the character had an orange ioun stone (which grants +1 CL), or any number of feats which increase or decrease the caster level.

I have ALWAYS been under the assumption, that CASTER LEVEL had NO EFFECT on what SPELL LEVELS or SLOTS you had access to, but rather only contributed to DC, Duration, Range, Area and Effects of spells.

I ask because RedMage125 I think has mentioned multiple times that Class Z cannot cast spells of level Y if their CL is below X.

The answer to both of you is the Player's Handbook, page 7.

"The ability that governs bonus spells (see Chapter 3:
Classes) 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. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3
for details.) For instance, the wizard Mialee has an
Intelligence score of 15, so she’s smart enough to get one bonus 1stlevel
spell and one bonus 2nd-level spell. (She will not actually get
the 2nd-level spell until she is 3rd level wizard, since that’s the minimum
level a wizard must be to cast 2nd-level spells.)

[Mehangel]

The answer to both of you is the Player's Handbook, page 7.

"The ability that governs bonus spells (see Chapter 3:
Classes) 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. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3
for details.) For instance, the wizard Mialee has an
Intelligence score of 15, so she’s smart enough to get one bonus 1stlevel
spell and one bonus 2nd-level spell. (She will not actually get
the 2nd-level spell until she is 3rd level wizard, since that’s the minimum
level a wizard must be to cast 2nd-level spells.)

That is CLASS LEVEL, I am talking about CASTER LEVEL.
CLASS LEVEL =/= CASTER LEVEL
EDIT: CLASS LEVEL does not ALWAYS equal CASTER LEVEL, just as CASTER LEVEL does not ALWAYS equal CLASS LEVEL. If you raise your CASTER LEVEL does it AUTOMATICALLY allow you to cast higher level spells (because there are SEVERAL feats that increase your CL with specific spell schools or descriptors)?

[eggynack]

It absolutely does apply. Throughout all the RAW for wizards "spell slots" are used exclusively to describe EMPTY spell slots. Once it is "filled" it is called a "prepared spell". Now, the term "spell slot" is used MUCH more often with spontaneous casters, whose slots are more versatile. This is why Alacritous Cogitation is necessary, to allow a prepared caster to cast their spells spontaneously.
It's actually used to characterize a non-empty slot in the glossary. The glossary defines a slot as, "The “space” in a spellcaster’s mind dedicated to holding a spell of a particular spell level." It maintains that state whether it's in use or not, because it's obviously dedicated to holding a spell while it's holding a spell.



The dictionary definition of "instead", according to Mirriam-Webster is:
Definition of instead
1
: as a substitute or equivalent <was going to write but called instead>
2
: as an alternative to something expressed or implied : rather <longed instead for a quiet country life>

So if you are "going by the text", as you claim, you need to not IGNORE what the word "instead" means.
Not really. You're using domain wizard as an alternative or substitute for specialization.


I am curious as to how you can say you "go by the text". How are YOU incorporating the "instead" part of that text? What does "instead" mean to you?
It means that you're doing thing B, but not doing thing A.


You show here that you understand the meaning of "instead". Since it means "as an alternative" or "as a substitute for", it means they are mutually exclusive.
Yes. Which is why you're not specializing.


In your example, you are going to the movies and NOT going for a walk down cool guy avenue. Those two activities are mutually exclusive in your immediate future, which you have made clear by use of the word "instead".

Exactly. And, in the same fashion, you're using domain wizard and not specializing.


I don't know what "influence outside this trick" that point has, aside from being a part of RAW that some people ignore, or didn't realize was a thing.
Not that point. Your other points are intrinsically externally meaningful. You claim that one cannot use both of these alternative class features. I disagree. It's not like people only use both of those when they want to use this trick. Same goes for your claims about versatile spellcaster.

Also, to the alacritous cogitation point, worst case scenario, can't you just use spontaneous divination? Really great ability, that.

[Doc_Maynot]

Also, to the alacritous cogitation point, worst case scenario, can't you just use spontaneous divination? Really great ability, that.

Or Magical Training (Sorcerer), that gives you three 0 level slots you can cast Spontaneously.

[RedMage125]

That is CLASS LEVEL, I am talking about CASTER LEVEL.
CLASS LEVEL =/= CASTER LEVEL
EDIT: CLASS LEVEL does not ALWAYS equal CASTER LEVEL, just as CASTER LEVEL does not ALWAYS equal CLASS LEVEL.

I apologize for the confusion. I think my cold medicine's kicking in, so this will likely be my last post on the subject for tonight.

PHB 171 has the relevant information regarding how a spell may NOT be cast BELOW the minimum caster level for that class.


If you raise your CASTER LEVEL does it AUTOMATICALLY allow you to cast higher level spells (because there are SEVERAL feats that increase your CL with specific spell schools or descriptors)?

THAT is the situation you would refer to PHB page 7, which I quoted before. Even if your caster level is boosted above your class level, your class level still prevents you from casting higher-level spells.

They BOTH affect which level of spell you can cast. This may seem redundant, but the reason it isn't is because of negative levels. The example I gave of a 6th level wizard gaining 2 negative levels highlights this. Even though she only lost two of her three L3 spells prepared, her caster level was too low to cast her remaining L3 spell. But she's still a level 6 wizard, which is why she didn't lose ALL the spell slots gained between levels 4 and 6 (which will only happen if she doesn't get the negative levels removed and she fails both Fort saves). Negative levels are a status effect that very specifically causes loss of prepared spells/spell slots, reduced caster level, and even reduced the Hit Dice that the creature is considered to be. If Mialee had been a human wizard, for example, getting 2 negative levels would make her a valid target for the spell Sleep, which only affects creatures of 4 HD or less (obviously, elves are naturually immune anyway). I very specifically tailored that example to show how the "class level vis caster level" minimums affect ability to cast spells of a given level. Everything IN my example, is supported by the rules (specifically PHB 7, 171, and 310).


It's actually used to characterize a non-empty slot in the glossary. The glossary defines a slot as, "The “space” in a spellcaster’s mind dedicated to holding a spell of a particular spell level." It maintains that state whether it's in use or not, because it's obviously dedicated to holding a spell while it's holding a spell.
How about that.

Well played, sir. Although this point may now be moot with Tippy's recent bombshell about AC and VS.



Not really. You're using domain wizard as an alternative or substitute for specialization.
Full stop.

It is a SUBSTITUTE for specialization, a class feature that an EGW no longer has.

Thank you.

P.S.
I had editted the rest of the text you quoted because I left out some of what I was saying (again, might be due to my cold meds kicking in), and I think I was less clear because of it. And you had already quoted the OLD text, and must have been typing your post when I did that editing. That which you quoted was incomplete for what I was saying, but that's my fault, not yours.



Not that point. Your other points are intrinsically externally meaningful. You claim that one cannot use both of these alternative class features. I disagree. It's not like people only use both of those when they want to use this trick. Same goes for your claims about versatile spellcaster.
My whole point on using both is that they can't ANYWAY, not just for this trick. It's just one of many things that makes the trick not work.

And I've said VS can be used to do metamagic spontaneously. That seems to work. Assuming one qualifies for VS.



Also, to the alacritous cogitation point, worst case scenario, can't you just use spontaneous divination? Really great ability, that.

You mean the ACF available to wizards at level 5, 10, 15, or 20? I suppose that would qualify you for VS without even needing to take AC, but can't be done at level 1, so...

[Emperor Tippy]

Tippy, you're one of the most respected TO optimizers on the forums. You should know better than to post a fragment of the RAW text. Go back, and look at Unearthed Arcana and read the WHOLE sentence. Don't stop at the semicolon, because that is not a complete sentence.
Then fold in what the word "instead" means. "in something's stead" "as an alternative to" "as a substitute for"

"in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

That is everything post semicolon. It's also not rules relevant. No where does Domain Wizard state that you loose the School Specialization class feature and no where does Elven Generalist state that it does anything but replace your ability to specialize in a school of magic.

Domain Wizard adds a new class feature (Arcane Domain) but is an option that can only be taken if the wizard has not made use of their School Specialization class feature.
Elven Generalist alters spells per day but strips out the School Specialization class feature of the Wizard.

Domain Wizard is essentially "If Specialization != True THEN Domain Wizard = True." not, "If Specialization = False THEN Domain Wizard = True."

With Elven Generalist removing specialization entirely it can not =False.


Been saying that this whole time.
And I've been saying it for years at this point. The rules are outrageously hazy though since what the minimum caster level is for a spell (except Fireball) has never been explicitly defined for each class. In my opinion the RAI is very clear cut and the RAW is explicit enough that a lot of early casting tricks don't work but it is at least somewhat debatable.

Most everyone who has been around for a while also already knows this and has pretty much already formed their own opinions and gone with the "agree to disagree" route.

[eggynack]

Full stop.

It is a SUBSTITUTE for specialization, a class feature that an EGW no longer has.

Thank you.
Ironically, you're missing the context here. That line isn't directly characterizing the trade, but rather the reason you wouldn't take it. Thus, while it still characterizes the ACF, it's using the term substitute (or, y'know, the term instead) in the informal sense, rather than in the sense that this is the core exchange taking place.




My whole point on using both is that they can't ANYWAY, not just for this trick. It's just one of many things that makes the trick not work.

Exactly. And I disagree with that point.




You mean the ACF available to wizards at level 5, 10, 15, or 20? I suppose that would qualify you for VS without even needing to take AC, but can't be done at level 1, so...
Thought you could use scribe scroll or something. Ah well. The magical training then.

[RedMage125]

"in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

That is everything post semicolon. It's also not rules relevant. No where does Domain Wizard state that you loose the School Specialization class feature and no where does Elven Generalist state that it does anything but replace your ability to specialize in a school of magic.

Domain Wizard adds a new class feature (Arcane Domain) but is an option that can only be taken if the wizard has not made use of their School Specialization class feature.
Elven Generalist alters spells per day but strips out the School Specialization class feature of the Wizard.

Domain Wizard is essentially "If Specialization != True THEN Domain Wizard = True." not, "If Specialization = False THEN Domain Wizard = True."

With Elven Generalist removing specialization entirely it can not =False.
You neglected to account for the meaning of the word "instead". Which is "in place of" or "as a substitute for".

How can you take a SUBSTITUTE for a class feature you DO NOT HAVE?

To say otherwise is to imply that a Lion totem Barbarian (Unearthed Arcana) may take the View The Spirit World variant in Complete Champion, because he still isn't taking Improved Uncanny Dodge.

And how can you say one half of a sentence is "rules relevant" and the other half is not? The way semicolons work in English is that when two sentences are combined into one, and separated with a semicolon, that they are of equal importance. Google it if you don't believe me. If one is rules relevant, the other is.



And I've been saying it for years at this point. The rules are outrageously hazy though since what the minimum caster level is for a spell (except Fireball) has never been explicitly defined for each class.
Actually it is, because the example paragraph says that Fireball is an EXAMPLE.
It also specifies that 5th level is the minimum CL for a wizard to cast Fireball.
The minimum caster level depends on which level (and caster level) a character of a given class would need to be to cast THAT spell
So CL for 3rd level spells for a Sorc is 6, for example. Minimum for a Bard is 7, and Ur-Priest is 3. A Paladin must be level 11 (caster level 5) to cast a 3rd level spell.



In my opinion the RAI is very clear cut and the RAW is explicit enough that a lot of early casting tricks don't work but it is at least somewhat debatable.

Most everyone who has been around for a while also already knows this and has pretty much already formed their own opinions and gone with the "agree to disagree" route.

Well, the RAW are pretty firmly in the "disagree" group, lol.


Ironically, you're missing the context here. That line isn't directly characterizing the trade, but rather the reason you wouldn't take it. Thus, while it still characterizes the ACF, it's using the term substitute (or, y'know, the term instead) in the informal sense, rather than in the sense that this is the core exchange taking place.


You're trying to impose INTENT. The word "instead" has a specific meaning of "in the place of" or "as a substitute for". Thus RAW (not the RAI you propose) says that it is, in fact, a trade.

The reason the two sentences are together is to show, unequivocally, that a wizard cannot be both. To prove it, I will replace the word "instead" with the dictionary definition of "instead"

"A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange
for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain in the place
of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells
with increased power."
or
"A
domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange
for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain as a substitute for
an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells
with increased power."

Make sense? If you were correct, substituting the definition of a word for the word itself should not appear to change the meaning.

[AnachroNinja]

Interestingly, if the minimum caster level for spells is an accurate concept, it means that certain prestige classes, such as Unseen Seer, that increase your caster level with a particular school (divination in this case) while reducing your caster level with other schools, would actually prevent you from using your highest level spell slots for anything except divination spells, which does not seem to be the intent of that class feature.

I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

[Emperor Tippy]

You neglected to account for the meaning of the word "instead". Which is "in place of" or "as a substitute for".
No, you neglected to recognize that no where in the Domain Wizard section does it actually state that you are trading out the School Specialization class feature or the like. The bit that you are talking about even states that all you are giving up is versatility, not the class feature itself.


How can you take a SUBSTITUTE for a class feature you DO NOT HAVE?
Because Domain Wizards still have the School Specialization Class Feature so Elven Generalists can trade it away. And because Elven Generalists are not Specialized Wizards they qualify to take the Domain Wizard variant.

Order doesn't matter. One trades away a specific class feature, the other is bared to those who have used a specific class feature.


To say otherwise is to imply that a Lion totem Barbarian (Unearthed Arcana) may take the View The Spirit World variant in Complete Champion, because he still isn't taking Improved Uncanny Dodge.
Replaces:This benefit replaces the improved uncanny dodge class feature.

A barbarian dedicated to the lion totem does not gain the standard fast movement, uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features, and instead gains the following abilities.

To replace something requires that you have that thing in the first place. Lion Totem Barbarian does not have Improve Uncanny Dodge as a class feature as so is thus incapable of replacing it with something else.


And how can you say one half of a sentence is "rules relevant" and the other half is not? The way semicolons work in English is that when two sentences are combined into one, and separated with a semicolon, that they are of equal importance. Google it if you don't believe me. If one is rules relevant, the other is.
Because the post semicolon part does not actually say anything about the rules.


Actually it is, because the example paragraph says that Fireball is an EXAMPLE.
It also specifies that 5th level is the minimum CL for a wizard to cast Fireball.
Yes, that part is RAW true. Which is what I said.


The minimum caster level depends on which level (and caster level) a character of a given class would need to be to cast THAT spell
So CL for 3rd level spells for a Sorc is 6, for example. Minimum for a Bard is 7, and Ur-Priest is 3. A Paladin must be level 11 (caster level 5) to cast a 3rd level spell.
None of that is explicitly stated anywhere in the rules. Hence the RAI bit of my explanation.


Well, the RAW are pretty firmly in the "disagree" group, lol.
No, they aren't. "Minimum Caster Level" is technically a RAW undefined term and is thus technically totally meaningless (with the loan exception of the spell Fireball in the case of a pure class Wizard).

Per strict, technical, RAW Minimum Caster Level is meaningless.

[RedMage125]

No, you neglected to recognize that no where in the Domain Wizard section does it actually state that you are trading out the School Specialization class feature or the like. The bit that you are talking about even states that all you are giving up is versatility, not the class feature itself.

It absolutely does. It says "instead of", meaning "in place of" or "as a substitute for".


Because Domain Wizards still have the School Specialization Class Feature so Elven Generalists can trade it away. And because Elven Generalists are not Specialized Wizards they qualify to take the Domain Wizard variant.

Order doesn't matter. One trades away a specific class feature, the other is bared to those who have used a specific class feature.

Incorrect.
Taking DW first means that you are beholden to the first half of that sentence "cannot also be a specialist wizard", which means you do NOT have "the ability to specialize in a school of magic", which is the tradeoff for the EGW ACF.

Order does not matter, correct. But there is no order in which to take these that does not exclude the other.


Replaces:This benefit replaces the improved uncanny dodge class feature.

A barbarian dedicated to the lion totem does not gain the standard fast movement, uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features, and instead gains the following abilities.

To replace something requires that you have that thing in the first place. Lion Totem Barbarian does not have Improve Uncanny Dodge as a class feature as so is thus incapable of replacing it with something else.

Likewise EGW takes away "ability to specialize in a school of magic", and domain wizard is specializing in a domain "as a substitute for" specializing in a school. If you do not have the ability to specialize in a school, you cannot take a class option that is a substitute for that.
Doing it the other way around, a DW "may not be a specialist wizard". If you may not do something, you do not have the ability to do it, right? Therefore you are excluded from the EGW feature.


Because the post semicolon part does not actually say anything about the rules.
Only if you assume that "specializing in a domain INSTEAD of a school of magic" is not rules text. Which I do not assume that, because I am trying to use RAW, so what is WRITTEN is significant.
And I don't know by what authority you claim to say what is and is not "rules text". The way the sentence is formatted (i.e. the semicolon connecting two sentences) means the two are equally important. If ONE is rules text, then BOTH are.
And if you read it so that the "instead of" IS rules text, then it DOES, in fact, say that domain specialization is "a substitute for" school specialization.
And since you have no ACTUAL authority to declare that sentence NOT rules text, whilst I can cite the English use of a semicolon and the definition of the word "instead" to back my points, I think it's safe to say that I am right.
Unless you have some actual PROOF that the second half of that sentence "is not rules text".



None of that is explicitly stated anywhere in the rules. Hence the RAI bit of my explanation.
Without doing that for EVERY SPELL in the book, they cannot be THAT explicit. It is very clear that Fireball is an EXAMPLE of what the ruling is saying, ergo, that ruling should be applied to ALL spells. And they even specify that 5th is the minimum CL for a WIZARD, because some classes handle spells differently.



No, they aren't. "Minimum Caster Level" is technically a RAW undefined term and is thus technically totally meaningless (with the loan exception of the spell Fireball in the case of a pure class Wizard).
Actually, you're right about one thing. The term "minimum caster level" is not used. But to paraphrase just a bit, it DOES mention that caster level cannot go below "the minimum level for [x class] to cast the spell".


Per strict, technical, RAW Minimum Caster Level is meaningless.
Well, then I'll coin the term to mean "the minimum caster level which corresponds to the minimum level for which [x class] must be in order to cast the spell".
Not a RAW term, but useful shorthand for this discussion.


Interestingly, if the minimum caster level for spells is an accurate concept, it means that certain prestige classes, such as Unseen Seer, that increase your caster level with a particular school (divination in this case) while reducing your caster level with other schools, would actually prevent you from using your highest level spell slots for anything except divination spells, which does not seem to be the intent of that class feature.

I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.
Like Tippy said "Minimum Caster Level" is not a RAW term.

BUT the RAW do say that in order to cast a spell of a given level, one's caster level may not be reduced below the minimum class level required to cast the spell. So...a Rogue 2/Wizard 3/Unseen Seer 10 would have a caster level of 10 for all non-divination spells. So, yes, they would not be able to cast their L6 or L7 spells. An Ioun Stone that boosts caster level, and perhaps a level of Archmage that takes Spell Power would help offset some of that, but you're right. That seems like one of those Rules Dysfunctions, but that's what the RAW says...

[Beheld]

In 2016 people are still claiming that level 7 Wizard with 17 Int can't cast 4th level spells :smallsigh:

[icefractal]

It's not a variant class feature. It's a variant class. You are a domain wizard, as opposed to a normal wizard.

Eh, you're still a wizard. It's not a different class.
C'mon, really now.


Yeah, but it's really similar. You're not altering any class features, or casting, or really much of anything besides this one element. Moreover, my point was that, even if you're not the same class, you're still a wizard, and you're still taking a level in wizard.This is not the kind of argument you can make about something that grants 9th level spells at 1st level. You're appealing to the (hypothetical) GM to rule things favorably, but if this kind of trick comes down to GM rulings at all, then it's already failed, because without unwavering adherence to the RAW there's no way this level of cheese gets the ok.


Moreover, my point was that, even if you're not the same class, you're still a wizard, and you're still taking a level in wizard.And this one, especially no. "Dread Necromancer" has the word "Necromancer" in it - does that mean you can take Wizard ACFs for it?

[Lorddenorstrus]

In 2016 people are still claiming that level 7 Wizard with 17 Int can't cast 4th level spells :smallsigh:

It's at least funny. Most people that think they're capable of arguing with Tippy at least try to bring a competent and semi valid argument. This isn't a debate, it's one guy screaming crazy words and even the people that normally take that side of said debate aren't even siding with him.

Personally I think it delves to much into interpretation or RAI to make the theory not work. Also didn't realize Alacritous doesn't technically qualify for Versatile, but there are valid replacements. Still good to learn things. So for that thanks for the lesson Tippy!

Alsp, RAI is fine at a table, I do wish people could separate their RAI and PO from the funsy RAW TO **** I see get thrown together.

[eggynack]

C'mon, really now.

This is not the kind of argument you can make about something that grants 9th level spells at 1st level. You're appealing to the (hypothetical) GM to rule things favorably, but if this kind of trick comes down to GM rulings at all, then it's already failed, because without unwavering adherence to the RAW there's no way this level of cheese gets the ok.
This isn't a favorable ruling argument. A wizard variant is a wizard. Elven generalist only demands you be a wizard, and you still are one. Also, UA specifies that you're tweaking an existing character class here, not strictly generating a new one.



And this one, especially no. "Dread Necromancer" has the word "Necromancer" in it - does that mean you can take Wizard ACFs for it?
It's not a name thing. A domain wizard is a type of wizard.

Edit: Point is, the first two lines you quoted look like they contradict each other a bit, but they don't. A variant of a thing is still within the overall class of that thing (where class is defined in the broad sense, not the game sense).

[Mordaedil]

The intent of the rule is that a Domain wizard is itself a specialist wizard, hope this helps.

[Emperor Tippy]

The intent of the rule is that a Domain wizard is itself a specialist wizard, hope this helps.

Nothing in the text shows such intent, so making such a categorical statement is very ill advised unless you happen to be Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Nooman, or Rich Redman (those being the authors of Unearthed Arcana).

[Arcanist]

The intent of the rule is that a Domain wizard is itself a specialist wizard, hope this helps.

Nothing in the text shows such intent, so making such a categorical statement is very ill advised unless you happen to be Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Nooman, or Rich Redman (those being the authors of Unearthed Arcana).

Regardless of whether their statement is true or not (it isn't), such an implication would render Domain Wizard, by RAW, a self-invalidating class since:


A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#wizardVariantDomainWiz ard)

[AnachroNinja]

I'm not saying I have rules text to back this up, is just my feeling on it.

If having a higher caster level due to items, feats, or class features does not allow you to gain higher level spell slots, assuming you know all spells of the level your able to cast, then I'm never personally going to go with an interpretation of the rules on which a lower caster level prevents you from using spell slots you have available.

Most of the bonuses and penalties in this game are fairly symmetrical. It doesn't seem reasonable for negative caster level effects to have such a disproportionate effect vs that of bonus caster levels. Even if not for the aforementioned Unseen Seer example, it just doesn't make sense to me. You're wizard who's been level drained is weaker and able to put less arcane energy into his spells, that doesn't mean he forgot how to cast lightning bolt, or that there is necessarily a minimum threshold of energy to make it work. Especially since that would give you other weird rules gaps. Example, a level 7 wizard who for some reason has a caster level of 1, according to some can not cast lightning bolt because he lacks the energy to make it work. He does still have it memorized however, so his Storm Bolt reserve feat is still going to function at full damage capacity. That doesn't have a minimum CL or even any relation to caster level.

Overall I'm just going to call this rules area wonky. OP is coming off more and more as a frothing zealot though.

[Mehangel]

I'm not saying I have rules text to back this up, is just my feeling on it.

If having a higher caster level due to items, feats, or class features does not allow you to gain higher level spell slots, assuming you know all spells of the level your able to cast, then I'm never personally going to go with an interpretation of the rules on which a lower caster level prevents you from using spell slots you have available.

Most of the bonuses and penalties in this game are fairly symmetrical. It doesn't seem reasonable for negative caster level effects to have such a disproportionate effect vs that of bonus caster levels. Even if not for the aforementioned Unseen Seer example, it just doesn't make sense to me. You're wizard who's been level drained is weaker and able to put less arcane energy into his spells, that doesn't mean he forgot how to cast lightning bolt, or that there is necessarily a minimum threshold of energy to make it work. Especially since that would give you other weird rules gaps. Example, a level 7 wizard who for some reason has a caster level of 1, according to some can not cast lightning bolt because he lacks the energy to make it work. He does still have it memorized however, so his Storm Bolt reserve feat is still going to function at full damage capacity. That doesn't have a minimum CL or even any relation to caster level.

Overall I'm just going to call this rules area wonky. OP is coming off more and more as a frothing zealot though.

I agree. If RAW having a lower CL means you cannot cast spells of level X, than it SHOULD mean that having a higher CL allows you to cast spells of level X.

But to me allowing CASTER LEVEL (as opposed to CLASS LEVEL) to determine what spells could be cast is messy business, and I would never allow it (excluding of-course explicit use of spells such as energy drain or enervation). To me the rules get particularly wonky when people assume class level = caster level, when there are a number of classes, feats, items that say differently.

In short, I use and have always used CLASS LEVEL not CASTER LEVEL to determine the highest level spell a character can use. So if someone takes a feat that explicitly gives them a spell slot to a spell level they normally wouldn't be able to cast from, I see it as a Specific Trumps General Rule. Of-course none of my comments here really matter because these are only RULES AS INTERPRETED by myself.

[Dgrin]

The reasons that the whole "leapfrog" scheme doesn't work are:
1) Alacritous Cogitation says that you may "If you leave an arcane spell slot open when preparing spells, you can use that open slot to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower and of casting time no longer than 1 round. Casting the spell requires a full-round action. You can use this feat only once per day, regardless of the number of slots you leave open."

While Versatile Spellcaster has as its prerequisite "Ability to spontaneously cast spells,".

AC provides the ability to cast a single spell spontaneously and VS requires the ability to cast multiple spells spontaneously. Ergo, AC alone can not qualify one for VS.

I don't think that's a correct reading. By the same logic, bard being "proficient with all simple weapons, plus the longsword, rapier..." means that any bard can only be proficient with one specific longsword, one specific rapier and so on, because being proficient with the longsword does not equal being proficient with longswords.
Also, consider the following example:
Bob is level 3 wizard with Alacritous Cogitation feat. He leaves 2 first level spell slots open today, and uses those to cast a second level spell spontaneously. Let's say it was Glitterdust. He then sleeps, and on the next day, uses 2 slots to cast different second level spell, Mirror Image. He was able to cast 2 different spells using that feat, and I don't see anything about time constraints in Versatile Spellcaster prerequisites. Nothing forces you to cast those spells in one day.
Is that correct?

[Beheld]

It's at least funny. Most people that think they're capable of arguing with Tippy at least try to bring a competent and semi valid argument. This isn't a debate, it's one guy screaming crazy words and even the people that normally take that side of said debate aren't even siding with him.

I think you missed a bit. Tippy is the one who originally advanced the argument which supports the conclusion that a level 7 Wizard can't cast 4th level spells.

[Segev]

I'm afraid that the only arguments that suggest that comments relating to caster levels mean that 7th level wizards can't cast 4th level spells are conflating two terms that are not, denotatively, identical.

The rules that say you can't cast spells of a given spell level if your class level is too low specifically refer to class levels. The other rules being referenced refer to caster levels. While the two are often related, they are not synonymous. A great deal of attention is paid to terms in PrCs to determine which ones advance spellcasting as if you'd taken a level in a particular class vs. which ones advance caster level.

[Beheld]

I'm afraid that the only arguments that suggest that comments relating to caster levels mean that 7th level wizards can't cast 4th level spells are conflating two terms that are not, denotatively, identical.

No No No. That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about his argument for how Arcane Whatever doesn't grant casting of Xth level spells because it can only be used once per day. Hence why I stated in my orgininal post, "level 7 Wizard with 17 Int."

It's the old "Your Sorcerer and/or Wizard can't take prestige classes until one level later than everyone in the world knows you can, so I can make a bad argument for how this cheese isn't RAW" argument that I thought we were done with 5 years ago.

[animewatcha]

A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard

Just kinda throwing this in here since specialist wizard actually got defined..
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm

[Mordaedil]

Nothing in the text shows such intent, so making such a categorical statement is very ill advised unless you happen to be Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Nooman, or Rich Redman (those being the authors of Unearthed Arcana).

Don't get me wrong, I do feel really bad for you if you cannot make such a logical leap in itself. But if you really want their input on the ordeal, I can just go on Twitter and ask them. It's not a big deal to really get information about this stuff anymore, but when I read the Domain Wizard, it was very obvious to me that it was an alternative variant to replace playing a specialist wizard for the benefit of playing a wizard with a cleric twist to it.

Again, I am sorry you can't see it when it is really obvious (Unearthed Arcana itself is intended as a mess of optional rules to allow you to tweak your gaming experience, not a bunch of suggested supplemental details like most other splatbooks)

[Lorddenorstrus]

Don't get me wrong, I do feel really bad for you if you cannot make such a logical leap in itself. But if you really want their input on the ordeal, I can just go on Twitter and ask them. It's not a big deal to really get information about this stuff anymore, but when I read the Domain Wizard, it was very obvious to me that it was an alternative variant to replace playing a specialist wizard for the benefit of playing a wizard with a cleric twist to it.

Again, I am sorry you can't see it when it is really obvious (Unearthed Arcana itself is intended as a mess of optional rules to allow you to tweak your gaming experience, not a bunch of suggested supplemental details like most other splatbooks)

So.. you're talking about read as intended. RAI. Which has NOTHING to do with this thread? This.. is a discussion on RAW. Is that freaking difficult for some people to understand? As it doesn't say anything about replacing the feature by RAW, it therefore.. DOESN'T. You do it differently at your tables? Cool again that's an interpretation and judicious use of Rule 0 to change the rules from as written. Which is the only thing discussed for these kind of debates.

[Mordaedil]

I see, I've been wondering what RAW meant this whole time. Read As Written. Now I just feel like an idiot. Sorry everyone, ignore me!

This whole time I thought RAW was some sort of source reference document.

[ryu]

I see, I've been wondering what RAW meant this whole time. Read As Written. Now I just feel like an idiot. Sorry everyone, ignore me!

This whole time I thought RAW was some sort of source reference document.

Well technically it's rules as intended and rules as written, but the intent was correct. Everyone has their own RAI. Some even give their RAI different titles like Rules as Common Sense dictates to mask the fact they're really just making their own RAI like everyone else.

[eggynack]

Well technically it's rules as intended and rules as written, but the intent was correct. Everyone has their own RAI. Some even give their RAI different titles like Rules as Common Sense dictates to mask the fact they're really just making their own RAI like everyone else.
I think there exists a distinction there. Rules as intended means you're making some guess, perhaps a very educated or context based guess, about how the designers wanted the game to be, and using that guess to determine how the rule set should operate. Rules as interpreted, which I think is another meaning of RAI, is similar, but depends a bit less on designer intent and a bit more on textual extrapolation. RACSD, meanwhile, doesn't care immensely about what the rules actually are. The goal there is to scrap the technical meaning behind the words, as well as the intent, and instead essentially construct house rules based on how you think the game world should operate. There's a lot of overlap between the three, but I kinda like how open RACSD is about the fact that its apathy towards any sort of overarching ruler of the system. RAI and RACSD might wind up at a certain identical rule between them, but RAI is more likely to get there with some underlying idea that this is the only possible outcome, and that anyone that disagrees is squaring off with the designers themselves instead of one fellow's opinion.

[RedMage125]

So.. you're talking about read as intended. RAI. Which has NOTHING to do with this thread? This.. is a discussion on RAW. Is that freaking difficult for some people to understand? As it doesn't say anything about replacing the feature by RAW, it therefore.. DOESN'T.
It DOES say that if the phrase "...in exchange for the versatility of specializing in a domain instead of specializing in an entire school..." is rules text.
Which... no one has any authority to say is NOT rules text. And I have shown, positively, through English syntax rules tell us that both halves of that sentence carry equal importance. Also I have an understanding of what the words "in exchange for" and "instead" mean.

Seriously, that would be like if I claimed "there was no RAW that said wizards had spell failure while wearing armor", just because I chose to ignore that line of text in the wizard description.


You do it differently at your tables? Cool again that's an interpretation and judicious use of Rule 0 to change the rules from as written. Which is the only thing discussed for these kind of debates.

Right, so I'll stick with the interpretation that DOESN'T require me to IGNORE what is written. Since, you know, what I have proposed is the only way to read it that actually includes ALL of the text.

[ryu]

To be fair I actually count the designers as having less credibility than any randomly selected person's opinion. The designers made the fighter, and ''tested'' the druid without casting a single spell or making the animal companion do things. I don't feel I need to offer a more complicated explanation of my complete and utter disdain of their track record.

[eggynack]

It DOES say that if the phrase "...in exchange for the versatility of specializing in a domain instead of specializing in an entire school..." is rules text.
Which... no one has any authority to say is NOT rules text. And I have shown, positively, through English syntax rules tell us that both halves of that sentence carry equal importance. Also I have an understanding of what the words "in exchange for" and "instead" mean.
But, even if a trade can be proved, you're not trading away specialization. At best, you're trading away the versatility associated with specialization. And associated versatility is not, in itself, a class feature that you are capable of having or not having prior to taking a variant. And you are giving up that versatility. By not specializing. You give up that versatility whether you also have elven generalist or not.

[Segev]

No No No. That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about his argument for how Arcane Whatever doesn't grant casting of Xth level spells because it can only be used once per day. Hence why I stated in my orgininal post, "level 7 Wizard with 17 Int."

It's the old "Your Sorcerer and/or Wizard can't take prestige classes until one level later than everyone in the world knows you can, so I can make a bad argument for how this cheese isn't RAW" argument that I thought we were done with 5 years ago.

Ah, okay. Finally managed to find the post in question with the argument to which you're objecting, and I actually agree: that's a spurious argument.

For reference, the argument as I understand it is that the prerequisite for a particular PrC or feat is phrased such that it requires "the ability to cast [some kind of] spells," typically spells of a particular level. Alacritous Cogitation allows you to cast a spell that meets the requirements once per day. Thus, you can only cast "a spell" rather than "spells." Or, so goes the argument.

However, this fails on two fronts:

1) Trying to fine parse plurals and singulars goes well beyond what the language used in D&D 3.5 specifies. When an ability to do X is required to be something you can do more than 1x per day, the minimum number of uses/day is explicitly specified. Even in legal documents, you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that a generic plural expressly specifies that a singular is insufficient. "The right to keep and bear arms" doesn't mean that you have a right to keep and bear any number of weapons except 1. Regardless of where you might fall in any real-world debate on the 2nd amendment (which is WAY outside the scope of this thread), I think anybody would laugh you out of court if you tried to claim that it didn't protect the right of an individual to carry a weapon because he's not carrying at least 2.

2) Even if you can only cast 1 7th level (for example) spell per day, you still can cast 7th level spells. By two distinct definitions, even:
If you know both mirage arcana and Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion, you can cast either of those spells. Plural.
If you cast Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion on Tuesday, then cast it again on Wednesday, you've cast 2 7th level spells.

So the ability to do it once per day doesn't mean you can't cast spells. It doesn't say "ability to cast Xth level spells in any given day." It says "ability to cast Xth level spells."

Even if you're limited to one per day, you have multiple days to consider.

Golly, if you know two 7th level spells, of which you can cast only one per day, you could still cast one on Thursday and the other on Friday, and you've demonstrated the ability to cast at least 2 7th level spells!


So, yeah, any argument hinging on once-per-day uses not being the ability to cast "spells" fails outright.

[TheBrassDuke]

I think people are forgetting where these variants say "this ability replaces", which is a staple to the variants that actually replace something.

Directly below the Introduction for "Elf Wizard":


Elves are naturally enthralled by the study of magic, and many of history’s most famous wizards were elves. Elf wizards typically prefer a general approach to magic, recognizing the value in versatility.

Directly below the Introduction for "Domain Wizard":


A wizard who uses the arcane domain system (called a domain wizard) selects a specific arcane domain of spells, much like a cleric selects a pair of domains associated with his deity. A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power.
Some of the arcane domains described below have the same name as a divine domain. Regardless of any apparent similarity, these domains have no connection to one another.

Okay. So, these are the "introductions", right?

Then it moves on to requirements and features, etc. At that point, it goes into specifics, and if a variant is supposed to give up anything in exchange for something else, you will always see "this ability (or other variation) replaces" in its own paragraph.


Generalist Wizardry: A 1st-level elf wizard begins play with one extra 1st-level spell in her spellbook. At each new wizard level, she gains one extra spell of any spell level that she can cast. This represents the additional elven insight and experience with arcane magic.
The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day. Unlike the specialist wizard ability, this spell may be of any school.
This substitution feature replaces the standard wizard’s ability to specialize in a school of magic.


Arcane Domain: At 1st level, a domain wizard selects an ar- cane domain from those listed below. (At the DM’s discretion, the player might create an alternatively themed domain instead.) Once selected, the domain may never be changed.
A domain wizard automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells as soon as she becomes able to cast it. These spells do not count against her two new spells known per wizard level.
A domain wizard casts spells from her chosen domain (re- gardless of whether the spell was prepared as a domain spell or a normal spell) as a caster one level higher than her normal level. This bonus applies only to the spells listed for the domain, not all spells of the school or subtype whose name matches the domain name.
In some cases, an arcane domain includes spells not normally on the wizard’s class spell list. These spells are treated as being on the character’s class spell list (and thus she can use wands or arcane scrolls that hold those spells, or even prepare those spells in her normal wizard spell slots).

So would you like to tell me exactly why you're taking an introductory statement about a variant to diametrically oppose another variant Class Feature? You're taking what you think supports your claim, from another area entirely, and trying to directly use it against a feature it has no grounds to oppose.

I'm going to drop out an watch this unfold now, so just read all that and discuss. I won't be responding (probably).

Edit:


No Prohibited Schools: Unlike a specialist wizard, a domain wizard need not select any prohibited schools or do- mains. All wizard spells are available
to her to learn.

So you still think, just by your outrageous definition and an introductory statement, that a domain wizard is still "specializing"? Right in the Class Features: "UNLIKE a Specialist Wizard..."

RAW, *****es...

[AnachroNinja]

Nothing is going to change his mind, he's already determined that it doesn't work, and now he's just trying to massage the facts to match the conclusion he already came to. It's a common problem unfortunately.

I'll grant that domain wizard is something of an oddity in that it doesn't follow the standard ACF formula of "Replaces: blah blah, Benefits: blah blah blah" or the standard "Gains: / Loses:" format in UA. It's not unreasonable to infer that the intent may have been for the wizard to lose the ability to specialize. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually say that so by the RAW, it doesn't do that.

[RedMage125]

But, even if a trade can be proved, you're not trading away specialization. At best, you're trading away the versatility associated with specialization. And associated versatility is not, in itself, a class feature that you are capable of having or not having prior to taking a variant. And you are giving up that versatility. By not specializing. You give up that versatility whether you also have elven generalist or not.
Ummm, I should apologize because I somehow deleted two words when I copy/pasted that, "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

The versatility is exchanged for power, yes. But specializing in a domain is still "instead of" (i.e. "in the place of", or "as a substitute for") specializing in a school.

I think people are forgetting where these variants say "this ability replaces", which is a staple to the variants that actually replace something.

Directly below the Introduction for "Elf Wizard":

Directly below the Introduction for "Domain Wizard":

Okay. So, these are the "introductions", right?

Then it moves on to requirements and features, etc. At that point, it goes into specifics, and if a variant is supposed to give up anything in exchange for something else, you will always see "this ability (or other variation) replaces" in its own paragraph.

You mean like the paragraph whose only statement of substance is that a DW cannot be a specialist because specializing in a domain is done "in the place of" specializing in a school?


So would you like to tell me exactly why you're taking an introductory statement about a variant to diametrically oppose another variant Class Feature? You're taking what you think supports your claim, from another area entirely, and trying to directly use it against a feature it has no grounds to oppose.
If you take THAT stance, then that means there is no text under "Class Features" that implies mutual exclusivity between specializing in a school and being a domain wizard.

So, by your reading, I could be an Abjuration Domain Abjuration Specialist Wizard, right?

No. That way lies madness.


I'm going to drop out an watch this unfold now, so just read all that and discuss. I won't be responding (probably).
How very passive-aggressive of you.


Edit:

So you still think, just by your outrageous definition and an introductory statement, that a domain wizard is still "specializing"? Right in the Class Features: "UNLIKE a Specialist Wizard..."

RAW, *****es...
I don't know what you think you are "proving here". No one ever said a DW IS a specialist wizard. The names are distinct to distinguish them as separate. The argument (which is tangential to the main point of the OP anyway, since the Leapfrog Wizard fails for more reasons than the DW+EGW combo) is that taking DW as an option is "as a substitute for" (which is what "instead" means) specializing in a school, the ability to do which is explicitly removed by EGW.


Nothing is going to change his mind, he's already determined that it doesn't work, and now he's just trying to massage the facts to match the conclusion he already came to. It's a common problem unfortunately.
That's cute that you want to paint me like that, but I am quite open-minded, if confronted with FACTS. I already ceded the point on the nomenclature of "spell slots" (maybe that was in the other thread on this topic) when RAW proof was provided. I can and do change my mind.

I came to this conclusion by reading the text. When I hear about a lot of these "exploits", I like to check out the rules to see if it's actually a dysfunction that is technically legal by RAW, or not. I haven't been "massaging" any facts. I've said since the OP that the word "instead" was the clincher that most people overlook. Some, like Tippy, assume for some bizarre reason, that one half of that sentence is rules text, and the other half is not.

But no one has yet provided one iota of evidence that "specializing in a domain INSTEAD of an entire school" is not Rules Text. Unless you count Brass Duke's attempt, which, if we accept as true, then there is no rule against a domain wizard who is also specialized in a school. Which I think is safe to say is not RAW, because there is an explicit sentence "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard".

Perhaps also I overestimated people's understanding of English. Like the meaning of the word "instead". Or what, exactly, is the significance of a semicolon that connects two otherwise complete sentences into one. Maybe not everyone already knows these things.

But I have explained them here, and people continue to argue while not even remotely addressing those points. I have yet to see one argument contesting either of those. Except for Tippy saying "Nuh uh, that's not rules text", and then being markedly silent on WHY he thinks it isn't rules text.


I'll grant that domain wizard is something of an oddity in that it doesn't follow the standard ACF formula of "Replaces: blah blah, Benefits: blah blah blah" or the standard "Gains: / Loses:" format in UA. It's not unreasonable to infer that the intent may have been for the wizard to lose the ability to specialize. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually say that so by the RAW, it doesn't do that.

Because there is text in the RAW that uses a word that means "in the place of" or "as a substitute for", and that sentence IS rules text, the RAW does, in fact, say just that.

[Segev]

If I am correct in where the current state of the discussion is, we are all agreed on the following:

A Domain Wizard cannot be a Specialist Wizard
An Elven Generalist takes that ACF, giving up the class ability of a Wizard to take a Specialty School

The point of contention around which all of this hinges is whether the first bullet point makes the second impossible to achieve.

One side is arguing that, because a Domain Wizard cannot be a Specialist, he doesn't have the class feature to give up to be an Elven Generalist. (Or, perhaps, that because an Elven Generalist has given up the ability to Specialize, he cannot be a Domain Wizard because a Domain Wizard must first HAVE the ability to Specialize and then choose not to.)

The other side is arguing that, because nothing says a Domain Wizard has to have the class feature that allows a Wizard to Specialize in order to be a Domain Wizard (since Domain Wizards are merely forbidden from taking that option), an Elven Generalist who lacks that option can still be a Domain Wizard.


Is that an accurate summation of the positions?

[RedMage125]

If I am correct in where the current state of the discussion is, we are all agreed on the following:

A Domain Wizard cannot be a Specialist Wizard
An Elven Generalist takes that ACF, giving up the class ability of a Wizard to take a Specialty School

The point of contention around which all of this hinges is whether the first bullet point makes the second impossible to achieve.

One side is arguing that, because a Domain Wizard cannot be a Specialist, he doesn't have the class feature to give up to be an Elven Generalist. (Or, perhaps, that because an Elven Generalist has given up the ability to Specialize, he cannot be a Domain Wizard because a Domain Wizard must first HAVE the ability to Specialize and then choose not to.)

The other side is arguing that, because nothing says a Domain Wizard has to have the class feature that allows a Wizard to Specialize in order to be a Domain Wizard (since Domain Wizards are merely forbidden from taking that option), an Elven Generalist who lacks that option can still be a Domain Wizard.


Is that an accurate summation of the positions?
Yes, with a few additional points of support from the RAW, defending exactly WHY those positions are held.

All of which is tangential to the ACTUAL point of the thread, which is about the "Leapfrog Wizard". DW+EGW is just one factor contributing to which.

[Segev]

The finer points of the RAW which support or denounce each argument are of course important, but I wanted to make sure we know which points each side was upholding, so we don't just swing randomly and try to knock down something that turns out to be a straw man on either side of the field.



I have to say that I'm afraid I don't find the argument that "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school" means that he can't be both a DW and an EG to be very persuasive. The order of application which is most demonstrative is to first make the decision to give up "the ability to Specialize in a school" to take Elven Generalist.

Domain Wizard option does not require that you have the ability to Specialize in a school. It only requires that you not be specialized in a school. EGs are not specialized in a school. Therefore, an EG can be a DW.

The phrase, "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school," doesn't say they can't have given it up in some way other than simply choosing not to use it. An EG has given up that versatility, as well, so he can still be a DW.



(Tangentially, I'm not sure why anybody who isn't planning to Specialize would FAIL to take Domain Wizard; it gives up nothing over a normal non-specialist wizard.)

[RedMage125]

The finer points of the RAW which support or denounce each argument are of course important, but I wanted to make sure we know which points each side was upholding, so we don't just swing randomly and try to knock down something that turns out to be a straw man on either side of the field.

I just want to say I appreciate the calm mature manner in which are willing to debate this.



I have to say that I'm afraid I don't find the argument that "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school" means that he can't be both a DW and an EG to be very persuasive. The order of application which is most demonstrative is to first make the decision to give up "the ability to Specialize in a school" to take Elven Generalist.

Domain Wizard option does not require that you have the ability to Specialize in a school. It only requires that you not be specialized in a school. EGs are not specialized in a school. Therefore, an EG can be a DW.

The phrase, "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school," doesn't say they can't have given it up in some way other than simply choosing not to use it. An EG has given up that versatility, as well, so he can still be a DW.
You don't find it persuasive, I get that.

But to me that begs the question, what does the word "instead" mean, then?

I've heard the arguments you are espousing before, and I understand where you (and they) are coming from. But that means ignoring "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school", and what that means, rules-wise.

The argument that one half of that sentence "is not rules text" can be refuted by the meaning of a semicolon that connects two otherwise complete sentences. It means both are equal in importance. And since "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard" is rules text, so is what's on the other side of the semicolon. It's being very literal and specific about grammar and syntax, but that's what "strict-RAW adherence" means.

Since it is rules text, the significance of the phrase including "instead" must be considered.

[Segev]

I just want to say I appreciate the calm mature manner in which are willing to debate this.I likewise appreciate such calmness. :smallsmile:


You don't find it persuasive, I get that.

But to me that begs the question, what does the word "instead" mean, then?

I've heard the arguments you are espousing before, and I understand where you (and they) are coming from. But that means ignoring "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school", and what that means, rules-wise.

I'm going to just re-quote the whole sentence, so I am not accidentally guilty of picking it apart while ignoring other parts.


A wizard who uses the arcane domain system (called a domain wizard) selects a specific arcane domain of spells, much like a cleric selects a pair of domains associated with his deity. A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power.

The first sentence doesn't seem to be of concern to us in this debate, so I'll ignore it unless we find that assumption was incorrect, later.

Breaking apart the next sentence into bullets, we get:
A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard
in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school
the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power

It seems that the second bullet is the main crux of the disagreement. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong, or if you feel the other two bullets are important to parsing how this particular interaction between DW and EG works.)

I believe that the second bullet - which contains the "in exchange" and "instead" terms on which your argument focuses - doesn't actually impede EG at all.

Bear with me; I'm repeating myself, but I will try to elaborate to clarify in the process.

An EG gives up the ability to specialize in a school. The second bullet for a DW says that, in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, he can be a DW (with all the mechanical benefits thereof).

Technically, per the RAW, it doesn't say that the DW can't get anything else on top of the DW benefits "in exchange for specializing in a domain instead of an entire school." It only says that he gets the DW benefits in return for not specializing in an entire school.

An EG does not specialize in an entire school. Nothing says that the EG can't also get the DW benefits in exchange for doing what he already was doing - not specializing in an entire school.


The argument that one half of that sentence "is not rules text" can be refuted by the meaning of a semicolon that connects two otherwise complete sentences. It means both are equal in importance. And since "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard" is rules text, so is what's on the other side of the semicolon. It's being very literal and specific about grammar and syntax, but that's what "strict-RAW adherence" means.

Since it is rules text, the significance of the phrase including "instead" must be considered.Agreed. I hope my discussion above - which in no way denies the text is there nor discounts it as potentially part of the RAW - is more illustrative.


Think of it this way: Let's say there's a secret society which allows entry only to those who've given up all their worldly possessions, and forbids members to ever again rise out of poverty. Vow of Poverty gives you a bunch of non-item bonuses in exchange for owning practically nothing. Just because a character joined the society doesn't mean he can't also take Vow of Poverty. All VoP does is check to see if he does, in fact, own more than what it allows. It doesn't care if he also got some other benefit (such as secret society membership) for having obeyed that restriction.

EG makes you give up your ability to specialize in a school of spells. DW doesn't care if you HAVE that ability or not, it only checks to see if you have not used it. You can "not use it" by either having it but choosing not to, or by trading it away and not having it at all. As long as you have "given up" the chance to specialize in an entire school of spells, you can be a DW. EGs have, in fact, given up the chance to specialize in an entire school. In exchange, they may specialize in a domain instead and get the increased casting power for that domain.

[eggynack]

The versatility is exchanged for power, yes. But specializing in a domain is still "instead of" (i.e. "in the place of", or "as a substitute for") specializing in a school.

But those two words mean that that last part is no longer true, if it ever was. It's not instead of specializing in a school, which means that you're not trading away specializing in a school. I think I may have been going about this wrong, actually, saying that elven generalist should come first, though I think Tippy is right that it works either way now. Consider what it looks like if you open on domain wizard, keeping the different language in mind. You take domain wizard, which means that you can no longer make the choice to specialize. The ability to specialize is still on your character sheet, but you are forgoing the versatility offered by specialization, so you cannot make use of it. Then you take elven generalist, and that's when you trade away the ability to specialize itself. It works the other way too, as I just noted. You first ditch the underlying specialization ability, and then you trade away the ability to make a wizard specialization choice. It's less intuitive, but it works. The truth here is that this wizard is, in fact, trading away two things. Those two things look similar, but they are different to the extent that they can be traded separately.

[AnachroNinja]

I believe part of the confusion is that it appears to be his contention that a domain wizard IS a form of specialist wizard, one who is specialized in a domain instead of a school, and of this disqualified for EGW.

[Segev]

I believe part of the confusion is that it appears to be his contention that a domain wizard IS a form of specialist wizard, one who is specialized in a domain instead of a school, and of this disqualified for EGW.

It states clearly in the rules that a DW and a Specialist Wizard are two distinct things. I don't think RedMage125 is claiming they're the same thing.

He might - and I invite him to clarify whether this is true or not - be saying they're equivalent. But we have no rules that say they are for any rules purpose.

As written - whether intended this way or not - the rules state that a DW gets his powers in exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school of magic. It doesn't say that he can't have gotten anything else in addition.




As another example, if a politician is accepting bribes to pass a certain policy through his office, the people bribing him honestly don't care if somebody else is bribing him to do the exact same thing. For all they care, he could take bribes from 30 different sources as long as he delivers on it to them.

DW doesn't have any text that makes its reward for not being a specialist wizard exclusive, such that you can't have any other rewards for the same thing in addition.

[RedMage125]

I'm going to just re-quote the whole sentence, so I am not accidentally guilty of picking it apart while ignoring other parts.



The first sentence doesn't seem to be of concern to us in this debate, so I'll ignore it unless we find that assumption was incorrect, later.

Breaking apart the next sentence into bullets, we get:
A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard
in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school
the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power

It seems that the second bullet is the main crux of the disagreement. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong, or if you feel the other two bullets are important to parsing how this particular interaction between DW and EG works.)
So far so good, as far as what the crux is. But I would keep the second and third bullets together, so only 2 bullets. And I think separating those ideas is where you and I read that differently.


I believe that the second bullet - which contains the "in exchange" and "instead" terms on which your argument focuses - doesn't actually impede EG at all.

Bear with me; I'm repeating myself, but I will try to elaborate to clarify in the process.

An EG gives up the ability to specialize in a school. The second bullet for a DW says that, in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, he can be a DW (with all the mechanical benefits thereof).

Technically, per the RAW, it doesn't say that the DW can't get anything else on top of the DW benefits "in exchange for specializing in a domain instead of an entire school." It only says that he gets the DW benefits in return for not specializing in an entire school.
Maybe it's because of my own "grammar-nazi" tendencies, but that's not how I read the sentence.
It's "In exchange for X, you get Y"
Where X is "giving up some versatility by doing Z"
Y is "casting her chosen spells with increased power"
So the "exchange" is versatility for power.
Z, which is "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school", is HOW you are giving up versatility.

So, to break it down chronologically...
You do Z, "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school"
Domain specialization is much less versatile than school specialization (because one of your spells/day is specifically picked out for you), so by doing this, you have paid a cost, X. Y, "casting her chosen spells with increased power", is the reward for paying said cost.

To me, this is the only coherent way to read the text.



An EG does not specialize in an entire school. Nothing says that the EG can't also get the DW benefits in exchange for doing what he already was doing - not specializing in an entire school.
But even in this sentence here...
In order to receive a tangible BENEFIT from "not specializing", wouldn't you need the "ability to specialize"?


It states clearly in the rules that a DW and a Specialist Wizard are two distinct things. I don't think RedMage125 is claiming they're the same thing.

He might - and I invite him to clarify whether this is true or not - be saying they're equivalent. But we have no rules that say they are for any rules purpose.
You are correct as to what I am saying.
But I contend that we DO have rules that say that.


As written - whether intended this way or not - the rules state that a DW gets his powers in exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school of magic. It doesn't say that he can't have gotten anything else in addition.
So you read that as that all of his powers (i.e. DW class features) are the benefit from "giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school". Is that correct?
Like I said before, the way I read that sentence, the DW specializes in a domain instead of an entire school. Since that has a cost of loss of versatility (resulting in a net loss for the character), he is compensated with extra power (mechanically, +1 caster level) with his domain spells.
So the domain/school specialization options are already mutually exclusive and equivalent. He is choosing to specialize in Y manner, instead of the usual X manner. Loss of versatility is the result of that exchange, which is then compensated for.

Make sense?

[eggynack]

It's "In exchange for X, you get Y"
Where X is "giving up some versatility by doing Z"
Y is "casting her chosen spells with increased power"
Sure.


So the "exchange" is versatility for power.
Not exactly. The exchange is the versatility of specializing in a school. You are not getting that versatility when you take elven generalist. The ACF doesn't care about any other forms of versatility you might be getting.


Z, which is "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school", is HOW you are giving up versatility.
And you're doing that. You're not specializing in an entire school, and you're thus giving up that versatility associated.


You do Z, "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school"
Domain specialization is much less versatile than school specialization (because one of your spells/day is specifically picked out for you), so by doing this, you have paid a cost, X. Y, "casting her chosen spells with increased power", is the reward for paying said cost.

And, as noted, you are paying that cost, and thus get the associated benefit.


To me, this is the only coherent way to read the text.
Maybe, except that coherent text reading seems to lead to this working fine.


In order to receive a tangible BENEFIT from "not specializing", wouldn't you need the "ability to specialize"?
Don't see why you would. The cost you're paying is simply that you're deciding not to specialize in the first place. Cost paid, benefit gained.


But I contend that we DO have rules that say that.
Where?


Like I said before, the way I read that sentence, the DW specializes in a domain instead of an entire school. Since that has a cost of loss of versatility (resulting in a net loss for the character), he is compensated with extra power (mechanically, +1 caster level) with his domain spells.
But, as I said above, you're paying that specifically stated versatility cost whether you go elven generalist or not.


So the domain/school specialization options are already mutually exclusive and equivalent. He is choosing to specialize in Y manner, instead of the usual X manner. Loss of versatility is the result of that exchange, which is then compensated for.
Domain and the school are mutually exclusive. It's nowhere indicated that they're somehow equivalent, and I don't even know what that equivalence would imply.

Edit: Also, critical point, you are not simply recouping your versatility with the domain elven generalist. The specialist still has advantages, as the generalist only gets one perfectly free slot while the specialist gets a lot of pretty free slots. Elven generalist isn't even necessarily better than specializing. Thus, beyond pointing to a semantic loss, one can also point to a real versatility loss.

[Quertus]

I believe part of the confusion is that it appears to be his contention that a domain wizard IS a form of specialist wizard, one who is specialized in a domain instead of a school, and of this disqualified for EGW.


It states clearly in the rules that a DW and a Specialist Wizard are two distinct things. I don't think RedMage125 is claiming they're the same thing.

He might - and I invite him to clarify whether this is true or not - be saying they're equivalent. But we have no rules that say they are for any rules purpose.

As written - whether intended this way or not - the rules state that a DW gets his powers in exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school of magic. It doesn't say that he can't have gotten anything else in addition.

He may not be, but I will. Consider the text:


A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power.

The domain wizard specializes in a domain. One who specializes is, by definition, a specialist, are they not?

So, much like the abuse of the word "level", what version of the words "specialize" and "specialist" should we be using?

EDIT: 2e was rife with specialist wizards, from the 8 spheres, 4 elements, wild mages, chronomancers, etc. So I see "domain wizard specializes in a domain", and easily say, "yup, another specialist".

[Segev]

So far so good, as far as what the crux is. But I would keep the second and third bullets together, so only 2 bullets. And I think separating those ideas is where you and I read that differently.Actually, I don't think combining them changes any part of my argument, as hopefully I'll demonstrate here.

Eggynack did a good job of covering many of the points I would, so I probably will try to let his post stand, and only hit a few areas. (I might fail at this; I tend towards sesquipedalian loquatiousness.)


Maybe it's because of my own "grammar-nazi" tendencies, but that's not how I read the sentence.
It's "In exchange for X, you get Y"
Where X is "giving up some versatility by doing Z"
Y is "casting her chosen spells with increased power"
So the "exchange" is versatility for power.
Z, which is "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school", is HOW you are giving up versatility.That's actually irrelevant. It says that you get X in exchange for Y, yes, but the exact wording of Y in this case is important.

In exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school, the DW casts his chosen spells at increased power.

It doesn't specify that that is the ONLY thing he can get for giving up that versatility.

As long as he gives up that versatility, he can get the reward clause "in exchange."

An EG has given up that versatility.

In exchange for giving up that versatility, the EG can get the benefits of being a DW, per the sentence we're analyzing.


So, to break it down chronologically...
You do Z, "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school"
Domain specialization is much less versatile than school specialization (because one of your spells/day is specifically picked out for you), so by doing this, you have paid a cost, X. Y, "casting her chosen spells with increased power", is the reward for paying said cost.

To me, this is the only coherent way to read the text.The thing is, it doesn't demand a cost; it demands an opportunity cost. There is a significant difference.

Let's say you had a choice between going to a meeting at work where you might be able to pitch your idea for a project to the big boss of the company (but you don't think you have a good chance of it going anywhere), or you could skip the meeting and go to Disney World with the girl you're dating because she's already got plans to go there that day. The opportunity cost of doing one is not doing the other. You decide to go to Disney World, resigning yourself to the 100% (rather than merely "high") probability that you won't get your project approved (and promoted to middle management), but having fun with your girlfriend.

A month later, the company downsizes and closes all special projects, firing their management. In exchange for not being the manager of your project, you don't get fired.

You already got "go to Disney World with girlfriend" out of giving up your chance to be middle management. Now you've also gotten "keep your job" in exchange for giving up that chance. You didn't have to have the choice still open to you in order to have given it up and gotten the benefit.


The same is true for a DW. The DW gets increased casting power in exchange for giving up the versatility to specialize in an entire school. He only has to have given it up to get that power. It doesn't matter how or why he gives it up. He can give it up by simply "not being a specialist wizard" (as is the default expectation when UA was written), or by any other means - including ACFs which trade away the option to be a specialist wizard. As long as whatever he does doesn't make him specialize in an entire school, he's given up that versatility, and may be a DW to get the DW's perks "in exchange" for giving up that versatility.



But even in this sentence here...
In order to receive a tangible BENEFIT from "not specializing", wouldn't you need the "ability to specialize"?Nope. You need expressly to have given up the versatility of specializing in an entire school. Anything that lets you give up that versatility will let you get the perks of being a DW. It doesn't matter if you gave up that versatility for nothing other than the DW perks, or gave it up for a bonus spell slot of your highest level spells each day. You've "given up the versatility of specializing in an entire school," so you qualify for what the DW gives you "in exchange."




So you read that as that all of his powers (i.e. DW class features) are the benefit from "giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school". Is that correct?Yes.

Like I said before, the way I read that sentence, the DW specializes in a domain instead of an entire school. Since that has a cost of loss of versatility (resulting in a net loss for the character), he is compensated with extra power (mechanically, +1 caster level) with his domain spells.That is true.

So the domain/school specialization options are already mutually exclusiveThey are.
and equivalent.But here is where you're wrong. It may be intended that this be the case, but nowhere in the rules does it say this. It does say they're mutually exclusive; specializing in an entire school precludes being a DW, so any DW cannot have specialized in an entire school.


He is choosing to specialize in Y manner, instead of the usual X manner. Loss of versatility is the result of that exchange, which is then compensated for.

Make sense?It does, but see above. Despite the "compensation" being given, nothing in it says that he can't receive ADDITIONAL compensation. Nowhere does it say that DWs are specialist wizards, and in fact it says the opposite.

I agree; it is probably intended to be understood as you read it. But that isn't what the RAW say. The RAW say that you can be a DW if you are not specialized in a school, and that a DW is not a specialist wizard.


The domain wizard specializes in a domain. One who specializes is, by definition, a specialist, are they not?

So, much like the abuse of the word "level", what version of the words "specialize" and "specialist" should we be using?

Sorry, you're wrong, here. "Specialist wizard" is a specific game term, and the rules of DW explicitly differentiate DWs from specialist wizards. DWs are explicitly not "specialist wizards." They may be "specialists" in the English-language sense, but not in a game-term sense. The game term for them is "domain wizard."

[GeminiVeil]

So, I think others are arguing this a lot better than I could, but I just wanted to post an analogy that I think is what the pro-working group is trying to say they believe the RAW is saying. If anyone can correct anything here, I would appreciate that. This is just a way of me putting into words what I THINK they are saying, so if it's wrong, I would very much like to be corrected.

Specializing is like a short sword. It's versatile, more so than just my hands, because it can cut things and I can still use my other hand for other things, such as a shield, if I want.

Then someone fastens, in some way, boxing gloves to my hands. I can't remove them myself. I can no longer use my short sword, I must use the gloves instead. However, this does not mean I no longer HAVE that sword. Not being able to use the sword is not the same thing as no longer possessing it.

What this means is I am free to trade away my sword for something that DOES help me now, such as spikes (or, as Ryu suggested, razor wire) on those gloves. (lame example, I know) Because I can't use it anyway, this is a good 'trade' for me. I gives something I can no longer use for something that I could use now.

Is this essentially what is being said?

[ryu]

So, I think others are arguing this a lot better than I could, but I just wanted to post an analogy that I think is what the pro-working group is trying to say they believe the RAW is saying. If anyone can correct anything here, I would appreciate that. This is just a way of me putting into words what I THINK they are saying, so if it's wrong, I would very much like to be corrected.

Specializing is like a short sword. It's versatile, more so than just my hands, because it can cut things and I can still use my other hand for other things, such as a shield, if I want.

Then someone fastens, in some way, boxing gloves to my hands. I can't remove them myself. I can no longer use my short sword, I must use the gloves instead. However, this does not mean I no longer HAVE that sword. Not being able to use the sword is not the same thing as no longer possessing it.

What this means is I am free to trade away my sword for something that DOES help me now, such as spikes on those gloves. (lame example, I know) Because I can't use it anyway, this is a good 'trade' for me. I gives something I can no longer use for something that I could use now.

Is this essentially what is being said?

Generally good analogy but I would trade out the spikes for razor-wire It's less visible at a distance and is liable to do significantly more consistent damage. Also lighter.

[GeminiVeil]

Generally good analogy but I would trade out the spikes for razor-wire It's less visible at a distance and is liable to do significantly more consistent damage. Also lighter.

As I said, lame example. :)

Glad I got the central points correct, though.

[Segev]

Yes. Essentially, DW only requires that you not specialize in a school. Nowhere in it does it say you can't have gotten something else out of failing to specialize in a school. If you are an EG, you are not specialized in a school. You satisfy the requirements to become a DW.

[Mehangel]

Yes. Essentially, DW only requires that you not specialize in a school. Nowhere in it does it say you can't have gotten something else out of failing to specialize in a school. If you are an EG, you are not specialized in a school. You satisfy the requirements to become a DW.

I also view it as if DW was a prestige class. The Domain Wizard has the prerequisite that it may not be a specialist wizard. The hypothetical prestige class wouldn't care how or why you are not a specialist wizard, only that you are not one.

[dascarletm]

If I gave you two statements (Italics are what I've changed):

Someone wearing a white shirt cannot also wear a white jacket; in exchange for the classic-ness given up by wearing a white jacket instead of an white shirt, the white jacket imbues the wearer with increased suaveness.

I want to also give you a blue shirt in exchange for your white shirt.

This substitution shirt replaces the standard person's ability to wear a white shirt.

Could you wear the blue shirt with the white jacket?

I feel like I've lost where I'm going with this.... I need to see a tailor.

[Segev]

I feel like I've lost where I'm going with this.... I need to see a tailor.

Yeah, if you're dascarletm, you can't be wearing blue and white!

[Sliver]

While I wouldn't allow it in my games, because I feel like getting something instead of something you can't have, basically two features for the price of one, is cheesy, especially concerning Wizards, it's still a generally legal idea. It may be purely semantics, but not being able to specialize doesn't mean that you can't have something to replace specialization.

But hey, I don't care that much. From what I've read, both sides repeat the same arguments and neither is changing their minds.


It doesn't replace the ability, just forbids using it.


No, if you can't use it, you don't have it.

I really doubt anyone has a secret ace they were waiting to reveal. The discussion won't be going anywhere... Can we talk about trains or something instead?

[Extra Anchovies]

I really doubt anyone has a secret ace they were waiting to reveal. The discussion won't be going anywhere... Can we talk about trains or something instead?

Domain and Specialist wizards are equally good with trains, because there's both an arcane school and an arcane domain for trainsmutation.

[DarkSoul]

If I gave you two statements (Italics are what I've changed):

Someone wearing a white shirt cannot also wear a white jacket; in exchange for the classic-ness given up by wearing a white jacket instead of an white shirt, the white jacket imbues the wearer with increased suaveness.

I want to also give you a blue shirt in exchange for your white shirt.

This substitution shirt replaces the standard person's ability to wear a white shirt.

Could you wear the blue shirt with the white jacket?

I feel like I've lost where I'm going with this.... I need to see a tailor.

Interesting analogy. RedMage's point of view is that the answer to your final question is "No, someone wearing a blue shirt can't wear white, period." For sanity's sake, I share that view. Specialize in a school or a domain, you're still a specialist wizard, which is what EGW prevents. Yes, yes, I know it says "specialize in a school of magic", I just don't care. Variants from UA are just that: variations. You can't be a specialist and a domain wizard because the latter is a variant of the former, and therefore is affected by anything in the main body of the rules that affects specialist wizards. I can't say for sure that it's the intent of the rules but the letter of the rules support not allowing it at least as much, if not more, than allowing a level 1 wizard to cast 9th level spells. I mean really? What DM does something that stupid?

Regardless of shirts and ACF's, there's still the minimum caster/class level issue that shuts the whole thing down.

On the topic of trains, this entire argument in favor of allowing the apprentice to cast meteor swarm should be thrown directly in front of the next one to come by.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Interesting analogy. RedMage's point of view is that the answer to your final question is "No, someone wearing a blue shirt can't wear white, period." For sanity's sake, I share that view. Specialize in a school or a domain, you're still a specialist wizard, which is what EGW prevents. Yes, yes, I know it says "specialize in a school of magic", I just don't care. Variants from UA are just that: variations. You can't be a specialist and a domain wizard because the latter is a variant of the former, and therefore is affected by anything in the main body of the rules that affects specialist wizards. I can't say for sure that it's the intent of the rules but the letter of the rules support not allowing it at least as much, if not more, than allowing a level 1 wizard to cast 9th level spells. I mean really? What DM does something that stupid?

Regardless of shirts and ACF's, there's still the minimum caster/class level issue that shuts the whole thing down.

On the topic of trains, this entire argument in favor of allowing the apprentice to cast meteor swarm should be thrown directly in front of the next one to come by.

RAW isn't RAI. Nobody here is discussing interpretations or "as intended" variations of the rules that YOU use at your table. This is a discussion of RAW only.

[DarkSoul]

RAW isn't RAI. Nobody here is discussing interpretations or "as intended" variations of the rules that YOU use at your table. This is a discussion of RAW only.So provide irrefutable proof according to the rules as written that one interpretation or the other is correct. Right now, because of the caster level/class level limitation, it's been soundly debunked and everything beyond that is RAI bickering.

So tell me again how anything anyone's said beyond that isn't an interpretation or "as intended" variation?

[Beheld]

Right now, because of the caster level/class level limitation

Wait, have any of the people claiming that's a rule provided a single rules cite for it? Last I checked, people were saying there was totally a rule double dog pinkie promise.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Wait, have any of the people claiming that's a rule provided a single rules cite for it? Last I checked, people were saying there was totally a rule double dog pinkie promise.

Exactly the point, the only spell like that is fireball, it's an oddity. There's no line near the example saying "Apply this to all spells in the game and cause a dysfunction." So... there is absolutely 0 RAW support for such a rule. It's an extrapolation. The entire opposing argument to this monstrosity from RAW is exactly that.. Extrapolation. This is from the same group of people that generally think RAW isn't broke. They'll argue even the most commonly realized mistakes as not working like drown healing. So we get this idiotic argument threads with people unqualified to discuss RAW thinking they're experts.

[zergling.exe]

Wait, have any of the people claiming that's a rule provided a single rules cite for it? Last I checked, people were saying there was totally a rule double dog pinkie promise.

There is proof, it's just that people refuse to take it as a general rule and claim that it's specific for fireball (which requires CL 5 due to being a 3rd level spell), casting a spell at a lower CL, and wizards needing 3 spellcaster levels to cast 2nd level spells.

Citation 1, PHB pages 7-8:

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. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.) For instance, the wizard Mialee has an Intelligence score of 15, so she’s smart enough to get one bonus 1st level spell and one bonus 2nd-level spell. (She will not actually get the 2nd-level spell until she is 3rd level wizard, since that’s the minimum level a wizard must be to cast 2nd-level spells.)
Citation 2, PHB page 171:

If she wishes, she can cast a fireball that deals less damage by casting the spell at a lower caster level, but she must reduce the range according to the selected caster level, and she can’t cast fireball with a caster level lower than 5th (the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball).

I swear there was another place but cannot find it at the moment. I thought it was scrolls but maybe it's another magic item.

edit: Case in point, poster above.

edit 2: See Tippy's posts in the thread.
Point 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502321-Fallacy-of-Elven-Generalist-Domain-Wizard-quot-Leapfrog-Wizard-quot&p=21264045#post21264045)
Second half (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502321-Fallacy-of-Elven-Generalist-Domain-Wizard-quot-Leapfrog-Wizard-quot&p=21264310#post21264310)
Here too, but not sure if he is arguing against himself here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502321-Fallacy-of-Elven-Generalist-Domain-Wizard-quot-Leapfrog-Wizard-quot&p=21264414#post21264414)

[DarkSoul]

Wait, have any of the people claiming that's a rule provided a single rules cite for it? Last I checked, people were saying there was totally a rule double dog pinkie promise.Yes, as zergling.exe pointed out it's on pages 7-8 of the PHB, in black and white. It's also on page 133 of the rules compendium, where it takes the ruling zergling quoted about Fireball and removes the spell-specific parts. There's a similar reference in the rules for crafting scrolls but people like to ignore that one too, spouting some "that only applies to scrolls" BS.

[Troacctid]

The section on scrolls also has a chart showing the price of a scroll made at minimum caster level for each class, and there are similar charts for wands and potions.

[zergling.exe]

Yes, as zergling.exe pointed out it's on pages 7-8 of the PHB, in black and white.

Even if this weren't a general rule, it still is explicitly denying a first level DW, EGW or both a second level slot; since wizards need 3 levels before they can cast second level spells at all, and both require being able to cast second level spells.

[Beheld]

Yes, as zergling.exe pointed out it's on pages 7-8 of the PHB, in black and white. It's also on page 133 of the rules compendium, where it takes the ruling zergling quoted about Fireball and removes the spell-specific parts. There's a similar reference in the rules for crafting scrolls but people like to ignore that one too, spouting some "that only applies to scrolls" BS.

Uh.... the rules on page 7-8 don't say that at all. If a 5th level Wizard takes Mage Slayer, then according to the rules of page 7-8 totally say that can just totally roll right on and cast 2nd and even 3rd level spells at Caster level 1.

The rules quote from 171 is the only relevant rules citation at all. My PHB says "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question" which certainly implies there is one, but it doesn't state what it would be.

I wonder what the specifics of the Rules Compendium quote is, since there exist a bunch of Chameleons and Ur-Priests and Trapsmiths and Shadowlords with nonstandard caster level to spell level access provisions.

I think the problem with the minimum caster level rule, is that in addition to never being actually stated in the rules, and instead implied from a bunch of other nearby things, it basically makes entire sections of the game make no sense, like Wild Mages, and Mage Slayer, and that Rogue/Diviner hybrid class.


Even if this weren't a general rule, it still is explicitly denying a first level DW, EGW or both a second level slot; since wizards need 3 levels before they can cast second level spells at all, and both require being able to cast second level spells.

No, what it actually says is that the Wizard Class doesn't give access to 2nd level spells until you take 3 levels of it. It specifically talks about what the Wizard class levels grant. It certainly doesn't prevent a Wizard 1/Cleric 19 from casting 2nd level spells, so long as it gets the spell slots from somewhere besides the Wizard class description.

[Troacctid]

I wonder what the specifics of the Rules Compendium quote is, since there exist a bunch of Chameleons and Ur-Priests and Trapsmiths and Shadowlords with nonstandard caster level to spell level access provisions.
The DMG has minimum caster levels for all the PHB spellcasting classes. It's the same level that you first get a spell slot of that level (or half that for paladins and rangers). You should be able to easily extrapolate from there.

[Beheld]

The DMG has minimum caster levels for all the PHB spellcasting classes. It's the same level that you first get a spell slot of that level (or half that for paladins and rangers). You should be able to easily extrapolate from there.

That's not what it says in my DMG. It says:

"For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given."

and

"Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1), unless the caster specifically desires otherwise."

Neither of which prevents a level 6 Wizard with Mage slayer from making a level 3 scroll with a Caster level of 2, absent some other rule.

Must be really awkward for Wild Mages in your games, since they begin casting a spell, and then find out if they are allowed to cast the spell after they cast the spell:


Wild Magic: A wild mage casts spells differently from any other arcane spellcaster. She reduces her caster level by 3 for all spells she casts from now on. However, every time she casts a spell, her use of wild magic adds 1d6 to her adjusted caster level. For example, an 8th-level sorcerer/1st-level wild mage has a base caster level of 6th, not 9th, but her actual caster level varies from 7th to 12th for every spell she casts. Caster level affects all level-based variables of a spell, including spell penetration checks.

[DarkSoul]

Uh.... the rules on page 7-8 don't say that at all. If a 5th level Wizard takes Mage Slayer, then according to the rules of page 7-8 totally say that can just totally roll right on and cast 2nd and even 3rd level spells at Caster level 1.Because of the rule on page 171, your example wizard can't cast anything higher than level 1 spells. You can choose any lower caster level to cast spells at, but it must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question. The fact that you can't choose anything higher than CL 1 is irrelevant.


The rules quote from 171 is the only relevant rules citation at all. My PHB says "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question" which certainly implies there is one, but it doesn't state what it would be.

I wonder what the specifics of the Rules Compendium quote is, since there exist a bunch of Chameleons and Ur-Priests and Trapsmiths and Shadowlords with nonstandard caster level to spell level access provisions.This is the same wording as appears in the Rules Compendium.

It tells you exactly what the minimum caster level for your spells are. Whatever is high enough for you to cast the spell in question. Chameleon minimum caster level for a level 3 spell is 6 (twice your class level). For Ur-Priests it's 3, Trapsmiths cast as a bard, so caster level = class level, and they get level 3 spells at class level 5 thus minimum caster level is 5. Shadowlord's caster level is their class level, and they get level 3 spells at class level 5, so minimum caster level for Shadowlords to cast level 3 spells is 5. See? This isn't hard, people just try to make it hard to get around the rules.


No, what it actually says is that the Wizard Class doesn't give access to 2nd level spells until you take 3 levels of it. It specifically talks about what the Wizard class levels grant. It certainly doesn't prevent a Wizard 1/Cleric 19 from casting 2nd level spells, so long as it gets the spell slots from somewhere besides the Wizard class description.It specifically talks about a wizard in a sentence starting with "For instance," also known as an example. The pertinent rules text is entirely on page 7, and reads:


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.There is no mention of any class, no "but it doesn't apply to this other caster!" ridiculousness. The wizard 1/cleric 19 cannot cast level 2 wizard spells, but can cast level 2 cleric spells at any level over 3.


Must be really awkward for Wild Mages in your games, since they begin casting a spell, and then find out if they are allowed to cast the spell after they cast the spell:Specific exception to a general rule, just like Precocious Apprentice.

[Beheld]

Because of the rule on page 171, your example wizard can't cast anything higher than level 1 spells. You can choose any lower caster level to cast spells at, but it must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question. The fact that you can't choose anything higher than CL 1 is irrelevant.

Again, the rules one page 7-8 don't say that at all, like I said, the rule on 171 would be the only relevant rule, and would have the exact same power with or without the rule on page 7-8.


This is the same wording as appears in the Rules Compendium.

It tells you exactly what the minimum caster level for your spells are. Whatever is high enough for you to cast the spell in question. Chameleon minimum caster level for a level 3 spell is 6 (twice your class level). For Ur-Priests it's 3, Trapsmiths cast as a bard, so caster level = class level, and they get level 3 spells at class level 5 thus minimum caster level is 5. Shadowlord's caster level is their class level, and they get level 3 spells at class level 5, so minimum caster level for Shadowlords to cast level 3 spells is 5. See? This isn't hard, people just try to make it hard to get around the rules.

So... you still won't give the actual Rules Compendium rule, and according to your own inexact description, it doesn't define a minimum caster level at all, so it turns out there is no minimum caster level, and Wizard 7 who took Mage Slayer at level 6 can cast 4th level spells at Caster Level 3.


It specifically talks about a wizard in a sentence starting with "For instance," also known as an example. The pertinent rules text is entirely on page 7, and reads:

There is no mention of any class, no "but it doesn't apply to this other caster!" ridiculousness. The wizard 1/cleric 19 cannot cast level 2 wizard spells, but can cast level 2 cleric spells at any level over 3.

Uh... that's my point? The Wizard class doesn't grant Mailee 2nd level spells until she has three levels in it. If she got 2nd level spells from other source, she obviously can still cast them even without three Wizard levels. So if she got a 2nd level Wizard spell from source besides the Wizard class that used her Wizard caster level, even if her Wizard Caster level was 1, she would still be able to cast the spell at Caster level 1 according to that rule. Again, if the rules on 171 prevent that, they do it entirely on their own, and without reference to the rules on page 7-8 which have nothing to do with minimum caster level.


[Wild Mage] Specific exception to a general rule, just like Precocious Apprentice.

Except it isn't. It doesn't say anything at all about Wild Mages being able to cast spells at lower than "minimum caster level" it never says you can. It just says that all your spells are at a lower base Caster level with a bonus based on a die roll. If a Wizard 5/Wild Mage 2 tries to cast a 7th level spell, it has a base caster level of 4+1d6, and it doesn't say anywhere that it can cast 4th level spells at caster level 5.

So it either can, or can't, depending on if there actually is a rule that says it can't (which might exist in the RC, but not in the PHB or DMG.)

[zergling.exe]

Uh... that's my point? The Wizard class doesn't grant Mailee 2nd level spells until she has three levels in it. If she got 2nd level spells from other source, she obviously can still cast them even without three Wizard levels. So if she got a 2nd level Wizard spell from source besides the Wizard class that used her Wizard caster level, even if her Wizard Caster level was 1, she would still be able to cast the spell at Caster level 1 according to that rule. Again, if the rules on 171 prevent that, they do it entirely on their own, and without reference to the rules on page 7-8 which have nothing to do with minimum caster level.

You missed this part:
(She will not actually get the 2nd-level spell until she is 3rd level wizard, since that’s the minimum level a wizard must be to cast 2nd-level spells.)
Bolded for emphasis. A wizard must be a 3rd level wizard in order to cast 2nd level wizard spells. RAW. No exceptions. No wiggling around the wording. A wizard is physically incapable of casting those 2nd level spells until thier third wizard level.

Either that or nobody can cast 2nd level spells without 3 levels in wizard. One of the two is right.

[DarkSoul]

So... you still won't give the actual Rules Compendium rule, and according to your own inexact description, it doesn't define a minimum caster level at all, so it turns out there is no minimum caster level, and Wizard 7 who took Mage Slayer at level 6 can cast 4th level spells at Caster Level 3.What part of "This is the same wording as appears in the Rules Compendium." did you find confusing, exactly? To be perfectly clear:


You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question.


Uh... that's my point? The Wizard class doesn't grant Mailee 2nd level spells until she has three levels in it. If she got 2nd level spells from other source, she obviously can still cast them even without three Wizard levels. So if she got a 2nd level Wizard spell from source besides the Wizard class that used her Wizard caster level, even if her Wizard Caster level was 1, she would still be able to cast the spell at Caster level 1 according to that rule. Again, if the rules on 171 prevent that, they do it entirely on their own, and without reference to the rules on page 7-8 which have nothing to do with minimum caster level.Page 7 governs when you can normally cast spells of a given level, and PHB 171/RC 133 sets a lower limit on the power of your spells (caster level). If Mialee knows a second level spell and casts it using two first level spell slots via Versatile Spellcaster, great, she's found an exception to the general rule. It goes off at caster level 1.



Except it isn't. It doesn't say anything at all about Wild Mages being able to cast spells at lower than "minimum caster level" it never says you can. It just says that all your spells are at a lower base Caster level with a bonus based on a die roll. If a Wizard 5/Wild Mage 2 tries to cast a 7th level spell, it has a base caster level of 4+1d6, and it doesn't say anywhere that it can cast 4th level spells at caster level 5.

So it either can, or can't, depending on if there actually is a rule that says it can't (which might exist in the RC, but not in the PHB or DMG.)But it is, because if there was a chance their spell wouldn't go off, it would say so in the description. Regardless it does tell you that the caster level for all your spells is reduced by 3, which is the exception, and with no specific rules text either preventing you from casting them or saying that they fail to take effect you can only assume that you're still allowed to cast them and that they still go off, albeit at a possibly-reduced caster level. Though you're free to take the text completely literally and then Wild Mage becomes even more horrible than it already is, I suppose.

Here's a question: Mialee the level 1 wizard finds a spellbook in her first adventure and it's got a second level spell in it. She's got an 18 intelligence, Skill Focus (Spellcraft), and 4 ranks in Spellcraft for a total modifier of 11. She gets lucky and masters the spellbook on her first try (rolls a 16), so now she knows a second level spell. Can she cast it and if not, why not?

[eggynack]

So provide irrefutable proof according to the rules as written that one interpretation or the other is correct. Right now, because of the caster level/class level limitation, it's been soundly debunked and everything beyond that is RAI bickering.
What are you talking about? Your post quoted was just about entirely your explicitly non-RAW views on the operation of generalist wizard. It had very little to do with the overarching leapfrogging element of the thread. What proof is needed here? You yourself pointed out that elven generalist trades away the ability to specialize in a school of magic, not the ability to specialize.

[Troacctid]

That's not what it says in my DMG. It says:

"For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given."

and

"Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1), unless the caster specifically desires otherwise."

Neither of which prevents a level 6 Wizard with Mage slayer from making a level 3 scroll with a Caster level of 2, absent some other rule.
It says the minimum caster level for a scroll is the minimum caster level to cast the spell, and then gives the prices for scrolls of all spell levels from 1–9 for all the core classes at their minimum caster levels. The math is easy enough to do.

[Segev]

Hm. We seem to have moved to a different "reason this doesn't work," if I'm parsing this correctly. Let me see if I understand the reasoning:

1) The rules say that you must have a sufficiently high level in a given caster class to cast spells of a particular level, even if your ability score would give you a bonus spell( slot)-per-day of that level.
2) Therefore, anything which seems to give you a bonus spell( slot) of a level which would require more caster class levels than you have doesn't actually do so unless you get your caster class level up.
3) So, even if you get a spell slot of 2nd level at 1st character level, you can't get that spell slot because you're not at least a 3rd (or 4th) level wizard (or sorceress).

Is that accurately representing the argument?


So far, I haven't seen anybody confusing the "effective CL" style bonuses that things like Practiced Spellcaster give you and actual caster class levels as given by the classes themselves and PrCs which expressly advance casting for all relevant purposes, so that's good.

[Beheld]

What part of "This is the same wording as appears in the Rules Compendium." did you find confusing, exactly? To be perfectly clear:

So you are saying the Rules Compendium doesn't have a minimum caster level rule, and there is no minimum caster level rule? Because again, the thing you quoted doesn't have a minimum caster level rule anywhere.


Page 7 governs when you can normally cast spells of a given level, and PHB 171/RC 133 sets a lower limit on the power of your spells (caster level). If Mialee knows a second level spell and casts it using two first level spell slots via Versatile Spellcaster, great, she's found an exception to the general rule. It goes off at caster level 1.

....... So there's a minimum caster level rule that never mentions caster level, and that doesn't stop you from casting spells with a lower caster level... Can you see how that isn't a minimum caster level rule?


But it is, because if there was a chance their spell wouldn't go off, it would say so in the description.

That is not how rules work at all. There is a chance the spell won't go off! If a Wild Mage is interrupted they have to make a concentration check, and if they fail that, the spell is wasted. The description doesn't say that, but it does say that the Wild Mage casts spells, so we know it inherits all the rules for spells from elsewhere in books, even ones it doesn't reference.

So if there was a rule about minimum caster level, that would also be inherited, even if it doesn't mention that limiting what spells a Wild Mage can cast.


Here's a question: Mialee the level 1 wizard finds a spellbook in her first adventure and it's got a second level spell in it. She's got an 18 intelligence, Skill Focus (Spellcraft), and 4 ranks in Spellcraft for a total modifier of 11. She gets lucky and masters the spellbook on her first try (rolls a 16), so now she knows a second level spell. Can she cast it and if not, why not?

I don't know Mailee's build, but chances are very good that she cannot, because with very few exceptions, first level Wizards do not have any second level spell slots. If on the other hand she has a second level spell slot, then, depending on the rules of that spell slot, she might be able to cast it.


It says the minimum caster level for a scroll is the minimum caster level to cast the spell, and then gives the prices for scrolls of all spell levels from 1–9 for all the core classes at their minimum caster levels. The math is easy enough to do.

No, it doesn't say that.

It says "Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1)" and then it gives a bunch of example scrolls created by "typical" Wizards and Clerics. Pursuant to the rules it shows, a Cleric with the Air Domain could make Wind Wall Scroll at caster level 3, but it only shows a CL 5 Wind Wall scroll, because a Cleric with the Air Domain is atypical.

Likewise, a Wizard 6/Wild Mage 1 with Mage Slayer is atypical, so even though a Wizard 6/Wild Mage 1 could totally make a scroll of Evard's Black Tentacles at Caster Level 1, and could cast it at caster level 1, his scrolls are not on that list either.

[AnachroNinja]

The gist of it is this, the rules for scrolls and minium caster levels do IMPLY that they are referencing a general rule about minimum caster levels for casting spells. They do not actually directly provide such a rule, nor does any other rule DIRECTLY state that this is the case.

There are a variety of classes, wild mage, unseen Seer, ur-priest, and similar that would become dysfunctional of the caster level minimums were a true rule. They would be crippled to the point of barely being functional in some cases.

Now, if one believes that the caster level minimum rule is a true rule, one could assume that those classes imply am exception to the minimum caster level rules. However, much like the minimum caster level rules under the scroll section, at no point do the rules for these PRCs actually directly state that this is the case.

One can certain interpret it such that a spell caster must meet minimum caster level requirements, and that PRCs that provide spell casting without the requisite casting level are deliberate exceptions. That is a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rules. There is one fact I want to make clear however.

At no point do the rules directly and unequivocally state that this is the case. It is only implied indirectly.

Now, as for the other end of the argument. It is in some ways essentially based on the often maligned "It doesn't say that I can't, so I can" school of thought, which generally doesn't carry much weight. However, in this case it has more weight then normal. We know the basic rules for spell casting. If you know the spell and have a spell slot for it, you can cast that spell and your caster level determines the level of effect produced. In the absence of a direct rule stating otherwise, as long as you meet those requirements, you can cast the spell.

The combo this thread is about provides you with spells known, and the ability to cast those spells at the necessary level via heighten and versatile spellcaster, so that you gain access to the bonus slots of that level.

In the absence of a rule that says: You must meet a minium caster level of Spell level x 2 - 1 to cast a given spell. This combo seems to work, or at least isn't derailed on that basis.

[Segev]

It is noteworthy that, even if there is a "general minimum caster level" rule, specific beats general, and these are a combination of specific rules that let you gain the spell slots in question despite not being high enough level under the general rule.

ALL of the rules referenced talk about not getting spell SLOTS of that level. If you have slots, you can cast spells out of them.

[dascarletm]

Yeah, if you're dascarletm, you can't be wearing blue and white!
:smallwink:


SNIP
Now, if one believes that the caster level minimum rule is a true rule...
SNIP

That's no true Scotsman! er.. rule!
:smalltongue:

[Segev]

That's no true Scotsman! er.. rule!
:smalltongue:

I'm pretty sure you're joking and do understand this, but because I often see No True Scottsman being thrown around inappropriately, I'm going to briefly explain what it is and what it isn't.

"Not True Scottsman" is a fallacy when the definition of a category is changed to include irrelevancies so that you can exclude things which fall into that category or so you can make assertions about members of that category which are not necessarily true.

"Bob can't have worn clogs; he's a Scottsman!" "We both saw Scotty the Scottish-born Scottsman who grew up in Scottland wearing clogs last week." "Bah; Scotty is not a true Scottsman; no true Scottsman wears clogs!"

It's a fallacy because the definition of "Scottsman" has nothing to do with clogs.

It is NOT a fallacy when you are arguing that somebody's definition of "Scottsman" is wrong.


"This rule is not a true rule" because it doesn't appear in the rules anywhere <- That's not actually "No True Scottsman" as a fallacy. That's saying, "The definition of a true rule is one which is written in the text of the rulebooks, therefore, because the 'rule' being discussed doesn't appear in the text and is not actually a required consequence of the rules that do, it is not a true rule."

[dascarletm]

I'm pretty sure you're joking and do understand this, but because I often see No True Scottsman being thrown around inappropriately, I'm going to briefly explain what it is and what it isn't.

Yes, I was joking. I usually use :smalltongue: to signify that.

[zergling.exe]

I just went and read the rules for Domain Wizard and Elven Generalist Wizard, and no where does it say that they get their bonus spell slots just when they are able to cast that level of spells:
Spellcasting: A domain wizard prepares and casts spells like a normal wizard. However, a domain wizard gains one bonus spell per spell level, which must be filled with the spell from that level of the domain spell list (or with a lower-level domain spell that has been altered with a metamagic feat).
Note that it does not specify that you get it when you gain the ability to cast a new level of spell, but merely a bonus per spell level. So you either can cast 9th level spells at first level anyway, or you gain them as your class grants additional spell levels. This works exactly the same as the default specialist's bonus spell slot.

The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day. Unlike the specialist wizard ability, this spell may be of any school.
This one is more ambigous, but the spell must be prepared daily, so if you don't have the spell level available when you prepare it, you can't prepare a spell of that level. It doesn't just float from one level to the next as an empty slot.

Taking these combined, even being kind with the EGW's bonus spell slot and letting it float doesn't grant additional spell levels, as the DW would not grant a higher level spell slot to be combined with it. Reading DW the other way allows for a 9th level slot every day with or without EGW, and regular specialists would get this as well, so it would be noting notable for the DW.

[Troacctid]

It says "Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1)" and then it gives a bunch of example scrolls created by "typical" Wizards and Clerics. Pursuant to the rules it shows, a Cleric with the Air Domain could make Wind Wall Scroll at caster level 3, but it only shows a CL 5 Wind Wall scroll, because a Cleric with the Air Domain is atypical.
I'm not talking about the list of example scrolls from typical wizards and clerics. I'm talking about the chart that spells out the cost of minimum CL scrolls by class and spell level. It's later in the chapter. There are ones for wands and potions as well.

[zergling.exe]

I'm not talking about the list of example scrolls from typical wizards and clerics. I'm talking about the chart that spells out the cost of minimum CL scrolls by class and spell level. It's later in the chapter. There are ones for wands and potions as well.

Pages 286 and 287 for those looking for it.

[Beheld]

I'm not talking about the list of example scrolls from typical wizards and clerics. I'm talking about the chart that spells out the cost of minimum CL scrolls by class and spell level. It's later in the chapter. There are ones for wands and potions as well.

Man people who keep claiming that they double pinky swear there are minimum caster level rules really refuse to cite the rule and just keep pinky swearing that it exists. Almost like if they cited the rule, it would not make their case.

Spoiler Alert: This still true of page 287 which doesn't say doesn't say what the minimum caster level would be, and instead just references the rule I already cited "Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1), unless the caster specifically desires otherwise."

And then gives the same general prices that are already in the scroll examples.

[Segev]

Man people who keep claiming that they double pinky swear there are minimum caster level rules really refuse to cite the rule and just keep pinky swearing that it exists. Almost like if they cited the rule, it would not make their case.

That's needlessly rude. He cited a rule, he just didn't have a specific page. If you can't find the rule he says is there, say so and ask for a quote, a link, or a more specific reference. Getting cutesy and implying dishonesty when he has actually answered you makes you and those who share your analysis of the rules look bad. As one who shares your analysis of the rules, I request that you stop making me look bad by association.

[DarkSoul]

In the absence of a rule that says: You must meet a minium caster level of Spell level x 2 - 1 to cast a given spell. This combo seems to work, or at least isn't derailed on that basis.What's most irritating is that the rule does exist, it just doesn't specify a universal caster level; it's completely dependent on the person doing the casting. For a wizard, which is what this thread is discussing, the minimum caster level is Spell level x 2 - 1. But because it doesn't give a value X, Y, or Z anywhere, people just ignore it and say there's no minimum.

[dascarletm]

That's needlessly rude. He cited a rule, he just didn't have a specific page. If you can't find the rule he says is there, say so and ask for a quote, a link, or a more specific reference. Getting cutesy and implying dishonesty when he has actually answered you makes you and those who share your analysis of the rules look bad. As one who shares your analysis of the rules, I request that you stop making me look bad by association.

Segev, it's more important to get that super-clever™ pinky swear joke off, obviously. Stop trying to have a civil debate, we don't like dem folk round 'ere.

[Quertus]

So, here's my issue: I backed specializing as defining a specialist to confirm that people's response was that RAW is defined by only taking what is given in the rules, not extrapolating with English.

Well, how, exactly, is being able to cast defined? On p. 7-8 of the PHB, when the phrase is first used. Is it defined as able to cast a memorized spell? No. If it is defined at all, it is defined as having a slot in the first place.

Getting bonus spells requires having a slot (zero or more slots, something other than "---") in the first place. But somehow extrapolating this to involving caster level - let alone mandating a minimum caster level - seems to involve even more use of English interpretation and extrapolation than calling someone who specializes a specialist. And causes dysfunctions like the Wild Mage.

Strictly reading definitions, to cast a spell, there are lots of retirements: components in hand, able to make human-like gestures & sounds, etc. But, as far as I know, being "able to cast" the spell is never called out as a requirement to cast a spell. Take that, English!

So, my question is, do you
A) define RAW in such a way that you are not allowed to extrapolate that specializing makes you a specialist, yet ability to cast is allowed to be extrapolated (if so, please explain your definition of what constitutes RAW to me);
B) define RAW such that both can be extrapolated with English (in which case, to put it in context, this particular trick fails by RAW);
C) define RAW such that neither can be extrapolated with English (in which case, to put it in context, this particular trick fails by RAW);
D) have clear rules text that requires no interpretations or assumptions, that explicitly calls out how ability to cast is defined differently from having slots available;
E) some other thing I haven't considered (if so, please explain your definition of what constitutes RAW to me / what other thing I haven't considered).

[Segev]

What's most irritating is that the rule does exist, it just doesn't specify a universal caster level; it's completely dependent on the person doing the casting. For a wizard, which is what this thread is discussing, the minimum caster level is Spell level x 2 - 1. But because it doesn't give a value X, Y, or Z anywhere, people just ignore it and say there's no minimum.The thing is, the rules you're looking at are, at strongest, general rules.

The rules being cited to allow something that would violate them are specific rules. Specific rules trump general rules in D&D 3.5/PF. Just as Precocious Apprentice allows a 1st level wizard to cast a 2nd level spell despite only being a 1st level wizard, the rules being used here either directly trump the general rule, or they are not addressed by the general rule and thus loophole into legality. (The latter is, I think, the more accurate way to look at it.)


So, here's my issue: I backed specializing as defining a specialist to confirm that people's response was that RAW is defined by only taking what is given in the rules, not extrapolating with English.You absolutely can extrapolate with English...but you can't ignore when a game term is expressly defined and how that game term is used. "Specialist wizard" is a specific game term.

If somebody plays a wizard who spends every single feat he can on item creation, one might term him in plain English language a "magic item specialist." He is a wizard, and he specializes in magic item creation. Does that make him a "specialist wizard?" Is he forbidden from being a DW? An EG?

No. Not at all. "Specialist wizard" expressly, in the rules, means "a wizard who has chosen one school and forsaken ~2 others, and gets a bonus spell of every spell level he can cast which can only be filled with a spell from his chosen school." (Well, it really means a bunch of things associated with that choice, but you get the idea.) It does not mean "any wizard who can be said to specialize in something," nor even "any wizard who can be said to have a specialty in how he uses or develops his magical talents."



Well, how, exactly, is being able to cast defined? On p. 7-8 of the PHB, when the phrase is first used. Is it defined as able to cast a memorized spell? No. If it is defined at all, it is defined as having a slot in the first place.

Getting bonus spells requires having a slot (zero or more slots, something other than "---") in the first place. But somehow extrapolating this to involving caster level - let alone mandating a minimum caster level - seems to involve even more use of English interpretation and extrapolation than calling someone who specializes a specialist. And causes dysfunctions like the Wild Mage.

Strictly reading definitions, to cast a spell, there are lots of retirements: components in hand, able to make human-like gestures & sounds, etc. But, as far as I know, being "able to cast" the spell is never called out as a requirement to cast a spell. Take that, English!This, on the other hand, is a good analysis, overall. There's a lot of "you know what this means because you speak English" that isn't expressly defined in game terms. (There are express rules on casting spells. But what it means "to cast" is left to your understanding of English.)


So, my question is, do you
A) define RAW in such a way that you are not allowed top extrapolate that specializing makes you a specialist, yet ability to cast is allowed to be extrapolated (if so, please explain your definition of what constitutes RAW to me);I'm not sure anybody is claiming that both are true. I haven't really seen anybody define "cast" in an "extrapolated" fashion. I may have misunderstood something in the part I quoted above?

B) define RAW such that both can be extrapolated with English (in which case, to put it in context, this particular trick fails by RAW);"Specialist wizard" is a specific game term which can't be "extrapolated" to mean "any wizard who might be termed a specialist in something." DWs are expressly NOT "specialist wizards" by this game-term definition. Again, I can't speak to "cast" as I'm not following your "cast is being extrapolated" argument.

C) define RAW such that neither can be extrapolated with English (in which case, to put it in context, this particular trick fails by RAW);
D) have clear rules text that requires no interpretations or assumptions, that explicitly calls out how ability to cast is defined differently from having slots available;
E) some other thing I haven't considered (if so, please explain your definition of what constitutes RAW to me / what other thing I haven't considered).
I don't have anything new to say to these; my best understanding is expressed earlier in this post. I invite clarification of what you're asking if you think there's something here I haven't adequately addressed.

[Quertus]

You absolutely can extrapolate with English...but you can't ignore when a game term is expressly defined and how that game term is used. "Specialist wizard" is a specific game term.

No. Not at all. "Specialist wizard" expressly, in the rules, means "a wizard who has chosen one school and forsaken ~2 others, and gets a bonus spell of every spell level he can cast which can only be filled with a spell from his chosen school." (Well, it really means a bunch of things associated with that choice, but you get the idea.) It does not mean "any wizard who can be said to specialize in something," nor even "any wizard who can be said to have a specialty in how he uses or develops his magical talents."

Is specialist wizard expressly defined? Is it defined this way? In 2e, for example, wild mages were specialist wizards - and had no opposed schools.

For 3e to explicitly define specialists so narrowly, ignoring its roots, just seems odd, especially when they use - without defining - numerous old-school terms (like true beholder).


"Specialist wizard" is a specific game term which can't be "extrapolated" to mean "any wizard who might be termed a specialist in something." DWs are expressly NOT "specialist wizards" by this game-term definition. Again, I can't speak to "cast" as I'm not following your "cast is being extrapolated" argument.

My issue here was that DW is expressly called out as specializing in its text. For one to be able to specialize... without being a specialist... is the level of term abuse D&D is known for, to be honest, but I'd prefer not to perpetuate that level of abuse of English simply out of habit. :smalltongue:

[Beheld]

My issue here was that DW is expressly called out as specializing in its text. For one to be able to specialize... without being a specialist... is the level of term abuse D&D is known for, to be honest, but I'd prefer not to perpetuate that level of abuse of English simply out of habit. :smalltongue:

If you are trying to argue that "Domain Wizards can't be Domain Wizards because they are Domain Wizards" then might I suggest that your definition of specialist is the wrong one, pretty much regardless of what the right answer is.

[Segev]

Combine the fact that "specialist wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#schoolSpecialization)" first appears in that section and has express rules around it with the fact that DWs expressly state that they are "unlike specialist wizards," and it's impossible to have a consistent definition of "specialist wizard" that allows you to call a DW a "specialist wizard."

Domain Wizards give up the versatility associated with specializing in an entire school. They do not use the "school specialization" section of the rules, and are therefore not "specialist wizards." They are Domain Wizards, using the Domain Wizard section of the rules. Domain Wizards explicitly may not be specialist wizards, and explicitly are not specialist wizards.

[Quertus]

If you are trying to argue that "Domain Wizards can't be Domain Wizards because they are Domain Wizards" then might I suggest that your definition of specialist is the wrong one, pretty much regardless of what the right answer is.


Combine the fact that "specialist wizard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#schoolSpecialization)" first appears in that section and has express rules around it with the fact that DWs expressly state that they are "unlike specialist wizards," and it's impossible to have a consistent definition of "specialist wizard" that allows you to call a DW a "specialist wizard."

Domain Wizards give up the versatility associated with specializing in an entire school. They do not use the "school specialization" section of the rules, and are therefore not "specialist wizards." They are Domain Wizards, using the Domain Wizard section of the rules. Domain Wizards explicitly may not be specialist wizards, and explicitly are not specialist wizards.

Let's back away from DW, RAW, and even 3e for a moment.

2e wild mage is a modification to the wizard base class. You cannot modify the specialist base class to be a wild mage, as wild magic is its own specialization.

By being a wild mage, one does not self disqualify from being a wild mage.

Now, back to 3e.

If I have a foo/fooish template, that can only be applied to a non-foo, does it self disqualify?

Now, back to DW.

The text of DW was quoted as saying that they specialize in a domain. Yet people have no issue claiming that, by RAW, they are not specialists. I am confused by this, and attempting to define RAW.

Now, back to RAW.

If DW does make the wizard who takes it a specialist, do they self disqualify? Is it really a dysfunction?

On specialists.

3e defines School Specialists. 2e had those, too. It also had element specialists, wild magic specialists, chronomancer specialists, etc. Just because there are foo specialists defined, is "specialist" defined in such a way as to prohibit bar specialists? Or could school specialists and domain specialists all be specialists, and, by virtue of being specialists, all be mutually exclusive? So no Necromancer war domain specialists, for example.

[Beheld]

1) Specialist Wizard is defined, it doesn't include Domain Wizards.

2) Domain Wizard: "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard." So yes, if Domain Wizard was a Specialist Wizard, it would self disqualify, so hence, if your definition of Specialist Wizard has Domain Wizards as Specialist Wizards, it's probably the wrong definition.

[Quertus]

1) Specialist Wizard is defined, it doesn't include Domain Wizards.

2) Domain Wizard: "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard." So yes, if Domain Wizard was a Specialist Wizard, it would self disqualify, so hence, if your definition of Specialist Wizard has Domain Wizards as Specialist Wizards, it's probably the wrong definition.

A specialist wizard is not defined, but Is described under school specialization. As such, I would say that foo specialization does not prohibit the potential existence of bar specialization (in this case, the existence of school specialization does not prevent the possibility of the existence of domain specialization). As to whether a foo specialist can generally also be a bar specialist, or whether domain wizards even are specialists, is less clear.

Is following English logic (an oxymoron, I know) and saying that one who specializes is a specialist outside the scope of RAW? If I understand correctly, I'm being told that the answer is yes, and the reason is that "specialist" is a reserve word, whereas the derivative word "specialize" is not.

As to the line that would cause the dysfunction... Hmmm... "A recursive function cannot also be recursive" is a fairly nonsense sentence. "To apply this technique to a function to make it reclusive, it must not already be recursive" is not, and does not make the function not be recursive after you apply the technique. But that's about as close as I can get to making a case for saying domain wizards could be specialists without creating a dysfunction.

[AnachroNinja]

You're wrong. The reason that your wrong is that "A Domain Wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard" is NOT prerequisite. It is not a condition that has to be met upon entry and is thereafter irrelevant. It's very specific. A domain wizard cannot ALSO be a specialist wizard. That is very specific. Per the rules for domain wizard, you cannot be a domain wizard while at the same time being a specialist wizard. Period.

If you are a domain wizard, you can't be a specialist wizard. If you are a specialist wizard, you can't be a domain wizard. Both in a game terms basis and an English grammar basis, the terms are deliberately set up to be exclusionary.

Domain wizards can't be considered specialist wizards because if you are a specialist wizard you can't be a domain wizard. Full stop.

No matter what else you think about the combo, there is no reasonable argument to be made against this.

[Quertus]

You're wrong.

Am I?


As to the line that would cause the dysfunction... Hmmm... "A recursive function cannot also be recursive" is a fairly nonsense sentence. "To apply this technique to a function to make it reclusive, it must not already be recursive" is not, and does not make the function not be recursive after you apply the technique. But that's about as close as I can get to making a case for saying domain wizards could be specialists without creating a dysfunction.

The closest thing to what you're talking about that I seem to be asserting in the relevant text is that I don't seem to be able to construct a better argument. I don't think you've proven that wrong. :smalltongue:

But, let's ignore my pedantic analysis, and evaluate your counter argument.


The reason that your wrong is that "A Domain Wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard" is NOT prerequisite. It is not a condition that has to be met upon entry and is thereafter irrelevant. It's very specific. A domain wizard cannot ALSO be a specialist wizard. That is very specific. Per the rules for domain wizard, you cannot be a domain wizard while at the same time being a specialist wizard. Period.

If you are a domain wizard, you can't be a specialist wizard. If you are a specialist wizard, you can't be a domain wizard. Both in a game terms basis and an English grammar basis, the terms are deliberately set up to be exclusionary.

Domain wizards can't be considered specialist wizards because if you are a specialist wizard you can't be a domain wizard. Full stop.

No matter what else you think about the combo, there is no reasonable argument to be made against this.

You're probably right. If "A Domain Wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard" is NOT prerequisite, and If domain wizard specializing makes it a specialist, it probably is a dysfunction. Unless we have the "level" issue, where they're reusing reserved words, and here "specialist" only refers to, say, school specialists. But as I am not aware of any definitive 3e non-school specialists, this precludes the possibility of comparing verbiage, and so moves outside what I believe RAW to encompass.

But what I'm personally interested in, more than this particular question of specialization, is how people are defining RAW, to enable them to make assertions about what is and is not RAW.

Because people seem to be using different criteria to validate RAW, and this makes having a discussion about intricate interplay of poorly-written rules... difficult.

I have shown particular interest in the level of English extrapolation allowed in a discussion of RAW, and am using the components of this trick - namely Domain Wizard and the notion of being "able to cast" a spell - to facilitate discussion of what constitutes RAW... in order to facilitate discussion of this trick. Convoluted enough?

[eggynack]

I feel like this question is pretty straightforward. The text doesn't say you're a specialist. So you're not one. One might as well equally say that taking domain wizard makes you count as a cleric. Things don't happen in the game by implication alone. Beyond that, not sure why it matters. Elven generalist cares only that you're specialized in a school. You're not.

[Quertus]

I feel like this question is pretty straightforward. The text doesn't say you're a specialist. So you're not one. One might as well equally say that taking domain wizard makes you count as a cleric. Things don't happen in the game by implication alone. Beyond that, not sure why it matters. Elven generalist cares only that you're specialized in a school. You're not.

Um... I was concerned that the text saying that DW "specializes" in a domain makes them a specialist. But if Elven Generalist doesn't care about being a specialist, but only cares if you have specialized, well, DW clearly uses that wording.

Now, if EG actually says "specialized in a school", well, it's pretty obvious DW is NOT specialized in a school.

/pedantic

[Segev]

I feel like this question is pretty straightforward. The text doesn't say you're a specialist. So you're not one. One might as well equally say that taking domain wizard makes you count as a cleric. Things don't happen in the game by implication alone. Beyond that, not sure why it matters. Elven generalist cares only that you're specialized in a school. You're not.

This is the most succinct way I've seen it put. And it's correct.

DW says it is not a specialist wizard. In fact, the precise wording says it cannot be one.

EG says you trade away your specialist wizard option to get it. An EG is therefore not a specialist wizard.

There is nothing in either DW nor EG that says you cannot be both.

If a sexy spandex suit requires you to be under a certain weight in order to wear it attractively, and a zipline ride requires you to be under a certain weight to ride it safely, there is no reason you can't both look hot in the sexy spandex suit and ride the zipline ride if you are under that weight while you do your Superman impression. They have the same requirement, but they are not, themselves, mutually exclusive.

[AnachroNinja]

Quertus.... +10 style points.

As for the rest, yeah we've gotten pretty far afield all throughout this thread to be honest. The biggest issue is that DW and it's rules entry do not conform to any of the standard layouts for ACFs and so it makes a lot of the parsing complicated. In essence, it has no prerequisites because it has no section identified as such. It just has one big block of rules text that has only a few definitive statements.

I honestly don't renegade a lot of the details from the overall trick so I'm staying away from from general contentions, but I think that DW and EGW function together.

[RedMage125]

Real Life intervened its ugly head, and I was unable to properly respond to this thread, s I apologize that some of these points are a week old.

Also, Eggynack, I am responding to Segev's post and not yours, because his is in a format that I can more coherently respond to whole points. Please do not feel that I "ignored" your post or anything.


Actually, I don't think combining them changes any part of my argument, as hopefully I'll demonstrate here.

Eggynack did a good job of covering many of the points I would, so I probably will try to let his post stand, and only hit a few areas. (I might fail at this; I tend towards sesquipedalian loquatiousness.)
I also must endure with that egregious affliction.


That's actually irrelevant. It says that you get X in exchange for Y, yes, but the exact wording of Y in this case is important.

In exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school, the DW casts his chosen spells at increased power.

It doesn't specify that that is the ONLY thing he can get for giving up that versatility.

As long as he gives up that versatility, he can get the reward clause "in exchange."

An EG has given up that versatility.

In exchange for giving up that versatility, the EG can get the benefits of being a DW, per the sentence we're analyzing. \
My problem with all of this, and why I said keep those 2 bullets together, is the crux of my point to you.

You have cut out part of the sentence in order to read it that way. Literally, the exact text I have been saying is crucial.

The text does not say "in exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school..."
It says "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school..."

Your reading completely cuts out the words that say that specializing in a domain is done "instead of" an entire school. And THAT is the versatility lost, because a specialist wizard can prepare ANY spell of their school in their bonus spell slot per day, while a DW must prepare a specific spell in that extra slot. So an EGW has actually NOT "given up that versatility", he's actually MORE versatile (he can prepare an extra spell from ANY school), but has less raw power (less bonus slots than a specialist).

Bottom line: your reading does not account for all the words that are written. Ergo, it is not the most in keeping with Rules As Written.

Again, I must pose to you the question, what does "instead of" mean, then?


The thing is, it doesn't demand a cost; it demands an opportunity cost. There is a significant difference.

Let's say you had a choice between going to a meeting at work where you might be able to pitch your idea for a project to the big boss of the company (but you don't think you have a good chance of it going anywhere), or you could skip the meeting and go to Disney World with the girl you're dating because she's already got plans to go there that day. The opportunity cost of doing one is not doing the other. You decide to go to Disney World, resigning yourself to the 100% (rather than merely "high") probability that you won't get your project approved (and promoted to middle management), but having fun with your girlfriend.

A month later, the company downsizes and closes all special projects, firing their management. In exchange for not being the manager of your project, you don't get fired.

You already got "go to Disney World with girlfriend" out of giving up your chance to be middle management. Now you've also gotten "keep your job" in exchange for giving up that chance. You didn't have to have the choice still open to you in order to have given it up and gotten the benefit.


The same is true for a DW. The DW gets increased casting power in exchange for giving up the versatility to specialize in an entire school. He only has to have given it up to get that power. It doesn't matter how or why he gives it up. He can give it up by simply "not being a specialist wizard" (as is the default expectation when UA was written), or by any other means - including ACFs which trade away the option to be a specialist wizard. As long as whatever he does doesn't make him specialize in an entire school, he's given up that versatility, and may be a DW to get the DW's perks "in exchange" for giving up that versatility.
More of the same.

You left out what the actual exchange was that resulted in the cost of versatility. He is "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school". You have truncated that sentence in order to make it say something different. If the text actually said, ver batim, what you are saying, then yes, you would be correct.

Alas, it does not.

To me this is no different from what I said before. If I claimed that my Fighter/Wizard could cast spells in full plate with no Arcane Spell Failure, because when I read the text, I omitted the words that say I DO suffer arcane spell failure, but I am adhering to the RAW in all other regards, is my interpretation in keeping with RAW? Of course not. That's a mildly ridiculous example, yes. I am not trying to use Argumentum Ad Absurdum to actually say that was your point, just to show an example of what else could be argued if we start leaving out words and phrases from the RAW.

My entire bone of contention as far as burden of proof for my point was that the words "instead of" EXPLICITY mean "in the place of" or "as a substitute for". No one who has argued with me has yet been able to contest that point. Tippy tried, but his whole argument hinged on the idea that the second part of that sentence "is not Rules Text" while the first half is. Which is patently ridiculous because 1)Tippy has no authority to declare one part of a sentence is "rules text" and another "not rules text", and 2) the meaning of a semicolon in English when separating two otherwise complete sentences clearly indicates that they are of equal value or importance. Ergo, if one is rules text, so is the other. And if one is not, the other is not.

Which means either A) Neither are rules text, and then there is no RAW against someone specializing in a school AND a domain, or B) they are both rules text, and we must account for the full text of both sentences.



Nope. You need expressly to have given up the versatility of specializing in an entire school. Anything that lets you give up that versatility will let you get the perks of being a DW. It doesn't matter if you gave up that versatility for nothing other than the DW perks, or gave it up for a bonus spell slot of your highest level spells each day. You've "given up the versatility of specializing in an entire school," so you qualify for what the DW gives you "in exchange."
You expressly do no such thing.

You expressly are specializing in a domain instead of an entire school[/I]. Doing this costs versatility.



Yes.
That is true.
They are. But here is where you're wrong. It may be intended that this be the case, but nowhere in the rules does it say this. It does say they're mutually exclusive; specializing in an entire school precludes being a DW, so any DW cannot have specialized in an entire school.
The rules DO say that specializing in a domain is done "instead of" an entire school. Nowhere in your text analysis are these words accounted for.


Sorry, you're wrong, here. "Specialist wizard" is a specific game term, and the rules of DW explicitly differentiate DWs from specialist wizards. DWs are explicitly not "specialist wizards." They may be "specialists" in the English-language sense, but not in a game-term sense. The game term for them is "domain wizard."
I do agree here. So, while I know he was kind of arguing on my side, this specific point is not one that I am making. A "domain wizard" is specialized in a domain. A "specialist wizard" is specialized in a school.

Yes. Essentially, DW only requires that you not specialize in a school. Nowhere in it does it say you can't have gotten something else out of failing to specialize in a school. If you are an EG, you are not specialized in a school. You satisfy the requirements to become a DW.
This is also not entirely accurate. you are overgeneralizing what the text says, and then making "RAW conclusions" based on your generalizations, instead of the text.

EGW isn't just "not specialized in a school". He has completely forfeited the ABILITY to specialize in a school of magic. The normal wizard class feature of "you can choose to specialize or not" is gone from an EGW. The class feature just does not exist.

The RAW for DW say that he "specializes in a domain [b]instead of an entire school".

I am closing with a repeat of this point because neither you, nor any other poster has answered what "instead of" means in that sentence. I am hoping, given your eloquent and loquacious responses previous, that you will satisfy that request.

Now to move on to the "caster level" bits:

TECHNICALLY there is no such game term as "minimum caster level" for spells. This is true.

HOWEVER, we have a rule that says to cast a spell of level X, you must be of a level high enough for that class to cast spells of X level. Which class level-vis-spell level this is depends on the class (Wizards get L3 spells at 5th, Sorcs at 6th, Bards at 7th, and so on).

We also have a rule regarding the caster level of a spell, when it is lowered, may NOT be lowered than the minimum level required for that class to cast a spell of that level. So 20th level wizards may not reduce the CL of a L3 spell below 5th CL; Sorcs may not lower it below 6th CL, and Bards may not lower it below 7th.



Yes, as zergling.exe pointed out it's on pages 7-8 of the PHB, in black and white. It's also on page 133 of the rules compendium, where it takes the ruling zergling quoted about Fireball and removes the spell-specific parts. There's a similar reference in the rules for crafting scrolls but people like to ignore that one too, spouting some "that only applies to scrolls" BS.


Even if this weren't a general rule, it still is explicitly denying a first level DW, EGW or both a second level slot; since wizards need 3 levels before they can cast second level spells at all, and both require being able to cast second level spells.
Both of you, spot-on. I wish I could give you cookies.



Uh.... the rules on page 7-8 don't say that at all. If a 5th level Wizard takes Mage Slayer, then according to the rules of page 7-8 totally say that can just totally roll right on and cast 2nd and even 3rd level spells at Caster level 1.

The rules quote from 171 is the only relevant rules citation at all. My PHB says "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question" which certainly implies there is one, but it doesn't state what it would be.
It doesn't state it because different classes get higher spells at different levels. It depends on the class you are using to cast the spells from.
A 5th level Wizard with mage Slayer is a dumb*** and his CL is 1, and he may not cast L2 and L3 spells. The RAW are very clear.


I wonder what the specifics of the Rules Compendium quote is, since there exist a bunch of Chameleons and Ur-Priests and Trapsmiths and Shadowlords with nonstandard caster level to spell level access provisions.
AFB atm, but I know Ur-Priest. Ur-Priest doesn't give bonus spells as a base class, it is a PrC with it's OWN spell progression, even though it uses the cleric spell list. So minimum level for an Ur-Priest to cast a L3 spell is 3rd. Even a Warlock 10/Ur-Priest 3, whose maximum (default) CL is 8, may lower his CL to 3 and cast L3 spells, because 3 is the lowest level that the Ur-priest class gives L3 spells.


I think the problem with the minimum caster level rule, is that in addition to never being actually stated in the rules, and instead implied from a bunch of other nearby things, it basically makes entire sections of the game make no sense, like Wild Mages, and Mage Slayer, and that Rogue/Diviner hybrid class.
Unseen Seer.

And yes, that is why we have threads about Rules Dysfunction.


No, what it actually says is that the Wizard Class doesn't give access to 2nd level spells until you take 3 levels of it. It specifically talks about what the Wizard class levels grant. It certainly doesn't prevent a Wizard 1/Cleric 19 from casting 2nd level spells, so long as it gets the spell slots from somewhere besides the Wizard class description.
This is being intentionally obtuse. A Wizard 1/Cleric 19 may not cast L2 wizard spells. Obviously he may cast L2 cleric ones.

And, to close, this:


I just went and read the rules for Domain Wizard and Elven Generalist Wizard, and no where does it say that they get their bonus spell slots just when they are able to cast that level of spells:
Note that it does not specify that you get it when you gain the ability to cast a new level of spell, but merely a bonus per spell level. So you either can cast 9th level spells at first level anyway, or you gain them as your class grants additional spell levels. This works exactly the same as the default specialist's bonus spell slot.

This one is more ambigous, but the spell must be prepared daily, so if you don't have the spell level available when you prepare it, you can't prepare a spell of that level. It doesn't just float from one level to the next as an empty slot.

Taking these combined, even being kind with the EGW's bonus spell slot and letting it float doesn't grant additional spell levels, as the DW would not grant a higher level spell slot to be combined with it. Reading DW the other way allows for a 9th level slot every day with or without EGW, and regular specialists would get this as well, so it would be noting notable for the DW.

I want to give you cookies AND a hug. Everything in this post is win.

[georgie_leech]

Red, if I had a magic staff that said 'Anyone capable of casting spells (but not a specialist wizard) wielding this staff gains +1CL,' could a DW benefit from it?

[DarkSoul]

If it explicitly says "specialised wizard" then no, a Domain Wizard wouldn't benefit because they're specialized in something.

If it says "specialist wizard", that's a term already reserved for a wizard specialized in a school of magic and yes a Domain Wizard would benefit from it because they aren't a specialist wizard by the game definition.

It's issues like this that make me think the people responsible for M:tG's Comprehensive Rules should have taken a look at 3.5 every couple years... it would simplify things greatly to be able to say "Being a domain wizard is a replacement effect. You're still a specialist wizard."

...but they didn't, so here we are.

[georgie_leech]

If it explicitly says "specialised wizard" then no, a Domain Wizard wouldn't benefit because they're specialized in something.

If it says "specialist wizard", that's a term already reserved for a wizard specialized in a school of magic and yes a Domain Wizard would benefit from it because they aren't a specialist wizard by the game definition.

It's issues like this that make me think the people responsible for M:tG's Comprehensive Rules should have taken a look at 3.5 every couple years... it would simplify things greatly to be able to say "Being a domain wizard is a replacement effect. You're still a specialist wizard."

...but they didn't, so here we are.

You're right, I mistyped that. Editing for correctness.

[Anlashok]

Is it a rule when one makes a 'debunking' thread that the OP must be incredibly condescending about it? It seems to be standard operating procedure but I'm not sure if it's a rule or not.

[ryu]

Is it a rule when one makes a 'debunking' thread that the OP must be incredibly condescending about it? It seems to be standard operating procedure but I'm not sure if it's a rule or not.

If they didn't intend to be combative and moderately abrasive in attitude they wouldn't use the word debunking or fallacy most likely. I can get behind a good debunking, when the case being made is actually as painfully obvious as the person making it thinks rather than clutching at straws.

[AnachroNinja]

"Instead of" means that he chooses to specialize in a Domain rather then a school, making him a Domain Wizard, which is the specific in game term for such a wizard. It does not in any way change anything else. It doesn't make him a Specialist Wizard, which is yet another specific in game term.

If I drive my Porsche INSTEAD OF a Ferrari, that does not mean I no longer have a Ferrari, it just means I am currently operating a different vehicle. I can still sell or trade my Ferrari for something else.

"Instead of" =/= "Replaces" which is yet another specific term used in ACFs. Nor does it mean "Loses" which is the other specific term used in ACFs. Domain Wizard is, to my knowledge, the ONLY ACF that does not use one of those two distinct indicators that you lose an ability. There is no reason to believe that was not deliberate, and even if there was, it would not change the fact that it does not ever say you lose the ability to specialize, only that you choose not to use that ability.

[zergling.exe]

RedMage, it may be pertinent to just drop the EGW + DW qualifing argument, as everyone is fixating on it rather than your intended goal of debunking getting 9th level spells.

[Rijan_Sai]

RedMage, it may be pertinent to just drop the EGW + DW qualifing argument, as everyone is fixating on it rather than your intended goal of debunking getting 9th level spells.

I'm pretty sure he's tried to, a couple of times...
÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

Anecdotally, in regards to the caster level issue:
The Gnome wizard 1st level ACF states, among many other things, that you choose one school (out of three specific ones) that you still have access to and cast spells from that school at -1 CL. At first level, you cannot cast spells from that school at all.
It is anecdotal evidence due to it only being specified for that one ACF, but it does give some precedents for not casting spells without a high enough CL.

[eggynack]

Also, Eggynack, I am responding to Segev's post and not yours, because his is in a format that I can more coherently respond to whole points. Please do not feel that I "ignored" your post or anything.
Honestly, didn't bother me initially, but it bothers me a bit more reading your post. Your entire claim seems to be that Segev hasn't been using the exact text as it exists. Your instead of line. But I have been addressing that text directly, which feels like it renders your claim that that hasn't happened somewhat moot. I've already made arguments against a lot of the things you're claiming below. In particular, I made a lot of these arguments over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21275451&postcount=82), all within the universe of this exact text you keep citing.


problem with all of this, and why I said keep those 2 bullets together, is the crux of my point to you.

You have cut out part of the sentence in order to read it that way. Literally, the exact text I have been saying is crucial.

The text does not say "in exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school..."
It says "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school..."

Your reading completely cuts out the words that say that specializing in a domain is done "instead of" an entire school. And THAT is the versatility lost, because a specialist wizard can prepare ANY spell of their school in their bonus spell slot per day, while a DW must prepare a specific spell in that extra slot. So an EGW has actually NOT "given up that versatility", he's actually MORE versatile (he can prepare an extra spell from ANY school), but has less raw power (less bonus slots than a specialist).
But, again, what you're doing is in keeping with that text. By taking elven generalist, and thus necessarily forgoing specialization, you are indeed gaining something instead of the versatility associated with specialization. Which fits the text. And the generalist wizard has given up that versatility. He has specifically given up the versatility associated with specializing in the school. That he happens to have the versatility associated with domain generalist is immaterial to this point. And, as I pointed out earlier, this domain generalist does not have strictly more versatility than the specialist, and the just generalist definitely doesn't necessarily have more versatility. After all, having even just two bonus slots as compared to one means that you can have two wholly different types of spells prepared in comparison to the one spell of your competitor, which is itself a strong form of versatility. Being able to prepare any spell of the level in question in that slot means you have more versatility associated with that slot, but definitely not overall. And, returning to the domain generalist, if a specialist cannot be said to have strictly more versatility than a generalist as applies to the bonus slots (and they can't, as you yourself obviously agree with), then adding a pile of super restricted spells cannot create that strictly greater relationship. So, this wizard isn't more or less versatile. They are differently versatile, and that's what counts here, given the wording.


Again, I must pose to you the question, what does "instead of" mean, then?

It means that you're forgoing the thing after the instead of, and gaining the thing before the instead of. And all of that is the case here.


More of the same.

You left out what the actual exchange was that resulted in the cost of versatility. He is "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school". You have truncated that sentence in order to make it say something different. If the text actually said, ver batim, what you are saying, then yes, you would be correct.

Alas, it does not.

To me this is no different from what I said before. If I claimed that my Fighter/Wizard could cast spells in full plate with no Arcane Spell Failure, because when I read the text, I omitted the words that say I DO suffer arcane spell failure, but I am adhering to the RAW in all other regards, is my interpretation in keeping with RAW? Of course not. That's a mildly ridiculous example, yes. I am not trying to use Argumentum Ad Absurdum to actually say that was your point, just to show an example of what else could be argued if we start leaving out words and phrases from the RAW.

My entire bone of contention as far as burden of proof for my point was that the words "instead of" EXPLICITY mean "in the place of" or "as a substitute for". No one who has argued with me has yet been able to contest that point. Tippy tried, but his whole argument hinged on the idea that the second part of that sentence "is not Rules Text" while the first half is. Which is patently ridiculous because 1)Tippy has no authority to declare one part of a sentence is "rules text" and another "not rules text", and 2) the meaning of a semicolon in English when separating two otherwise complete sentences clearly indicates that they are of equal value or importance. Ergo, if one is rules text, so is the other. And if one is not, the other is not.

Which means either A) Neither are rules text, and then there is no RAW against someone specializing in a school AND a domain, or B) they are both rules text, and we must account for the full text of both sentences.

I did argue this point. Repeatedly. I've been using the line as it exists in the text. This, I gotta think, is the disadvantage of not arguing against me directly. Don't see all that much reason to restate things given that.


You expressly do no such thing.

You expressly are specializing in a domain instead of an entire school[/I]. Doing this costs versatility.
But you're doing all of that. So it works.


The rules DO say that specializing in a domain is done "instead of" an entire school. Nowhere in your text analysis are these words accounted for.
Mine accounts for it though...




EGW isn't just "not specialized in a school". He has completely forfeited the ABILITY to specialize in a school of magic. The normal wizard class feature of "you can choose to specialize or not" is gone from an EGW. The class feature just does not exist.
Sure.


The RAW for DW say that he "specializes in a domain [b]instead of an entire school".
Not exactly. You're missing the versatility part again. But mostly accurate.


I am closing with a repeat of this point because neither you, nor any other poster has answered what "instead of" means in that sentence. I am hoping, given your eloquent and loquacious responses previous, that you will satisfy that request.
I have. In this post, and also in other posts.


HOWEVER, we have a rule that says to cast a spell of level X, you must be of a level high enough for that class to cast spells of X level. Which class level-vis-spell level this is depends on the class (Wizards get L3 spells at 5th, Sorcs at 6th, Bards at 7th, and so on).
That's not necessarily what the high enough level is. For all we know, the level a wizard must have to cast 9th's is one, and wizards just happen to not get the spells they would technically have the ability to cast until much later. You're claiming a definition of minimum caster level here, and it's a perfectly reasonable definition, but it is not one strictly supported by RAW. No definition is, really, because the term is not well defined. Hence the ambiguity.


We also have a rule regarding the caster level of a spell, when it is lowered, may NOT be lowered than the minimum level required for that class to cast a spell of that level. So 20th level wizards may not reduce the CL of a L3 spell below 5th CL; Sorcs may not lower it below 6th CL, and Bards may not lower it below 7th.
Does that rule establish what that minimum level is for all spells, or does it merely state the existence of said level?


I'm pretty sure he's tried to, a couple of times...
Not very well. An actual sincere attempt at that looks a lot less like, "Here's a bunch of arguments about domain wizards, and also the thing about domain wizards doesn't matter," and a lot more like either, "Yeah, you folk are probably right about this element but I'm right about all these other elements," or, "I don't feel like we're getting anywhere with this aspect of the argument, so I'm going to drop it as a position I'm arguing, although I may bring it back if I wind up proved wrong on the other parts." Note that I did something very similar to that in this thread, by asserting that I really wasn't arguing the part about caster level, because I didn't feel properly equipped at that time, and then just not talking about it for the rest of the thread, except to reassert that it wasn't something I cared about. I made a note about that argument in this post, but, of course, that just means it's a thing I'm willing to argue a bit about, at least as applies to the specific point I made.

[AnachroNinja]

Domain Wizard does not directly state you lose the ability to specialize.

Domain Wizard specifically says that you are not a Specialist Wizard.

Elven Generalist Wizard requires that you not be a Specialist Wizard.

Elven Generalist Wizard does not require you to give up the ability to be a Specialist Wizard, merely that you choose not to do so.

You can take Domain Wizard normally at first level. Being a Domain Wizard is NOT being a Specialist Wizard. Therefore you can then become an Elven Generalist Wizard, which does not actually require you to trade away your ability to specialize.

The end.

As far as the caster level issue, yes there are any number of places where a minimum caster level is alluded to, referenced, strongly implied, and so forth. At no point do the rules actually specify what that minimum caster level actually is, with the exception of Fireball, which does not directly state that it is an example relevant to all other spells.

Is this almost certainly an oversight on the part of the developers? YES. I do not think ANYONE here is actually arguing that there should not be a rule for minimum caster levels on spells in a general sense. It is so heavily implied to be the case in so many places, that it is obvious that it was intended to work that way.

However, this is an example of theoretical optimization, and so what was intended has no relevance whatsoever. There is no rule ANYWHERE in the text that says "Every surely has a minimum caster level equal to ((class level spell is normally acquired at)-1) or ((2*(spell level))-1 or any other formula that you might feel to be appropriate.

The rule does not exist in print. The end.

[Mato]

I like how this comprehensive thread is nothing more than a five page long argument but I feel compelled to respond after seeing the this following trend.

The rule does not exist in print. The end.
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence
Arguing what the rules don't say is not just a logical fallacy but against the rules of D&D.


TEACHING THE GAME
Sometimes it’s going to be your responsibility to teach newcomers to the game how to play. This isn’t a burden, but a wonderful opportunity. Teaching other people how to play provides you with new players and allows you to set them on the path to becoming top-notch roleplayers. It’s easier to learn to play with someone who already knows the game. Those who are taught by a good teacher who runs a fun game are more likely to join in the hobby for the long haul. Use this opportunity to encourage new players to become the sort of people you want to game with.

Here are a few pointers on teaching the game.

Read the Player ’s Handbook and know the character creation rules so you can help new players build characters. Have each of the newcomers tell you what sort of character he or she wants to play and then show them how they can create those heroes with the D&D rules. If they don’t know what to play, show them the player character races and classes in the Player’s Handbook, briefly describe each, and let them choose the one that appeals to them the most. Another option is to keep a few simple characters (such as a 1st-level fighter or rogue) around for newcomers. Advance those characters in level as the party advances. and you’ll have “old friends” who adventure with the party when newcomers play them.

Once the PCs are created, don’t worry about teaching the players all the rules ahead of time. All they truly need to know are the basics that apply to understanding their characters (how spells work, what AC means, how to use skills, and so forth), and they can pick up most of this information as they go along. Remember the most basic rule: To attack, make a saving throw, or use a skill, roll a d20 and hope for a high number.

As long as you know the rules, the players need be concerned only with their characters and how they react to what happens to them in the game. Have players tell you what they want their characters to do, and translate that into game terms for them. Teach them how the rules work when they need to learn them, on a caseby- case basis. For example, if the player of a wizard wants to cast a spell or the player of a fighter wants to attack, the player tells you what the character is attempting. Then you tell the player which modifier or modifiers to add to the roll of a d20, and what happens as a result. After a few times, the player will know what to do without asking.I apologize on behalf of your DMs who did not take the time to teach you the basics, but all ideas must be put into game terms. If there is not a rule for it then you need a DM to create one and the topic is no longer about the printed rules but the accuracy and acceptance of your houserules that no other DM is obligated to follow or or even have to omit if they choose not to.

Now take a breath breath, all of you, and spare a moment to provide clear and concise points why you think what the rules do have to say supports what you think they should mean without any deviation into poisoning the well, appeals, and extra specially any illogical points built on using overwhelming exceptions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelming_exception) because what the rules say is far more important than what you may have to say in place of them.

[Mehangel]

Now take a breath breath, all of you, and spare a moment to provide clear and concise points why you think what the rules do have to say supports what you think they should mean without any deviation into poisoning the well, appeals, and extra specially any illogical points built on using overwhelming exceptions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelming_exception) because what the rules say is far more important than what you may have to say in place of them.

Because this entire argument is being based off of RAW not RAI.

I dont think that anyone here is arguing about RAI, because THAT much is clear.

[Mato]

Because this entire argument is being based off of RAW not RAI.You should watch the video I link to in my signature and the problem with trying to base an argument off RAW is the faulty triad.

In a RAW discussion people forget the fact/value distinction; an opinion may have value but it is not a fact. When an opinion discounted because it's not a fact people often will take it as their opinion's value being insulted. Then, because they are unable to make the distinction they often mistakenly believe the correlation out of all the possible reasons their opinion could have been discounted for discounted, they think it should prove the causation that the other guy is ignoring known facts on the subject and therefor the other guy must be wrong. Which leads to the third linked logical fallacy, if the other guy is wrong then I must be right.

The triad comes together to create a near perfect circular reasoning that, for example, can create more than five pages of improper debating and frustrations. This can only lead to one ending, an inflation of conflict where each side devalues the other and walks away believing their repeated assertion is correct because they never stopped repeating them selves.

[Mehangel]

You should watch the video I link to in my signature and the problem with trying to base an argument off RAW is the faulty triad.

In a RAW discussion people forget the fact/value distinction; an opinion may have value but it is not a fact. When an opinion discounted because it's not a fact people often will take it as their opinion's value being insulted. Then, because they are unable to make the distinction they often mistakenly believe the correlation out of all the possible reasons their opinion could have been discounted for discounted, they think it should prove the causation that the other guy is ignoring known facts on the subject and therefor the other guy must be wrong. Which leads to the third linked logical fallacy, if the other guy is wrong then I must be right.

The triad comes together to create a near perfect circular reasoning that, for example, can create more than five pages of improper debating and frustrations. This can only lead to one ending, an inflation of conflict where each side devalues the other and walks away believing their repeated assertion is correct because they never stopped repeating them selves.

I agree that RAW discussions are often flawed or tend to get out of hand; but that does not change the fact that the OP wanted to prove RAW that Elven Generalist + Domain Wizard does not work. Because this is a RAW discussion, RAI holds little (if any) merit.

[zergling.exe]

I agree that RAW discussions are often flawed or tend to get out of hand; but that does not change the fact that the OP wanted to prove RAW that Elven Generalist + Domain Wizard does not work. Because this is a RAW discussion, RAI holds little (if any) merit.

That was not the point of this thread, it was merely a small portion of arguing against getting 9th level spell slots on a first level wizard. However, many people want the combo of EGW + DW to work, regardless of what RAW says on the matter (for or against), and made it a major point of contention. This then spiraled into mostly ignoring what the thread was opened about: that combining the two does not necessarily give 9th level spell slots to a first level wizard.

The combo was allowed to work in the OP, but people focused on the fact that the OP also said that the combo was against RAW.

[AnachroNinja]

That's likely because many other facets of the concept are much more reliant on interpretation. It's very difficult to conclusively say it does or does not work. It was discussed early on and abandoned. EGW and DW on the other hand seem, to me anyway, much simpler to judge, so the argument focused there.

[eggynack]

That was not the point of this thread, it was merely a small portion of arguing against getting 9th level spell slots on a first level wizard. However, many people want the combo of EGW + DW to work, regardless of what RAW says on the matter (for or against), and made it a major point of contention. This then spiraled into mostly ignoring what the thread was opened about: that combining the two does not necessarily give 9th level spell slots to a first level wizard.

Not completely accurate. I don't simply want the combo to work. I think it does work, by RAW, and that this argument focused on the phrase "instead of" is reaching by a lot. I therefore think that, even though this premise may not be strictly necessary for the argument as a whole, said premise is still a falsehood that is being presented to folks, and that's the sort of thing I like to correct. What you're ignoring is that this is, in fact, one of the points of this thread. Not the whole point, but one of the points. I'll quote Redmage directly.


My whole point on using both is that they can't ANYWAY, not just for this trick.
If he wants to concede or leave aside this point, he's free to do so. He hasn't done so. This isn't some sub-argument that's popped up between two people who are not the OP, as a break from topic. It's the OP trying to make a completely separate argument couched within his original argument, and then defending that separate argument throughout the entire thread. This argument is entirely on point.

[zergling.exe]

Not completely accurate. I don't simply want the combo to work. I think it does work, by RAW, and that this argument focused on the phrase "instead of" is reaching by a lot. I therefore think that, even though this premise may not be strictly necessary for the argument as a whole, said premise is still a falsehood that is being presented to folks, and that's the sort of thing I like to correct. What you're ignoring is that this is, in fact, one of the points of this thread. Not the whole point, but one of the points. I'll quote Redmage directly.
Regardless, you want it to work, RedMage doesn't want it to work, both sides believe the RAW are on their side. It probably would have been better for the whole point to have been left out, due to the contention it alone brought with it.

[georgie_leech]

Regardless, you want it to work, RedMage doesn't want it to work, both sides believe the RAW are on their side. It probably would have been better for the whole point to have been left out, due to the contention it alone brought with it.

I don't want it to work; if a player tried to do this at my table, I'd say 'yeah, no level 9 spells at level 1' and move on. I just think it technically works RAW, and consider it an important example of wording your rules carefully. Even if I still mistype them on my phone. Blasted autocorrect...

[eggynack]

Regardless, you want it to work, RedMage doesn't want it to work, both sides believe the RAW are on their side. It probably would have been better for the whole point to have been left out, due to the contention it alone brought with it.
I don't disagree. My contention early on was that this is a decent old Tippy argument, the one from minimum caster level, repackaged with a bunch of less supported claims that don't work nearly as well. A simple one premise argument would have likely worked better, and the argument could have easily been whittled down to that over the course of the thread if necessary. However, while that would be superior for proving the overall argument, it doesn't look like that's what was being attempted in the first place.

Edit: I do disagree, as Georgie does, with the part about wanting it to work. I just think it does work. Whether I'd prefer that is somewhat immaterial.

[Mato]

Because this is a RAW discussion, RAI holds little (if any) meritThis may be one of the first of the many errors in this thread but it's not his error alone. RAW as you've seen does not actually have a common definition or method of determination. You may have very well given it a meaning the original poster do not using the excuse that you think they allowed you to. But if the original poster issued a criteria of judgement you should ask him to better explain it if you are unsure of what he meant instead of participating as if his criteria was never issued.


That was not the point of this thread, it was merely a small portion of arguing against getting 9th level spell slots on a first level wizard/Not to come across like I am riding you or anything but that is argumentum ad populum. An appeal based on how you perceive as the majority of people, which is actually a very tiny fraction of the forums, chose one over the other so you should accept it.

Additionally it's quite clear from the other posts there is not one but several issues to resolve. As each one starts to reach an undesirable outcome another problem, either with the rules or another's argument, is pushed forward to avoid resolution in an undesired outcome. This first issue, since it is unresolved, can always be returned to if the current debate later turns into a direction you dislike.

Do you guys want to achieve a form of resolution? Can you risk resolving an answer even knowing it may not be the one you like?

[RedMage125]

For the record, I did try to move the conversation back onto discussing the "Leapfrog Wizard" as a whole.

And while the EGW+DW combo is kind of side argument, it is one aspect of the Leapfrog Wizard which is necessary to make the trick work. Not too many people have had much in the way of coherent argument in favor of the rest of the trick, so the contention has focused on this aspect.

But...I enjoy debate, so...


"Instead of" means that he chooses to specialize in a Domain rather then a school, making him a Domain Wizard, which is the specific in game term for such a wizard. It does not in any way change anything else. It doesn't make him a Specialist Wizard, which is yet another specific in game term.
Ok, now that we have someone responding to the meaning of "instead of"...

What does that mean for a wizard who no longer has the ABILITY to specialize in a school?



If I drive my Porsche INSTEAD OF a Ferrari, that does not mean I no longer have a Ferrari, it just means I am currently operating a different vehicle. I can still sell or trade my Ferrari for something else.
Your metaphor is flawed, because if you own both, you can decide every time you go out which one to drive. Character choices like this, once made, cannot be unmade. It would be more apt to say you PURCHASED a Porsche instead of a Ferrari.

To use your "Ferrari/Porsche" metaphor more clearly...
The class gives you, as a class ability, a sports car. You can choose between a Ferrari (specializing) and a Lamborghini (not specializing).
EGW gives you some extra features on your Lamboghini, but says "you trade this in for the ability to choose a Ferrari"
DW gives you a Porsche, and says "You cannot also have a Ferrari; in exchange for the versatility given up by choosing a Porsche instead of a Ferrari, you get a turbo on your Porsche"
My whole argument is that you cannot combine these to get both a Lamborghini and a Ferrari.


Honestly, didn't bother me initially, but it bothers me a bit more reading your post. Your entire claim seems to be that Segev hasn't been using the exact text as it exists. Your instead of line. But I have been addressing that text directly, which feels like it renders your claim that that hasn't happened somewhat moot. I've already made arguments against a lot of the things you're claiming below. In particular, I made a lot of these arguments over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21275451&postcount=82), all within the universe of this exact text you keep citing.
I apologize, then. Looking back over your post, however, I didn't see those points actually addressed specifically, or I would have responded.


But, again, what you're doing is in keeping with that text. By taking elven generalist, and thus necessarily forgoing specialization, you are indeed gaining something instead of the versatility associated with specialization. Which fits the text. And the generalist wizard has given up that versatility. He has specifically given up the versatility associated with specializing in the school. That he happens to have the versatility associated with domain generalist is immaterial to this point. And, as I pointed out earlier, this domain generalist does not have strictly more versatility than the specialist, and the just generalist definitely doesn't necessarily have more versatility. After all, having even just two bonus slots as compared to one means that you can have two wholly different types of spells prepared in comparison to the one spell of your competitor, which is itself a strong form of versatility. Being able to prepare any spell of the level in question in that slot means you have more versatility associated with that slot, but definitely not overall. And, returning to the domain generalist, if a specialist cannot be said to have strictly more versatility than a generalist as applies to the bonus slots (and they can't, as you yourself obviously agree with), then adding a pile of super restricted spells cannot create that strictly greater relationship. So, this wizard isn't more or less versatile. They are differently versatile, and that's what counts here, given the wording.
And this doesn't address that wording, either.
The EGW doesn't just say "you may not BE a specialist wizard". It says "This ability REPLACES the standard wizard's ABILITY to specialize in a school of magic".

The relevant text in the DW does not ONLY say "you cannot BE a specialist wizard", it ALSO says that you are specializing in a domain "instead of" an entire school. And the EGW does not have the ABILITY to specialize in a school.


It means that you're forgoing the thing after the instead of, and gaining the thing before the instead of. And all of that is the case here.

But if you no longer HAVE the class feature from before the "instead of", how can you get a benefit from "forgoing" it?


I did argue this point. Repeatedly. I've been using the line as it exists in the text. This, I gotta think, is the disadvantage of not arguing against me directly. Don't see all that much reason to restate things given that.

But you're doing all of that. So it works.

Mine accounts for it though...
Looking back at your post, you only spoke about "cost paid, benefit gained", which is only accurate if the only text in DW was "you cannot also be a specialist wizard".

I freely acknowledge that if there were errata that removed all text after that semicolon, that EGW+DW would be a valid combo.

You DIDN'T address the "instead of". You spoke only to "not specializing", which was the first half of the sentence.

Specializing in a domain must be done "instead of" choosing a class feature that an EGW no longer has.




Sure.

Not exactly. You're missing the versatility part again. But mostly accurate.

I have. In this post, and also in other posts.
*sigh*. I didn't "miss" the versatility part. The loss of versatility is the RESULT of specializing in a domain instead of an entire school.
EGW says "This ability replaces [the ability to choose class feature A]"
DW says "In exchange for the versatility given up by [choosing class feature B instead of class feature A], the DW casts her chosen spells with increased power"
THAT is where versatility comes in.

Your post that I did not respond to seems to imply that "not choosing [class feature A]" somehow IS the cost, which then qualifies for the benefit. This is not the case. This is also why I say it was not addressing the "instead of". Because TAKING "class feature B instead of class feature A" is where the cost of versatility is paid. And my whole bone of contention is that if you do not even have THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE "class feature A", you cannot choose "class feature B", because the word "instead" means "in the place of". So you cannot put something "in the place of" something that does not have a place.



That's not necessarily what the high enough level is. For all we know, the level a wizard must have to cast 9th's is one, and wizards just happen to not get the spells they would technically have the ability to cast until much later. You're claiming a definition of minimum caster level here, and it's a perfectly reasonable definition, but it is not one strictly supported by RAW. No definition is, really, because the term is not well defined. Hence the ambiguity.
Except that the rules on PHB page 7 says, right after the point about being high enough level, that one should "see the class description in Chapter 3 for details". The wizard class description says, very clearly "For example, when a wizard attains 5th level, she can cast 3rd level spells" (PHB, page 57). The table is also quite clear.

So the RAW actually DOES support it.

The term which is not well-defined is "minimum caster level", which, as we have discovered, is not a game term. The books never use it. They talk about the minimum LEVEL one must be to cast spells of a certain level. And there's a rule that says a spell of a given level must use a caster level of at least equal to the level that is the minimum to cast the spell.


Does that rule establish what that minimum level is for all spells, or does it merely state the existence of said level?
In the example, it specifies that the minimum level for L3 spells for wizards is 3. The Class Descriptions in chapter 3 of the PHB have the relevant information for other classes.

Please, look at the PHB page 7 for yourself before posting here that "the RAW are unclear". The page says specifically, that the rule applies to SPELLCASTERS, then says check Chapter 3 for the descriptions of individual classes. Which is then followed by "For instance..." and an example about Mialee the wizard.



Not very well. An actual sincere attempt at that looks a lot less like, "Here's a bunch of arguments about domain wizards, and also the thing about domain wizards doesn't matter," and a lot more like either, "Yeah, you folk are probably right about this element but I'm right about all these other elements," or, "I don't feel like we're getting anywhere with this aspect of the argument, so I'm going to drop it as a position I'm arguing, although I may bring it back if I wind up proved wrong on the other parts." Note that I did something very similar to that in this thread, by asserting that I really wasn't arguing the part about caster level, because I didn't feel properly equipped at that time, and then just not talking about it for the rest of the thread, except to reassert that it wasn't something I cared about. I made a note about that argument in this post, but, of course, that just means it's a thing I'm willing to argue a bit about, at least as applies to the specific point I made.
You mean like this?


It has nothing to do with the combination of EGW and DW anyway. That's a side argument, which is why it was spoiler blocked.

The main thing...the "leapfrogging" of spell levels, does not work. No matter what way you twist it, the bonus spell per day from EGW does not "float". It is an extra spell that may be PREPARED each day. And at the time a level 1 wizard PREPARES her spells, the EGW bonus one would have to be L1. VS does not grant "a L2 slot", it lets the wizard CAST a L2 spell (or, more correctly by RAW, a Heightened L1 spell). The Leapfrog Wizard fails to follow RAW, and is thus invalid.

That is the main point. If people wish to continue debating only the EGW+DW thing, they can start their own thread.



The "leapfrogging" trick doesn't work even if EGW+DW is allowed, which is why it was a side argument. Proving that the two cannot be used together is tangential to the point of the thread.


I just gave up on that after awhile.


Domain Wizard does not directly state you lose the ability to specialize.

Domain Wizard specifically says that you are not a Specialist Wizard.
You are leaving out that it ALSO says you are "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school"


Elven Generalist Wizard requires that you not be a Specialist Wizard.

Elven Generalist Wizard does not require you to give up the ability to be a Specialist Wizard, merely that you choose not to do so.
The bolded part is just blatantly incorrect.
From, Races of the Wild, Chapter 6, page 157, under the heading of "Generalist Wizardry":
"This substitution feature replaces the standard wizard's ability to specialize in a school of magic."

So...I can only assume you were going off memory and were not looking at the actual text. Because there is no way you could have been looking at the text for Elven Generalist and claim that it does not "require you to give up the ability to specialize".


You can take Domain Wizard normally at first level. Being a Domain Wizard is NOT being a Specialist Wizard. Therefore you can then become an Elven Generalist Wizard, which does not actually require you to trade away your ability to specialize.

The end.
Yes it does.
You cannot build a valid argument on incorrect premises.

The end.



As far as the caster level issue, yes there are any number of places where a minimum caster level is alluded to, referenced, strongly implied, and so forth. At no point do the rules actually specify what that minimum caster level actually is, with the exception of Fireball, which does not directly state that it is an example relevant to all other spells.
Do you not read the rules AT ALL?

The exact text, from the PHB, page 171 is:
"You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level. For example, at 10th level, Mialee can cast a fireball to a range of 800 feet and for 10d6 points of damage. If she wishes, she can cast a fireball that deals less damage by casting the spell at a lower caster level, but she must reduce the range according to the selected caster level, and she can't cast fireball with a caster level lower than 5th (the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball."
Bold and underline added by me.
So...
There was a general rule stated. Then the words "for example" were used. So yes, in fact, the text DID say that it was an example.


Is this almost certainly an oversight on the part of the developers? YES. I do not think ANYONE here is actually arguing that there should not be a rule for minimum caster levels on spells in a general sense. It is so heavily implied to be the case in so many places, that it is obvious that it was intended to work that way.

However, this is an example of theoretical optimization, and so what was intended has no relevance whatsoever. There is no rule ANYWHERE in the text that says "Every surely has a minimum caster level equal to ((class level spell is normally acquired at)-1) or ((2*(spell level))-1 or any other formula that you might feel to be appropriate.

The rule does not exist in print. The end.
Except, you know, that a general rule WAS stated. I underlined in that quote where it says the minimum level FOR YOU to cast the spell in question, and again in the example, where it specified 5th level for the example, because Mialee is a wizard, and 5th level is the minimum FOR HER to cast L3 spells.

So, the general rule is that the minimum level is based on the class level of the character in question.

People like to bring up Ur-Priest. Ur-Priest is, technically, a prestige class with it's own separate spellcasting table. It just uses the cleric's spell list. So minimum level for a L3 divine spell gained from Ur-Priest levels is 3, but a Cleric casting the same spell would have a minimum level of 5, even though they use the same spell list. That doesn't change based on what other classes the Ur-Priest has levels of. So a Fighter 13/Ur-Priest 7 has a minimum caster level of 3 for L3 spells. A Wizard 10/Ur-Priest 2/Mystic Theurge 8 has a Maximum CL of 19 for his Ur-Priest spells, but can still cast those L3 divine spells at a minimum of 3. His minimum level for casting ARCANE L3 spells is 5th, because his arcane spellcaster levels come from Wizard, and that is the minimum level for wizards.



That's likely because many other facets of the concept are much more reliant on interpretation. It's very difficult to conclusively say it does or does not work. It was discussed early on and abandoned. EGW and DW on the other hand seem, to me anyway, much simpler to judge, so the argument focused there.
It's not difficult to make a conclusive decision. There's no rules to support the "floating" spell slot. There are rules that say a level 1 wizard cannot cast L2 spells.


Not completely accurate. I don't simply want the combo to work. I think it does work, by RAW, and that this argument focused on the phrase "instead of" is reaching by a lot. I therefore think that, even though this premise may not be strictly necessary for the argument as a whole, said premise is still a falsehood that is being presented to folks, and that's the sort of thing I like to correct. What you're ignoring is that this is, in fact, one of the points of this thread. Not the whole point, but one of the points. I'll quote Redmage directly.

If he wants to concede or leave aside this point, he's free to do so. He hasn't done so. This isn't some sub-argument that's popped up between two people who are not the OP, as a break from topic. It's the OP trying to make a completely separate argument couched within his original argument, and then defending that separate argument throughout the entire thread. This argument is entirely on point.
I'm sorry that I insist that RAW interpretation must actually use the words that are WRITTEN, and takes into accounting what those words mean.

How silly of me.


Regardless, you want it to work, RedMage doesn't want it to work, both sides believe the RAW are on their side. It probably would have been better for the whole point to have been left out, due to the contention it alone brought with it.
Maybe, but I tried in the OP to point out that it was a separate argument, and tried later to ask people to make a separate thread about it if that was what they were debating.

I don't want it to work; if a player tried to do this at my table, I'd say 'yeah, no level 9 spells at level 1' and move on. I just think it technically works RAW, and consider it an important example of wording your rules carefully. Even if I still mistype them on my phone. Blasted autocorrect...
It doesn't work by RAW.
There is no RAW to support the "floating" spell slot. Ergo, it does not "float".
There actually is RAW that says you don't get bonus slots for higher level spells until your class level is high enough, so you don't even have slots above L1 to try and burn for successive increases.
Even if it DID "float", and you DID grant higher level bonus slots, you run out of bonus slots after L5 spells (INT of 20 grants bonus spells up to L5 only). So even allowing all other shenanigans that violate RAW, you'd only have your DW bonus spell and EGW bonus for L6, and if you burned THOSE to get L7, you'd only have the L7 DW bonus, because you've used the one from EGW now, and you have none from high INT.

And all of that completely ignores both of the bones of contention about the EGW+DW issue, and the "no casting L2+ spells at level 1" issue. Which is why I said both were separate issues.


I don't disagree. My contention early on was that this is a decent old Tippy argument, the one from minimum caster level, repackaged with a bunch of less supported claims that don't work nearly as well. A simple one premise argument would have likely worked better, and the argument could have easily been whittled down to that over the course of the thread if necessary. However, while that would be superior for proving the overall argument, it doesn't look like that's what was being attempted in the first place.

Edit: I do disagree, as Georgie does, with the part about wanting it to work. I just think it does work. Whether I'd prefer that is somewhat immaterial.

Refer to points to georgie, above, on why it does not work.

Also, the Leapfrog Wizard fails to work by RAW on so many premises that it would be incomplete to only address a single one. Like I said in the OP, both the "EGW+DW" and the "minimum level to cast spells" points are sidebar topics, because while each of them, in and of themselves, would invalidate the Leapfrog Wizard, they both with such contention that they were worth mentioning only. This is WHY they were in spoiler blocks in the OP. Even allowing both shenanigans, the Leapfrog Wizard fails to work.

[eggynack]

This may be one of the first of the many errors in this thread but it's not his error alone. RAW as you've seen does not actually have a common definition or method of determination. You may have very well given it a meaning the original poster do not using the excuse that you think they allowed you to. But if the original poster issued a criteria of judgement you should ask him to better explain it if you are unsure of what he meant instead of participating as if his criteria was never issued.
My way of thinking is that, if you call someone's reasoning fallacious, then you're necessarily hanging out in the same general domain as the one the reasoning was in. You can't go up to a RAW argument and call it fallacious on a RAI basis any more than you can call a RAI argument fallacious on a pure RAW basis. It seems to me that the original claim associated with this build, as it exists largely in the context of TO, is one nestled in RAW. Thus, that must be the domain of this claim.

For the record, I did try to move the conversation back onto discussing the "Leapfrog Wizard" as a whole.
Again, not really. You generally said that right after making a whole bunch of arguments about elven generalists. There's a way that honestly moving a conversation away from a thing looks, and I don't think that what you've said is of that form.


And while the EGW+DW combo is kind of side argument, it is one aspect of the Leapfrog Wizard which is necessary to make the trick work. Not too many people have had much in the way of coherent argument in favor of the rest of the trick, so the contention has focused on this aspect.
I think I've had coherent arguments about all the elements besides minimum caster level for most of this thread, and a decent argument on that account really recently.



Ok, now that we have someone responding to the meaning of "instead of"...

What does that mean for a wizard who no longer has the ABILITY to specialize in a school?
Same thing. The wizard still isn't specializing, which is the criteria created by "instead of".


And this doesn't address that wording, either.
The EGW doesn't just say "you may not BE a specialist wizard". It says "This ability REPLACES the standard wizard's ABILITY to specialize in a school of magic".

The relevant text in the DW does not ONLY say "you cannot BE a specialist wizard", it ALSO says that you are specializing in a domain "instead of" an entire school. And the EGW does not have the ABILITY to specialize in a school.
Domain wizard doesn't care if you can specialize though. Nowhere does it say it does. It only cares that you're giving up the versatility associated with specialization, which you are.


But if you no longer HAVE the class feature from before the "instead of", how can you get a benefit from "forgoing" it?

From an ability that gives you a benefit specifically for forgoing a thing. Is this a trick question?


Looking back at your post, you only spoke about "cost paid, benefit gained", which is only accurate if the only text in DW was "you cannot also be a specialist wizard".

I freely acknowledge that if there were errata that removed all text after that semicolon, that EGW+DW would be a valid combo.

You DIDN'T address the "instead of". You spoke only to "not specializing", which was the first half of the sentence.

Specializing in a domain must be done "instead of" choosing a class feature that an EGW no longer has.
You're missing the point. I was saying all those things in the context of that line. They're true with or without it. You are exchanging the versatility associated with using a domain instead of specialization whether you have the ability to specialize or not. It just makes the decision of picking the former benefit really trivial. But a decision being trivial does not make it non-existent.


Your post that I did not respond to seems to imply that "not choosing [class feature A]" somehow IS the cost, which then qualifies for the benefit. This is not the case. This is also why I say it was not addressing the "instead of". Because TAKING "class feature B instead of class feature A" is where the cost of versatility is paid. And my whole bone of contention is that if you do not even have THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE "class feature A", you cannot choose "class feature B", because the word "instead" means "in the place of". So you cannot put something "in the place of" something that does not have a place.
That's the best time to put something in the place of some other thing. For example, you say, "I'll have the fish," they say, "We lack fish," and you say, "Then, in place of fish, I'll have chicken." Easy. You can also use "substitute", which is a word you were pointing at before. "I'll have pasta with cream sauce." "We lack cream sauce, but as a substitute we can provide tomato sauce." "Unacceptable. I will have you killed." Y'know, standard language stuff.


Except that the rules on PHB page 7 says, right after the point about being high enough level, that one should "see the class description in Chapter 3 for details". The wizard class description says, very clearly "For example, when a wizard attains 5th level, she can cast 3rd level spells" (PHB, page 57). The table is also quite clear.

So the RAW actually DOES support it.
You're missing the part before that. "... any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook." In other words, the definition there of what spells you can cast is only stated specifically in terms of spells granted from the wizard class itself, and is not termed as some general restriction. Your citation thus does not define a generic lower limit on spell level, but rather a specific lower limit that we already knew. It's even specifically in the terms of what you can add to your spellbook, which further specifies your attempted general claim.



You mean like this?

I just gave up on that after awhile.
Yes, that's what I was talking about when I said you were "ending the argument" in bad faith. After all, in that first post you quoted, you also said,

Spoken like every other min-maxer who wants to get the rules to say what benefits himself.

I bolded your words there, because if you do not have the class feature "ability to specialize in a school", then how can you take an option that is explicitly an additional choice of specialization?

If your Class features are A, B, and C. You take a substitution level that trades B for X. And you also want to take an option that says "you can use this option to do R instead of B, but you can't do B and R together, they are mutually exclusive". You no longer have "B" as a class feature, so you cannot take the other option. You don't get A, X, C and R. You can have A,B,C or A,X,C, or A,R,C. You people only want to see "can't have B and R together" and think "I have X instead of B, so I can also have R". No. That's willfully ignorant, selfish and greedy. And it's not in keeping with the RAW.
And the second post had stuff like, "Unearthed Arcana is full of VARIANTS. Each Class VARIANT exchanges something from the core class' features for some new variation on it."

So, basically, you expected that you could make a whole bunch of arguments about this, and have people just not rebut them for some reason. See, a bare minimum good faith claim towards ending an argument involves not also simultaneously continuing the argument. Am I really supposed to take, "All you people are wrong, but also, stop saying I'm wrong," seriously?


I'm sorry that I insist that RAW interpretation must actually use the words that are WRITTEN, and takes into accounting what those words mean.

How silly of me.
I'm not saying you're somehow wrong for thinking the things you do. I'm saying you're wrong for arguing your perspective while simultaneously insisting it shouldn't be argued. Either you want to talk about this, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.



It doesn't work by RAW.
There is no RAW to support the "floating" spell slot. Ergo, it does not "float".
There actually is RAW that says you don't get bonus slots for higher level spells until your class level is high enough, so you don't even have slots above L1 to try and burn for successive increases.
Even if it DID "float", and you DID grant higher level bonus slots, you run out of bonus slots after L5 spells (INT of 20 grants bonus spells up to L5 only). So even allowing all other shenanigans that violate RAW, you'd only have your DW bonus spell and EGW bonus for L6, and if you burned THOSE to get L7, you'd only have the L7 DW bonus, because you've used the one from EGW now, and you have none from high INT.
The last time you argued about the floating slots, I said,

Pretty much. The rest actually seems pretty well supported, including the floating spell slots. The ability explicitly says that you get to prepare a spell of your highest spell level each day. If you get the ability to prepare a higher spell level, and you don't yet have the slot, then in that moment you're not being granted the bonus spell slot of your highest spell level. You're only being granted one of your second highest spell level. Thus, the text absolutely dictates that said slot must be granted to you. If you somehow needed to refresh that slot, then you wouldn't have been given the ability to prepare that spell in that level in that day, going against the wording of the ability. So, yeah, that RAW claim holds up rather well, I think.
And then you said, "Thank you," and didn't post any other response. So, I gotta figure you have to actually address what I said there if you intend to keep claiming that these floating slots as you put them aren't a thing.


Refer to points to georgie, above, on why it does not work.
I was referring to the generalist domain thing. After all, that's what I was talking about initially, which was then responded to, and then georgie responded to that response, meaning that what you quoted is likely on that topic alone too.



Also, the Leapfrog Wizard fails to work by RAW on so many premises that it would be incomplete to only address a single one. Like I said in the OP, both the "EGW+DW" and the "minimum level to cast spells" points are sidebar topics, because while each of them, in and of themselves, would invalidate the Leapfrog Wizard, they both with such contention that they were worth mentioning only. This is WHY they were in spoiler blocks in the OP. Even allowing both shenanigans, the Leapfrog Wizard fails to work.
Again, either you want the argument or you don't. Stating the latter while enforcing the former is just illogical. And it's not like I'm just not going to respond to something I think is wrong because it's in a spoiler.

[Quertus]

Domain Wizard does not directly state you lose the ability to specialize.

Domain Wizard specifically says that you are not a Specialist Wizard.

Elven Generalist Wizard requires that you not be a Specialist Wizard.

Elven Generalist Wizard does not require you to give up the ability to be a Specialist Wizard, merely that you choose not to do so.

You can take Domain Wizard normally at first level. Being a Domain Wizard is NOT being a Specialist Wizard. Therefore you can then become an Elven Generalist Wizard, which does not actually require you to trade away your ability to specialize.

The end.

As far as the caster level issue, yes there are any number of places where a minimum caster level is alluded to, referenced, strongly implied, and so forth. At no point do the rules actually specify what that minimum caster level actually is, with the exception of Fireball, which does not directly state that it is an example relevant to all other spells.

Is this almost certainly an oversight on the part of the developers? YES. I do not think ANYONE here is actually arguing that there should not be a rule for minimum caster levels on spells in a general sense. It is so heavily implied to be the case in so many places, that it is obvious that it was intended to work that way.

However, this is an example of theoretical optimization, and so what was intended has no relevance whatsoever. There is no rule ANYWHERE in the text that says "Every surely has a minimum caster level equal to ((class level spell is normally acquired at)-1) or ((2*(spell level))-1 or any other formula that you might feel to be appropriate.

The rule does not exist in print. The end.

I can't seem to find the post, but I could have sworn someone posted a brilliant analysis on "bonus spells" that, to put it in my terms, said that this whole caster level gibberish is nonsense, and an obfuscation that distracts from the real issue that we're talking about bonus spells, which are defined as not being available when your spells of that level are listed as "---". Perhaps it was in the original thread?

[Segev]

My problem with all of this, and why I said keep those 2 bullets together, is the crux of my point to you.

You have cut out part of the sentence in order to read it that way. Literally, the exact text I have been saying is crucial.

The text does not say "in exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school..."
It says "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school..."

Your reading completely cuts out the words that say that specializing in a domain is done "instead of" an entire school. And THAT is the versatility lost, because a specialist wizard can prepare ANY spell of their school in their bonus spell slot per day, while a DW must prepare a specific spell in that extra slot. So an EGW has actually NOT "given up that versatility", he's actually MORE versatile (he can prepare an extra spell from ANY school), but has less raw power (less bonus slots than a specialist).My reading really doesn't cut it out. They specialize in a domain instead of an entire school. No argument. They are not, however, "specialist wizards." The DW rules out-and-out say so.

Because they are not "specialist wizards," they can take EG.


Bottom line: your reading does not account for all the words that are written. Ergo, it is not the most in keeping with Rules As Written.It does, and thus is, as shown above.

I'm going to skip a lot of what you've said, because you're hammering home the point about "instead of," and I have addressed it above. I apologize if you feel there remains some aspect of your point I'm not addressing, but as I re-read it to type this up, I am not seeing anything to which I would reply with aught but a repetition of the above. I'll be happy to try to address points you still feel I'm missing, though, if you'll point them out. Maybe we should try to do one at a time, if only because the posts are getting so long that I confess I'm getting lost in them.



EGW isn't just "not specialized in a school". He has completely forfeited the ABILITY to specialize in a school of magic. The normal wizard class feature of "you can choose to specialize or not" is gone from an EGW. The class feature just does not exist.
And the DW doesn't require that the wizard who takes it have the ability to specialize in a school. Merely that he does not do so.


Domain Wizard does not directly state you lose the ability to specialize.

Domain Wizard specifically says that you are not a Specialist Wizard.

Elven Generalist Wizard requires that you not be a Specialist Wizard.

Elven Generalist Wizard does not require you to give up the ability to be a Specialist Wizard, merely that you choose not to do so.

You can take Domain Wizard normally at first level. Being a Domain Wizard is NOT being a Specialist Wizard. Therefore you can then become an Elven Generalist Wizard, which does not actually require you to trade away your ability to specialize.This was, is, and remains my line of argument.

DW says you can't also specialize in a school, i.e. be a "specialist wizard." It also says, explicitly, that you are not one. EG says that you can't be a "specialist wizard."


To give "instead of" one more moment of address, you're treating it as if I were at the grocery store, and saying, "Instead of having $3.95, I am going to have this loaf of bread." That's not how such things are usually discussed, however.

A more fitting analogy would be your Unearthed Arcana clothing store shipping you a blue shirt. Prior to this, you only had a red shirt, or no shirt at all as your options to wear. Today, you say, "I will wear my blue shirt instead of my red one." You then learn, as you're heading to a ball game, that your team is giving away signed balls if you trade in a red shirt.

So you trade your red shirt for a ball, and you're still wearing the blue one. You COULD have been wearing the red shirt and not worn the blue one, and now you'd be shirtless but have the ball. But you chose to wear the blue shirt AND trade for the ball.



I don't want it to work; if a player tried to do this at my table, I'd say 'yeah, no level 9 spells at level 1' and move on. I just think it technically works RAW, and consider it an important example of wording your rules carefully. Even if I still mistype them on my phone. Blasted autocorrect...Same here. Although I'd honestly probably allow a Domain Wizard Elven Generalist if I were DMing. I wouldn't allow 9th level spells at level 1, but I'd probably allow that.


The EGW doesn't just say "you may not BE a specialist wizard". It says "This ability REPLACES the standard wizard's ABILITY to specialize in a school of magic".

The relevant text in the DW does not ONLY say "you cannot BE a specialist wizard", it ALSO says that you are specializing in a domain "instead of" an entire school. And the EGW does not have the ABILITY to specialize in a school.Sure. You're trading your red shirt for a signed ball.

Fortunately for you, you wore your blue shirt instead of your red one.

I dispute the need for this ordering, but even by your argument, you can simply make sure to be a DW first, then take EG (trading away your ability to be a specialist wizard/specialize in a school, neither of which DW requires you to no longer have...just not to be usi


But if you no longer HAVE the class feature from before the "instead of", how can you get a benefit from "forgoing" it?Well, first off, the reason I dispute the need for ordering is precisely because "forgoing" doesn't mean you had to have the option in the first place. But even assuming you must have the ability in order to replace it with EG, you do still have it. You just are doing something else "instead of" using it.


Looking back at your post, you only spoke about "cost paid, benefit gained", which is only accurate if the only text in DW was "you cannot also be a specialist wizard".

I freely acknowledge that if there were errata that removed all text after that semicolon, that EGW+DW would be a valid combo.

You DIDN'T address the "instead of". You spoke only to "not specializing", which was the first half of the sentence.

Specializing in a domain must be done "instead of" choosing a class feature that an EGW no longer has.And, as shown, "instead of" doesn't mean "given up." It means you chose not to use it, and are a DW instead. Just like you can choose to wear your blue shirt instead of your red one, but the red one is still there, and you can, in fact, trade it for a signed ball.




Also, the Leapfrog Wizard fails to work by RAW on so many premises that it would be incomplete to only address a single one. Like I said in the OP, both the "EGW+DW" and the "minimum level to cast spells" points are sidebar topics, because while each of them, in and of themselves, would invalidate the Leapfrog Wizard, they both with such contention that they were worth mentioning only. This is WHY they were in spoiler blocks in the OP. Even allowing both shenanigans, the Leapfrog Wizard fails to work.I really haven't even examined the rest of the "leapfrog wizard" arguments, myself. I wouldn't allow the conclusion even if I agreed it worked by the RAW, but I might delve into it later just for the heck of it.

I still say the EG+DW works just fine, for reasons stated in this post.

[Segev]

I can't seem to find the post, but I could have sworn someone posted a brilliant analysis on "bonus spells" that, to put it in my terms, said that this whole caster level gibberish is nonsense, and an obfuscation that distracts from the real issue that we're talking about bonus spells, which are defined as not being available when your spells of that level are listed as "---". Perhaps it was in the original thread?

IIRC, that line of reasoning hinges on the bonus spells due to high ability scores rules. I don't think the RAW say anything at all about bonus spells from other sources being similarly restricted. I could be wrong, though.

Even if it did...the wording of the bonus spells in question might override it (specific > general), if they said "you get this as soon as you can cast a spell of that level."

This does raise the question: Does an EG with Precicious Apprentice get a second 2nd level spell slot at level 1?

[RedMage125]

Again, not really. You generally said that right after making a whole bunch of arguments about elven generalists. There's a way that honestly moving a conversation away from a thing looks, and I don't think that what you've said is of that form.
Fair enough.

I do admit that I like to debate, and it's hard to turn one down. That's a failing I have.


Same thing. The wizard still isn't specializing, which is the criteria created by "instead of".

The criteria of "instead of" is: "in the stead (place) of"..."As a substitute for". That is what the words MEANS.

If you do not have the ABILITY TO SPECIALIZE, you do not have the requisite ante to "substitute for".

The word "instead" EXPLICITLY MEANS that specializing in a domain SUBSTITUTES specializing in a school.


Domain wizard doesn't care if you can specialize though. Nowhere does it say it does. It only cares that you're giving up the versatility associated with specialization, which you are.
Again, that's not correct. You are not "giving up the versatility associated with specialization". Specializing in a domain is less versatile than specializing in a school-which you do not have the ability to do.


From an ability that gives you a benefit specifically for forgoing a thing. Is this a trick question?
You aren't "forgoing" something if you already can't do it. It's already been given up.


You're missing the point. I was saying all those things in the context of that line. They're true with or without it. You are exchanging the versatility associated with using a domain instead of specialization whether you have the ability to specialize or not. It just makes the decision of picking the former benefit really trivial. But a decision being trivial does not make it non-existent.
I bolded where I feel you are going wrong. Nothing in the RAW, either explicitly, or by extension, supports this idea. So what we have to go by is the meaning of the words in the text. Because "instead" means "in the place of", you can't do something that tales the place of something you don't HAVE.


That's the best time to put something in the place of some other thing. For example, you say, "I'll have the fish," they say, "We lack fish," and you say, "Then, in place of fish, I'll have chicken." Easy. You can also use "substitute", which is a word you were pointing at before. "I'll have pasta with cream sauce." "We lack cream sauce, but as a substitute we can provide tomato sauce." "Unacceptable. I will have you killed." Y'know, standard language stuff.
Your metaphor lacks a connection to this issue. You are still entitled to some kind of entree, and those are both entrees. It also lacks the additional options to make a parallel.



You're missing the part before that. "... any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook." In other words, the definition there of what spells you can cast is only stated specifically in terms of spells granted from the wizard class itself, and is not termed as some general restriction. Your citation thus does not define a generic lower limit on spell level, but rather a specific lower limit that we already knew. It's even specifically in the terms of what you can add to your spellbook, which further specifies your attempted general claim.
The general rule explicitly refers you to the descriptions of the individual classes in Chapter 3. The table is in Chapter 3 as well, and is still part of RAW.



I'm not saying you're somehow wrong for thinking the things you do. I'm saying you're wrong for arguing your perspective while simultaneously insisting it shouldn't be argued. Either you want to talk about this, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
I already said "fair enough", but I want to specifically acknowledge that I am copping to having done this.

I just also want to point out that I DID give up on trying to stop the EGW+DW discussion and decided to just embrace it after saying this.



The last time you argued about the floating slots, I said,

And then you said, "Thank you," and didn't post any other response. So, I gotta figure you have to actually address what I said there if you intend to keep claiming that these floating slots as you put them aren't a thing.
I think I must have misinterpreted what you said, then. I thought you were saying that the slot NOT floating was well-supported.

Reading it again, I see that was not the case.

Regarding your point, since you get to prepare an additional spell of your highest spell level. You only get to prepare L1 spells, and only by virtue of a feat which allows you to spend two L1 spell slots to CAST a L2 spell do you have any "ability" to cast L2 spells. That "ability to cast L2 spells" does not even exist in your repetoire until the moment that 2 L1 spell slots are burned. But since when you are preparing spells, you have no ability to CAST L2 spells, you don't get that EGW spell slot (which does say "additional spell of your highest spell level") as a L2 spell.


I was referring to the generalist domain thing. After all, that's what I was talking about initially, which was then responded to, and then georgie responded to that response, meaning that what you quoted is likely on that topic alone too.
Even re-reading both of your statements, it seemed like you were saying the whole thing (i.e. the Leapfrog Wizard) "works by RAW", even though you would not allow it at your table.


Again, either you want the argument or you don't. Stating the latter while enforcing the former is just illogical. And it's not like I'm just not going to respond to something I think is wrong because it's in a spoiler.
It's still only ONE thing that disallows the Leapfrog Wizard. One thing out of many.

My reading really doesn't cut it out. They specialize in a domain instead of an entire school. No argument. They are not, however, "specialist wizards." The DW rules out-and-out say so.

I never said the were "specialist wizards". That was someone else who was presuming my position.


Because they are not "specialist wizards," they can take EG.

Incorrect. EGW does not say "you cannot be a specialist wizard", it says it REPLACES the ability to specialize.



It does, and thus is, as shown above.

I'm going to skip a lot of what you've said, because you're hammering home the point about "instead of," and I have addressed it above. I apologize if you feel there remains some aspect of your point I'm not addressing, but as I re-read it to type this up, I am not seeing anything to which I would reply with aught but a repetition of the above. I'll be happy to try to address points you still feel I'm missing, though, if you'll point them out. Maybe we should try to do one at a time, if only because the posts are getting so long that I confess I'm getting lost in them.
I'm sorry, but I still feel that what you are missing is the "instead of". As in "specializing in a domain instead of specializing in an entire school".

You have yet to answer what that "instead of" means in regards to that sentence.


And the DW doesn't require that the wizard who takes it have the ability to specialize in a school. Merely that he does not do so.
Which is only one half of a complete sentence.
"A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

Again, neither Tippy, nor you, has any authority to say that only the first half of that sentence is rules text. The semicolon separating two otherwise complete sentences means that they are equal in importance. Which means that BOTH are rules text, and you must account for what the second one means.

Your previous argument hinged on the second sentence saying "in exchange for the versatility of not specializing in an entire school", which IS, in fact, cutting words out of the text.




This was, is, and remains my line of argument.

DW says you can't also specialize in a school, i.e. be a "specialist wizard." It also says, explicitly, that you are not one. EG says that you can't be a "specialist wizard."
You quoted a guy who got the RAW text wrong, saw that I corrected him and showed him the truth, and still quoted him.

EGW does not just say "you can't be a specialist wizard". It-very explicitly-tells you that it replaces the ability to specialize. The guy you quoted LITERALY made the claim that EGW doesn't say those exact words. Which it absolutely does. His founding principles of his argument are wrong, and therefore no valid argument can be built on them. If a house's foundation is not level, then even if the house is perfectly flush and square to that foundation, the house itself will not be level.




To give "instead of" one more moment of address, you're treating it as if I were at the grocery store, and saying, "Instead of having $3.95, I am going to have this loaf of bread." That's not how such things are usually discussed, however.

A more fitting analogy would be your Unearthed Arcana clothing store shipping you a blue shirt. Prior to this, you only had a red shirt, or no shirt at all as your options to wear. Today, you say, "I will wear my blue shirt instead of my red one." You then learn, as you're heading to a ball game, that your team is giving away signed balls if you trade in a red shirt.

So you trade your red shirt for a ball, and you're still wearing the blue one. You COULD have been wearing the red shirt and not worn the blue one, and now you'd be shirtless but have the ball. But you chose to wear the blue shirt AND trade for the ball.
Your analogy is confusing, but I must ask...if you are wearing your blue shirt, why is your red shirt with you to trade in at the ball game?





Sure. You're trading your red shirt for a signed ball.

Fortunately for you, you wore your blue shirt instead of your red one.
So...you don't HAVE your red shirt with you to trade in, right?



I dispute the need for this ordering, but even by your argument, you can simply make sure to be a DW first, then take EG (trading away your ability to be a specialist wizard/specialize in a school, neither of which DW requires you to no longer have...just not to be usi
Well, since DW says you cannot specialize in a school of magic, you logically do not have "the ability to specialize in a school of magic" to trade in. Just like what I said earlier about UA Lion Totem Barbarians taking the "View The Spirit World" ability from Complete Champion. If you do not have a class ability, you cannot take an ACF that replaces it.



Well, first off, the reason I dispute the need for ordering is precisely because "forgoing" doesn't mean you had to have the option in the first place. But even assuming you must have the ability in order to replace it with EG, you do still have it. You just are doing something else "instead of" using it.
I dispute that claim based solely on the meaning of "ability to do [x]".

Which I think is pretty clear. If you cannot do X, you do not have "the ability to do X". That's pretty much cut-and-dried.



And, as shown, "instead of" doesn't mean "given up." It means you chose not to use it, and are a DW instead. Just like you can choose to wear your blue shirt instead of your red one, but the red one is still there, and you can, in fact, trade it for a signed ball.
Please provide support for your claim that "instead of" means "choosing not to use it".

I have gone the extra mile and cited dictionary definitions, which anyone who checks up on (Google "instead definition") can verify. The dictionary says "instead of" means "in the place of" or "as a substitution for", which actually DOES mean "given up". Especially in this context. This is a class feature that, once a decision is made on, cannot be changed. A regular PHB wizard who chooses not to specialize at character creation does not have "the ability to specialize" once play begins.

So please, by all means, support your claim about your definition of "instead of". I actually welcome well-supported opposing claims. I enjoy actual debate.


IIRC, that line of reasoning hinges on the bonus spells due to high ability scores rules. I don't think the RAW say anything at all about bonus spells from other sources being similarly restricted. I could be wrong, though.

Even if it did...the wording of the bonus spells in question might override it (specific > general), if they said "you get this as soon as you can cast a spell of that level."
And the "Leapfrog Wizard" concept explicitly requires those bonus spells from high INT. Follow the link in the OP to dextercovia's original post on the subject.

Those other bonus spells are also invalidated by the "minimum level to cast spells of a certain level" point. And there's no "specific over general" that says anything about the EGW bonus spell "floating". The lack of specific rules is a major point of mine on why it doesn't work.


This does raise the question: Does an EG with Precicious Apprentice get a second 2nd level spell slot at level 1?
...
...
...
Yes. Yes it does.

[Segev]

You have yet to answer what that "instead of" means in regards to that sentence.I...did. Repeatedly. It means that you wore the blue shirt instead of the red one. Not that you traded away your red shirt for the blue one. You had two options. You took one of them. You still have the other; you're just not using it.


Which is only one half of a complete sentence.
"A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

Again, neither Tippy, nor you, has any authority to say that only the first half of that sentence is rules text. The semicolon separating two otherwise complete sentences means that they are equal in importance. Which means that BOTH are rules text, and you must account for what the second one means.You keep telling me I'm saying one part is rules and the other isn't. That is false. Please stop it.

I have very carefully addressed this point. The DW does not specialize in a school. Instead, he has a domain with which he casts at a higher CL.


Your previous argument hinged on the second sentence saying "in exchange for the versatility of not specializing in an entire school", which IS, in fact, cutting words out of the text.



You quoted a guy who got the RAW text wrong, saw that I corrected him and showed him the truth, and still quoted him.I admit that I was not working with the rules in front of me, so I may have gotten them backwards. The crux of my point is that only one of the two abilities requires you to "trade" away your option to specialize. The other merely requires you not to have taken that option. This is an important distinction. By definition, if you trade away an option, you are not using that option. So if you trade away the option to be a specialist for EG, then you satisfy DW's condition that you not also be a specialist, because you are not a specialist. Instead of specializing in a school, you are an EG and a DW, and get the benefits of both.

Let me repeat this in bold, in case my wall of text is causing it to be lost: You need not have the option to be a specialist wizard in order to be a DW; you only need not have taken said option. If you do not have that option, you have, perforce, not taken it. An EG doesn't have that option. An EG has not taken it. DW only checks to see if you have specialized in a school. If you haven't, you can specialize in a domain


Your analogy is confusing, but I must ask...if you are wearing your blue shirt, why is your red shirt with you to trade in at the ball game?Because you heard they'd be trading balls for red shirts, so you brought it with you.


Here, let me try a different analogy.

Let's say there's a witch who will grant any one wish in return for all of your worldly possessions. There is also a holy place which only those who own nothing may enter.

Traditionally, those who seek to enter the holy place go on a pilgrimage to give away all they own, until they have nothing and are at its gates.

You, however, go to the witch and trade your worldly wealth for a wish for eternal youth at the prime of your life. Then, owning nothing, you go to this holy place.

You can do this because the holy place doesn't require you to give anything up if you already don't have anything. The holy place is being a DW. It requires that you not be a specialist wizard. It gives you other powers, instead of those you could have had if you were one. But it doesn't actually require you to have that class feature to give up. Only that you not have used it if you have it. IF you don't have it, you haven't used it (since you can't), and DW's conditions are satisfied.



Well, since DW says you cannot specialize in a school of magic, you logically do not have "the ability to specialize in a school of magic" to trade in.Nope. It doesn't work like that. For one thing, you can choose the order of operations. You can thus take EG "first," trading away your specialist wizard class feature, and then you can take DW. Because DW only asks whether you are a specialist wizard or not. Since you're not, you can take DW. Instead of the versatility you'd get for specializing in an entire school, you get the DW benefits. Just as it says.


Just like what I said earlier about UA Lion Totem Barbarians taking the "View The Spirit World" ability from Complete Champion. If you do not have a class ability, you cannot take an ACF that replaces it.But if you take an ACF that replaces it, and then pick up an ability that merely requires you not to have used the original class feature you gave up, you're fine.



Please provide support for your claim that "instead of" means "choosing not to use it".See above. It's more that DW requires you not to be using it. It doesn't care if you could have used it or not. Only that you are not doing so.

"To enter the wheelchair race, you must sit in the chair and may not use your legs for locomotion." Both you and the amputee with no legs can enter this race. You have to choose not to use your legs. He doesn't have any, and thus also satisfies the "not using legs" rule.


I have gone the extra mile and cited dictionary definitions, which anyone who checks up on (Google "instead definition") can verify. The dictionary says "instead of" means "in the place of" or "as a substitution for", which actually DOES mean "given up". Especially in this context. This is a class feature that, once a decision is made on, cannot be changed. A regular PHB wizard who chooses not to specialize at character creation does not have "the ability to specialize" once play begins.Sorry, it doesn't mean that you have to have had it to begin with. It only means that you do not have it or are not enjoying the benefits of it, and instead get this other benefit.


So please, by all means, support your claim about your definition of "instead of". I actually welcome well-supported opposing claims. I enjoy actual debate.Done and done.



And the "Leapfrog Wizard" concept explicitly requires those bonus spells from high INT. Follow the link in the OP to dextercovia's original post on the subject.Does it? I thought the whole point of the DW + EG was to grant bonus spells, because high Int doesn't get you the 9th level ones at level 1.


Those other bonus spells are also invalidated by the "minimum level to cast spells of a certain level" point. And there's no "specific over general" that says anything about the EGW bonus spell "floating". The lack of specific rules is a major point of mine on why it doesn't work.I haven't followed this part of the argument well enough to comment, sorry.


...
...
...
Yes. Yes it does.
:smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

Fair enough.

I do admit that I like to debate, and it's hard to turn one down. That's a failing I have.
Not saying you shouldn't debate this. Just saying you shouldn't also claim that you want to shut the debate down.


The criteria of "instead of" is: "in the stead (place) of"..."As a substitute for". That is what the words MEANS.

If you do not have the ABILITY TO SPECIALIZE, you do not have the requisite ante to "substitute for".

The word "instead" EXPLICITLY MEANS that specializing in a domain SUBSTITUTES specializing in a school.
Sure, substitute. But substitute works just as well for this. As you quoted below, I did create a dialogue for this that includes substitute.

Again, that's not correct. You are not "giving up the versatility associated with specialization". Specializing in a domain is less versatile than specializing in a school-which you do not have the ability to do.

You can say it's not correct, but that doesn't make it not correct. The text cares that domains are less versatile. It does not apparently care whether that's an actual option available to you.


You aren't "forgoing" something if you already can't do it. It's already been given up.
You're still forgoing it. You're just getting paid to do so.


I bolded where I feel you are going wrong. Nothing in the RAW, either explicitly, or by extension, supports this idea. So what we have to go by is the meaning of the words in the text. Because "instead" means "in the place of", you can't do something that tales the place of something you don't HAVE.
That line at the end, it just doesn't seem supported by basic semantic analysis.


Your metaphor lacks a connection to this issue. You are still entitled to some kind of entree, and those are both entrees. It also lacks the additional options to make a parallel.
You're not really entitled to an entree. They could just boot you, or you could leave the table and not get any benefit (which would be equivalent here to going standard generalist). Not sure what you mean by additional options, but those can be added if need be. The point is your central semantic claim about the meaning of substitution, and in that sense the parallel is perfect. Anything you need on top of that can probably be added on to the example trivially.


The general rule explicitly refers you to the descriptions of the individual classes in Chapter 3. The table is in Chapter 3 as well, and is still part of RAW.

The rule refers you to the classes. It's just that the classes don't explicitly have the rules you want them to, making the underlying reference to those classes not especially meaningful. There is no explicit generic necessary level, which is what you need here.


I just also want to point out that I DID give up on trying to stop the EGW+DW discussion and decided to just embrace it after saying this.
Works for me.


I think I must have misinterpreted what you said, then. I thought you were saying that the slot NOT floating was well-supported.
I was somewhat confused by your response.


Regarding your point, since you get to prepare an additional spell of your highest spell level. You only get to prepare L1 spells, and only by virtue of a feat which allows you to spend two L1 spell slots to CAST a L2 spell do you have any "ability" to cast L2 spells. That "ability to cast L2 spells" does not even exist in your repetoire until the moment that 2 L1 spell slots are burned. But since when you are preparing spells, you have no ability to CAST L2 spells, you don't get that EGW spell slot (which does say "additional spell of your highest spell level") as a L2 spell.

This trick isn't taking place during some spell preparation time. As I noted much earlier, the ability to prepare spells strictly implies the existence of spell slots, and it is those slots that you are using. And, beyond that, assuming the caster level element goes against you, having those slots itself implies the ability to cast those spells. Which means that, while the spell versatility spell is instantaneous, the slots generated by it are self-supporting, in that they themselves grant the needed second level spell capacity to allow access to those spells.


Even re-reading both of your statements, it seemed like you were saying the whole thing (i.e. the Leapfrog Wizard) "works by RAW", even though you would not allow it at your table.
That does seem to be what georgie was saying. Still, I think I'm correct going backwards through the chain. You have Zergling saying, "However, many people want the combo of EGW + DW to work, regardless of what RAW says on the matter," and then I quoted that saying, "Not completely accurate. I don't simply want the combo to work. I think it does work, by RAW, and that this argument focused on the phrase "instead of" is reaching by a lot." Then Zergling quoted that, saying, "Regardless, you want it to work, RedMage doesn't want it to work, both sides believe the RAW are on their side." I think it then got confused when Georgie said that he thought that the overall trick worked, out of RAW rather than hope, and I agreed with the underlying notion that this is a stance of RAW, as opposed to Zergling's claim (which I said I agreed with in a different sense).

That was a weird one to unravel.


It's still only ONE thing that disallows the Leapfrog Wizard. One thing out of many.
Yeah, but it is also itself a claim against allowing domain generalists. I care about that way more than some weird leapfrog wizard thing. These things you're saying have impact in and of themselves, beyond their impact on this bigger trick.

[DarkSoul]

This does raise the question: Does an EG with Precicious Apprentice get a second 2nd level spell slot at level 1?Yes, but they can't do anything with it because they aren't a level 3 wizard which is the minimum level required to cast 2nd-level spells (barring the specific exception of Precocious Apprentice), nor are they caster level 3 so any 2nd-level spell they cast cannot be at the minimum caster level required to do so (again, except for the ability granted by Precocious Apprentice).

I'm also of the opinion that, regardless of my personal desires, elven generalist + domain wizard is a rules-legal combination. My interpretation of the rules is that it's not, but as written it's legal. It's the class- and caster level problems that actually prevent the "leapfrog" idea from working.

[Segev]

Yes, but they can't do anything with it because they aren't a level 3 wizard which is the minimum level required to cast 2nd-level spells (barring the specific exception of Precocious Apprentice), nor are they caster level 3 so any 2nd-level spell they cast cannot be at the minimum caster level required to do so (again, except for the ability granted by Precocious Apprentice).This seems a valid analysis. My only quibble is over whether "minimum caster level" is actually applicable, since the only place people have cited is in magic item creation rules, which don't seem to general-case cover inability to cast spells if CL is too low.

That said, there are ways to increase CL above your HD.


I'm also of the opinion that, regardless of my personal desires, elven generalist + domain wizard is a rules-legal combination. My interpretation of the rules is that it's not, but as written it's legal. It's the class- and caster level problems that actually prevent the "leapfrog" idea from working.

I mostly agree. Though semantic quibble: by what you've said here, your interpretation is that it is legal. Your house rule is that you would not allow it. An "interpretation" is how you understand what is written. How you choose to read it. Sometimes, there is more than one valid interpretation, and you can pick one of them as "yours" that you'll go with. Here, you've interpreted it to say that it's rules-legal (which I agree with, and think is the only valid interpretation of the RAW).

I also totally understand banning the combination as a house rule, because it does seem to be getting something for nothing.

That said...isn't DW getting something for nothing even if taken by itself? Compare it to a base rules non-specialist wizard. I don't think it gives anything up.

[DarkSoul]

This seems a valid analysis. My only quibble is over whether "minimum caster level" is actually applicable, since the only place people have cited is in magic item creation rules, which don't seem to general-case cover inability to cast spells if CL is too low.

That said, there are ways to increase CL above your HD.There's a minimum caster level for every spell; it's just not clearly defined so it's ignored, often intentionally. The problem lies in the fact that people will quote a single sentence or section of the rules as justification, when taking the body of the rules as a whole gives a clearer picture. In the case of minimum caster level, several sections of the rules have to be taken into consideration:



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. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)The rules specifically instruct us to look at each class' description, which includes their class table, to determine what the "high enough" level actually is for each class.

A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you're using to cast the spell. Wizards fall into the "most spellcasting characters" category because nothing in their class description says their caster level and class level aren't equal, unlike paladins and rangers.

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.The next sentence after this one begins with "For example," and is the "fireball precedent" people often bring up; the fact that it's an example of the rule in effect, printed only for clarification, seems to be irrelevant.

So reading the body of the rules as a whole rather than picking and choosing what to apply or ignore means that because there is a minimum class level required for any spellcasting class to actually cast a given spell, and their caster level is generated by their class level, then the rules work together to generate the baseline class and caster level requirements to cast any spell. However, the rules also apply separately, so a Fighter 4/Wizard 1 with Practiced Spellcaster has a caster level of 5, but point 1 above prevents casting level 2 and 3 spells.

Exceptions do exist to these rules; Mage Slayer, Unseen Seer, and Wild Mage are the examples that have been mentioned so far. After more consideration I've come to agree with Beheld's point he made on page 4 of the thread: If point 1 above grants you the ability to cast spells of a given level then Mage Slayer, Unseen Seer and Wild Mage aren't going to take that ability away, they're just going to lower the maximum caster level you can cast your spells at. If this new maximum is lower than what point 3 would allow, so be it. Specific trumps general. In the case of a Wizard 6 with Mage Slayer, point 3 prevents them from choosing anything below caster level 3 or 5 for 2nd- or 3rd-level spells respectively, while the feat prevents them from choosing a caster level higher than 2, so their level 2 and 3 spells MUST be cast at their maximum caster level, and their 0- and 1st-level spells can be cast at caster level 1 or 2.


That said...isn't DW getting something for nothing even if taken by itself? Compare it to a base rules non-specialist wizard. I don't think it gives anything up.Both of them are getting something for nothing, just not from a rules perspective. Anyone taking EGW is never intending to specialize, so it's something for nothing to that person. Domain wizard alone is all upside no matter how you look at it; no banned schools, extra spell slots, more spells known as you increase in level, and a higher caster level on some of your spells.

I think the combination of the two puts people off because DW says it's specializing in something instead of a school, which many people (myself included) consider to be a variant of the specialist wizard, and so an EGW can't also be a DW. It's specializing when you're not allowed to. That gets away from the rules as written, though.

[Segev]

There's a minimum caster level for every spell; it's just not clearly defined so it's ignored, often intentionally. The problem lies in the fact that people will quote a single sentence or section of the rules as justification, when taking the body of the rules as a whole gives a clearer picture. In the case of minimum caster level, several sections of the rules have to be taken into consideration:


The rules specifically instruct us to look at each class' description, which includes their class table, to determine what the "high enough" level actually is for each class.
Wizards fall into the "most spellcasting characters" category because nothing in their class description says their caster level and class level aren't equal, unlike paladins and rangers.
The next sentence after this one begins with "For example," and is the "fireball precedent" people often bring up; the fact that it's an example of the rule in effect, printed only for clarification, seems to be irrelevant.

So reading the body of the rules as a whole rather than picking and choosing what to apply or ignore means that because there is a minimum class level required for any spellcasting class to actually cast a given spell, and their caster level is generated by their class level, then the rules work together to generate the baseline class and caster level requirements to cast any spell. However, the rules also apply separately, so a Fighter 4/Wizard 1 with Practiced Spellcaster has a caster level of 5, but point 1 above prevents casting level 2 and 3 spells.

Exceptions do exist to these rules; Mage Slayer, Unseen Seer, and Wild Mage are the examples that have been mentioned so far. After more consideration I've come to agree with Beheld's point he made on page 4 of the thread: If point 1 above grants you the ability to cast spells of a given level then Mage Slayer, Unseen Seer and Wild Mage aren't going to take that ability away, they're just going to lower the maximum caster level you can cast your spells at. If this new maximum is lower than what point 3 would allow, so be it. Specific trumps general. In the case of a Wizard 6 with Mage Slayer, point 3 prevents them from choosing anything below caster level 3 or 5 for 2nd- or 3rd-level spells respectively, while the feat prevents them from choosing a caster level higher than 2, so their level 2 and 3 spells MUST be cast at their maximum caster level, and their 0- and 1st-level spells can be cast at caster level 1 or 2.Excellent analysis, thanks.

Point 1 seems to be overridden specifically by Versatile Spellcaster, however. It specifically provides you a spell slot of the given level. Or does it? It gives you a spell slot, but does it let you cast it if your class level is too low? Need to compare the precise wording of it to Precocious Apprentice to see if their wording is close enough to use PA as precedent.




Both of them are getting something for nothing, just not from a rules perspective. Anyone taking EGW is never intending to specialize, so it's something for nothing to that person. Domain wizard alone is all upside no matter how you look at it; no banned schools, extra spell slots, more spells known as you increase in level, and a higher caster level on some of your spells.

I think the combination of the two puts people off because DW says it's specializing in something instead of a school, which many people (myself included) consider to be a variant of the specialist wizard, and so an EGW can't also be a DW. It's specializing when you're not allowed to. That gets away from the rules as written, though.
Good point. And yes, whether you would allow it and think it's a loophole or think it's "just fine" is not the same as whether it works by RAW. I sympathize with those put off by the combination. But you're right, being put off doesn't make it not technically rules-legal.

[DarkSoul]

Excellent analysis, thanks.

Point 1 seems to be overridden specifically by Versatile Spellcaster, however. It specifically provides you a spell slot of the given level. Or does it? It gives you a spell slot, but does it let you cast it if your class level is too low? Need to compare the precise wording of it to Precocious Apprentice to see if their wording is close enough to use PA as precedent.

Good point. And yes, whether you would allow it and think it's a loophole or think it's "just fine" is not the same as whether it works by RAW. I sympathize with those put off by the combination. But you're right, being put off doesn't make it not technically rules-legal.VS does not give you a spell slot. It provides an alternative spell slot cost for casting your spell: 2 slots of one level lower than the spell you want to cast. Only Precocious Apprentice explicitly gives you a spell slot. For reference:


You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.

Choose one 2nd-level spell from a school of magic you have access to. You gain an extra 2nd-level spell slot that must be used initially to cast only the chosen spell. Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully cast this spell; if you fail, the spell is miscast to no effect. Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances.

When you become able to cast 2nd-level spells, you lose the benefit described above but retain the extra 2nd-level spell slot, which you can use to prepare or spontaneously cast a spell of 2nd level or lower as you normally would.

Finally, you gain a +2 bonus on all Spellcraft checks.Emphasis mine.

I had just edited this into my other post when you replied to it, so I'll move it here so it doesn't get missed:

Now, to bring all of this back around to the topic of the thread: Versatile Spellcaster only provides an exception to point 1 for the purposes of casting a single spell, and it only provides an alternate cost to casting the spell. Neither EGW nor DW say anything that makes an exception to any of points 1-3, so they all apply. A Wizard 1 is not high enough class level to cast second level spells except in the specific case of Versatile Spellcaster. It's not that they have 0 spell slots of any spell level over 1, the rules for the class give them -- spell slots. They simply do not exist. Trying to add a domain wizard spell slot and an elven generalist spell slot to a value of -- is like trying to add 2 to ∞; you just get ∞ again, or in this case you just get -- again*. No spell slots are generated and the leapfrog effect never happens.

*: Technically you get (∞ + 2) or (-- + 2), but neither of them can be expressed in terms usable within the bounds of the rules, so for all intents and purposes they remain ∞ and --.

[Segev]

The precise wording for the DW's spells known is: "A domain wizard automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells as soon as she becomes able to cast it." and "A domain wizard prepares and casts spells like a normal wizard. However, a domain wizard gains one bonus spell per spell level, which must be filled with the spell from that level of the domain spell list (or with a lower-level domain spell that has been altered with a metamagic feat)."

So he could use VS to cast a spell of a level higher than he normally could; he automatically adds the Domain spell of the level appropriate to his known spells as soon as he gains the ability to cast it (which he has as soon as he has VS and two spell slots of his "normal" maximum level).

This does not grant him any spell slots, however; He doesn't have a bonus spell slot of that higher-than-normal level, as you've noted.

Unless EG's bonus spell slot is granted based on ability to cast a spell of that level rather than already having spell slots of that level.

[DarkSoul]

The precise wording for the DW's spells known is: "A domain wizard automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells as soon as she becomes able to cast it." and "A domain wizard prepares and casts spells like a normal wizard. However, a domain wizard gains one bonus spell per spell level, which must be filled with the spell from that level of the domain spell list (or with a lower-level domain spell that has been altered with a metamagic feat)."

So he could use VS to cast a spell of a level higher than he normally could; he automatically adds the Domain spell of the level appropriate to his known spells as soon as he gains the ability to cast it (which he has as soon as he has VS and two spell slots of his "normal" maximum level).

This does not grant him any spell slots, however; He doesn't have a bonus spell slot of that higher-than-normal level, as you've noted.

Unless EG's bonus spell slot is granted based on ability to cast a spell of that level rather than already having spell slots of that level.EG's relevant text:

The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day. Unlike the specialist wizard ability, this spell may be of any school.EG's bonus spell is still bound by point 1 and the entries on the wizard class table and therefore wouldn't move at all. Neither would the DW slot, for the same reason.

[Mato]

Well at least the thread seems to be dying down. I still have some questions through if anyone can explain it to me in some nice calm and clear answers.

How is the wizard using versatile spellcaster?

Versatile Spellcaster (Races of the Dragon): Although only spontaneous spellcasters can utilize this feat, the ability to sacrifice two lower-level spell slots for one higher-level spell slot comes in handy more often than you might think.

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. Such a spellcaster’s class level limits the number of spells he can cast. A high ability score might allow such spellcasters to cast a few extra spells, and the class defines the ability score that governs spellcasting. A spellcaster must have a score of at least 10 + a spell’s level in the ability score that governs spellcasting to cast that spell.
As my understanding of things,

When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.In order to purpose the claim than complete mage's entry can ignored, you must prove complete mage contradicts races of the dragon as a fact.

If so, then if you claim races of dragon's versatile spellcaster's text is ambiguous in order to offer the opinion that alacritous cogitation makes the wizard's method of spontaneous casting count. Is it only an opinion that contradicts the complete mage's entry rather than the rules, there is no contradiction in the facts or rules, just in someone's opinion. This is also the fact/opinion dissociation I spoke of before.

And how does alacritous cogitation make a wizard a spontainous spellcaster?

If you leave an arcane spell slot open when preparing spells, you can use that open slot to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower and of casting time no longer than 1 round.The feat cannot be used unless you prepare spells prior to using it. To repeat my self here.

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. Such a spellcaster’s class level limits the number of spells he can cast. A high ability score might allow such spellcasters to cast a few extra spells, and the class defines the ability score that governs spellcasting. A spellcaster must have a score of at least 10 + a spell’s level in the ability score that governs spellcasting to cast that spell.If alacritous cogitation requires you to prepare your spells and spontaneous spellcaster requires you not to prepare any spells, these two things cannot overlap. Is there something missing that should be in the posted trick?

[DarkSoul]

That's exactly the method this trick uses; taking a flaw in order to have Alacritous Cogitation and Versatile Spellcaster at level 1, on the assumption that the former allows use of the latter.

Is there something you're missing? No, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that any argument saying this trick should work "by the RAW" doesn't hold up.

[Doc_Maynot]

Alternatively, Magical Training (Sorcerer) works in place of Alacritous Cogitation.

[Mato]

I suppose I'm a little impatient for forgive me here but I'll go ahead and ask my next two questions since this part has been bugging me since the first thread and no one has ever discussed it.

As important as your character’s race is, it’s (usually) a onetime choice made at the beginning of your character’s career. Your selection of class levels, on the other hand, is a recurring decision that is shaped both by personal preference and the realities of the campaign world. The eleven character classes in the Player’s Handbook cover many of the basic fantasy archetypes, from the raging warrior to the crafty wizard ard. But the number of character roles imaginable is essentially infinite, and even when factoring in all the prestige class choices available, you may not be able to find the combination of class features that perfectly captures your mental image of your character.

This chapter presents a wide variety of options that allow you to tweak the existing character classes without completely scrapping them and starting from scratch. Whether they involve swapping out one class feature for another or trying a new twist on an old favorite, these variants allow the players and DM to retain the familiarity of existing classes while exploring worlds of difference.

With your DM’s permission, you can use any one of these variant classes in place of the standard class of the same name. Depending on the campaign world, variant classes may exist side by side with standard classes, or they may replace standard classes entirely. For instance, the DM may decide that all monks must choose a fighting style that reflects their original training, or that all barbarians must choose a totem.

For those who prefer a less specialized approach to character building, the chapter also includes a trio of “generic” classes that allow players the ability to custom-craft their character’s unique identity.

Throughout this chapter, the term “character class” is used to refer to any class that may be taken by a 1st-level starting character. This includes the eleven classes that appear in Chapter 3 of the Player’s Handbook, as well as any similar class in other products.

RACIAL SUBSTITUTION LEVELS
A substitution level is a level of a given class that you take instead of the level described for the standard class. Selecting a substitution level is not the same as multiclassing—you remain within the class for which the substitution level is taken. The class features of the substitution level simply replace those of the standard level.

To qualify to take a racial substitution level, you must be of the proper race. For instance, to select a racial substitution level of elf wizard, you must be an elf.

The three races featured in this book—elf, halfling, and raptoran—each have racial substitution levels for three classes. Essentially, each set of substitution levels presents a racially flavored variant standard class for your game. The DM can add more racial substitution level options (such as for an elf bard or a halfling ranger) as desired, using the ones presented here as guidelines.

For each class with racial substitution levels, you can select each substitution level only at a specific class level. When you take a substitution level for your class at a given level, you give up the class features gained at that level for the standard class, and you get the substitution level features instead. You can’t go back and gain the class features for the level you swapped out—when you take your next level in the standard class, you gain the next higher level as if you had gained the previous level normally.

For instance, if you take the elf paladin substitution level for 3rd level, you forever lose the class features normally gained by a standard 3rd-level paladin (such as aura of courage), gaining instead the racial substitution class features for a 3rd-level elf paladin (such as aura of freedom; see Table 6–2). When you gain another level in paladin, you gain the normal 4th-level benefits of the standard paladin class, as given in Table 3–12: The Paladin, page 43 of the Player’s Handbook.

Unless noted otherwise in the description of a racial substitution level class feature, a character who takes a racial substitution level gains spellcasting ability (increases in spells per day and spells known, if applicable) as if she had taken this level in the standard class. A character need not take all the substitution levels provided for a class. For instance, a halfling rogue might decide to take only the racial substitution level at 1st level, ignoring the other substitution levels.

The description of each substitution level class feature explains what occurs to the standard class ability not gained, if that ability would normally increase at a specific rate (such as the paladin’s smite evil ability).

When a substitution level changes the standard class’s Hit Die or class skill list, the change applies only to that specific substitution level, not to any other class levels. A halfling who takes the halfling monk substitution level as a beginning character gains 6 hit points (from the substitution level’s d6 Hit Die) and gains an additional 1d6 hit points for each additional halfling monk substitution level she takes later in her career, but she gains the normal d8 Hit Die for all standard monk levels.
If a domain wizard class is not the same as the wizard class, how can it take the wizard's racial substitution level? And if the racial substitution level removes all class features except for the ones it specifically notes, how is the Arcane Domain class feature kept?

[eggynack]

As my understanding of things,
In order to purpose the claim than complete mage's entry can ignored, you must prove complete mage contradicts races of the dragon as a fact.

If so, then if you claim races of dragon's versatile spellcaster's text is ambiguous in order to offer the opinion that alacritous cogitation makes the wizard's method of spontaneous casting count. Is it only an opinion that contradicts the complete mage's entry rather than the rules, there is no contradiction in the facts or rules, just in someone's opinion. This is also the fact/opinion dissociation I spoke of before.
I think there is a pretty clear contradiction there. Versatile spellcaster places as its only restriction that you have the ability to spontaneously cast spells. There is nothing there about this higher order thing where you must be, overall, a spontaneous spellcaster. Consider, if you're referencing complete mage, then you think that that rule is telling us how this feat works in a way that the original feat didn't. That distinction in meaning is what a contradiction is. Having prerequisites (where prerequisites are defined a bit broadly to include things like feat descriptors, for example [epic]), is, after all, considered by the game both a necessary and sufficient condition to take a feat. Essentially adding prerequisites is as much a rule change as taking them away, or adding abilities to a feat, or taking those away.


And how does alacritous cogitation make a wizard a spontainous spellcaster?
The feat cannot be used unless you prepare spells prior to using it. To repeat my self here.
If alacritous cogitation requires you to prepare your spells and spontaneous spellcaster requires you not to prepare any spells, these two things cannot overlap. Is there something missing that should be in the posted trick?
Alacritous cogitation may not make you a spontaneous caster, but it seems like it does allow you to cast some quantity of spells spontaneously, which is, as I noted above, what versatile spellcaster actually requires.


If a domain wizard class is not the same as the wizard class, how can it take the wizard's racial substitution level?
I think that the domain wizard is, broadly speaking, still a wizard. You're still in the overall constraints, name, and doing of the overall notion of a wizard, even if you're a different type of wizard.


And if the racial substitution level removes all class features except for the ones it specifically notes, how is the Arcane Domain class feature kept?
An arbitrary initial note here is that it seems like the usual ordering considered for this trick, generalist and then domain, would eliminate these two issues if they ever existed. Anyway, addressing the main concern, you are mistaken that the substitution level removes all class features. It, in fact, removes all standard class features. Check out all those things you bolded. "These features replace those of a standard level." "You give up the class features gained at that level for the standard class." "You forever lose the class features normally gained by a standard 3rd-level paladin." The domain wizard's ability is in no way a standard wizard class feature. Normally it wouldn't matter, because taking an "opposed" class feature would make the sub level impossible to take, but here you never actually traded away specialization, and that's what's disappearing from your sheet.

[RedMage125]

As an aside, I want to say that DarkSoul, I like your points.

Mato...I seem to recall the whole "domain wizard as a separate class" point coming up earlier. It was summarily dismissed. Truth be told, it's not necessary to disprove the "Leapfrog Wizard", even if pursuing that point meant potentially eliminating the EGW+DW combo.

I...did. Repeatedly. It means that you wore the blue shirt instead of the red one. Not that you traded away your red shirt for the blue one. You had two options. You took one of them. You still have the other; you're just not using it.
If you traded something away, you no longer have it.


You keep telling me I'm saying one part is rules and the other isn't. That is false. Please stop it.
You keep saying that DW's only restriction is that you "cannot be a specialist wizard", which is only half of one sentence.
It is false to claim that this is the only thing DW says about the matter.
Please stop it.


I have very carefully addressed this point. The DW does not specialize in a school. Instead, he has a domain with which he casts at a higher CL.
He specializes in a domain...INSTEAD of specializing in a school.

Which, if he is an EGW, he does not have the ability to do.


I admit that I was not working with the rules in front of me, so I may have gotten them backwards. The crux of my point is that only one of the two abilities requires you to "trade" away your option to specialize. The other merely requires you not to have taken that option. This is an important distinction. By definition, if you trade away an option, you are not using that option. So if you trade away the option to be a specialist for EG, then you satisfy DW's condition that you not also be a specialist, because you are not a specialist. Instead of specializing in a school, you are an EG and a DW, and get the benefits of both.
Saying "it only requires you to not specialize" is only reading half of the text.
Also, by definition, if you trade away an option, you no longer have it.
Your last sentence is not directly supported by any RAW, ergo it is not RAW truth.


Let me repeat this in bold, in case my wall of text is causing it to be lost: You need not have the option to be a specialist wizard in order to be a DW; you only need not have taken said option.
This is my bone of contention. ONE HALF of that sentence says "you may not be a specialist wizard". The word "instead" means "in the place of" or "as a substitute for". If you replace the definition of "instead" for the word itself, it should not change the meaning of the sentence, right?
So...
"A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain in the place of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."
or...
"A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain as a substitute for an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."



Because you heard they'd be trading balls for red shirts, so you brought it with you.

Here, let me try a different analogy.

Let's say there's a witch who will grant any one wish in return for all of your worldly possessions. There is also a holy place which only those who own nothing may enter.

Traditionally, those who seek to enter the holy place go on a pilgrimage to give away all they own, until they have nothing and are at its gates.

You, however, go to the witch and trade your worldly wealth for a wish for eternal youth at the prime of your life. Then, owning nothing, you go to this holy place.

You can do this because the holy place doesn't require you to give anything up if you already don't have anything. The holy place is being a DW. It requires that you not be a specialist wizard. It gives you other powers, instead of those you could have had if you were one. But it doesn't actually require you to have that class feature to give up. Only that you not have used it if you have it. IF you don't have it, you haven't used it (since you can't), and DW's conditions are satisfied.
I'm not failing to UNDERSTAND what you are arguing.
But your new analogy does not accurately parallel what the text says, only what you are claiming the text says, which hinges on only reading one half of a sentence and completely ignoring the rest.


Nope. It doesn't work like that. For one thing, you can choose the order of operations. You can thus take EG "first," trading away your specialist wizard class feature, and then you can take DW. Because DW only asks whether you are a specialist wizard or not. Since you're not, you can take DW. Instead of the versatility you'd get for specializing in an entire school, you get the DW benefits. Just as it says.

I don't know how to take this seriously, given that your previous point (indeed, the part that I was responding to in the text you quoted), hinged on "you can simply make sure to take DW first" as being crucial to proving me wrong "even by my argument".

Also, once again, the text does not say "instead of the versatility you'd get from specializing in an entire school". It quite explicitly says that specializing in a domain is done INSTEAD of specializing in a school.


But if you take an ACF that replaces it, and then pick up an ability that merely requires you not to have used the original class feature you gave up, you're fine.
See above. It's more that DW requires you not to be using it. It doesn't care if you could have used it or not. Only that you are not doing so.

"To enter the wheelchair race, you must sit in the chair and may not use your legs for locomotion." Both you and the amputee with no legs can enter this race. You have to choose not to use your legs. He doesn't have any, and thus also satisfies the "not using legs" rule.
IF that was the entirety of what the text said, you would indeed be correct.

It is not.




Sorry, it doesn't mean that you have to have had it to begin with. It only means that you do not have it or are not enjoying the benefits of it, and instead get this other benefit.
Can you prove this claim, please?
Provide some kind of proof that you don't need to have something to exchange when "substituting".
If someone says "You can get A in the place of B", show support that you don't need to initially have "B".
Like I said, I cited the definition of the words to prove what they mean.


Done and done.
You have cited nothing. Provided no sources, credible or otherwise, to back your claim.

Like I said, I am serious. I genuinely welcome a well-supported argument. Please support your claim with citation as I have done.



Does it? I thought the whole point of the DW + EG was to grant bonus spells, because high Int doesn't get you the 9th level ones at level 1.

I haven't followed this part of the argument well enough to comment, sorry.
Then check the OP. The first link has the long version of the "trick".


Not saying you shouldn't debate this. Just saying you shouldn't also claim that you want to shut the debate down.
Wanted. Past tense. I gave up that front.



Sure, substitute. But substitute works just as well for this. As you quoted below, I did create a dialogue for this that includes substitute.
But your dialogue did not account for someone giving you a "substitute" for something that you had, but had already traded away.
Your dialogue was "I can give you X, or substitute it for Y". A regular wizard already has the ability to specialize in a school. So a DW offering a substitute ability for that is not an accurate parallel to your dialogue.


You can say it's not correct, but that doesn't make it not correct. The text cares that domains are less versatile. It does not apparently care whether that's an actual option available to you.
You claimed the RAW said "giving up the versatility associated with specialization".
It is not correct to say this is true.
Because those are not the words of the text. Which is what I was saying.

So I actually AM correct in saying that.



That line at the end, it just doesn't seem supported by basic semantic analysis.
But detailed semantic analysis DOES. Which is exactly what I am doing by analyzing what "instead" means, and the significance of the semicolon. Those are semantics and syntax.


You're not really entitled to an entree. They could just boot you, or you could leave the table and not get any benefit (which would be equivalent here to going standard generalist). Not sure what you mean by additional options, but those can be added if need be. The point is your central semantic claim about the meaning of substitution, and in that sense the parallel is perfect. Anything you need on top of that can probably be added on to the example trivially.
By "additional options" I meant a parallel to EGW in your example, not just DW.


The rule refers you to the classes. It's just that the classes don't explicitly have the rules you want them to, making the underlying reference to those classes not especially meaningful. There is no explicit generic necessary level, which is what you need here.
The table in the class description constitutes rules.


This trick isn't taking place during some spell preparation time. As I noted much earlier, the ability to prepare spells strictly implies the existence of spell slots, and it is those slots that you are using. And, beyond that, assuming the caster level element goes against you, having those slots itself implies the ability to cast those spells. Which means that, while the spell versatility spell is instantaneous, the slots generated by it are self-supporting, in that they themselves grant the needed second level spell capacity to allow access to those spells.
Please refer to DarkSoul's post on the matter. VS does not give you a L2 "slot" it gives you an alternate spell COST, which is "2 L1 slots". Only Precocious Apprentice gives you a L2 slot.


That was a weird one to unravel.
It was indeed.


Yeah, but it is also itself a claim against allowing domain generalists. I care about that way more than some weird leapfrog wizard thing. These things you're saying have impact in and of themselves, beyond their impact on this bigger trick.
So you're with me on the Leapfrog Wizard = invalid, then?

This seems a valid analysis. My only quibble is over whether "minimum caster level" is actually applicable, since the only place people have cited is in magic item creation rules, which don't seem to general-case cover inability to cast spells if CL is too low.
The general rule on PHB page 7 is sufficient in regards to the main argument vis a vis the Leapfrog Wizard and the AC+VS combo.
The PHB page 171 has been cited as well. So saying that "only magic item creation rules have been cited" is disingenuous.


That said, there are ways to increase CL above your HD.

Yes, but that's unrelated to this issue. It's LOWER CLs that matter in this instance. By the RAW, if you are a 7th level Wizard, and receive a negative level, not only do you lose one of your L4 spells prepared, but you may not CAST your other one. If you come across a +1 CL Ioun Stone before you get the negative level removed, you can cast that other L4 spell.


I mostly agree. Though semantic quibble: by what you've said here, your interpretation is that it is legal. Your house rule is that you would not allow it. An "interpretation" is how you understand what is written. How you choose to read it. Sometimes, there is more than one valid interpretation, and you can pick one of them as "yours" that you'll go with. Here, you've interpreted it to say that it's rules-legal (which I agree with, and think is the only valid interpretation of the RAW).
In this case, however, the only true "interpretation" of text must be consistent with what the words of the text MEAN. And cannot "leave out" sections of the text. Any "interpretation" of the text that requires you to say "if I leave out these words and recombine the sentence this way"... is not the RAW-legal interpretation of the text.




An arbitrary initial note here is that it seems like the usual ordering considered for this trick, generalist and then domain, would eliminate these two issues if they ever existed. Anyway, addressing the main concern, you are mistaken that the substitution level removes all class features. It, in fact, removes all standard class features. Check out all those things you bolded. "These features replace those of a standard level." "You give up the class features gained at that level for the standard class." "You forever lose the class features normally gained by a standard 3rd-level paladin." The domain wizard's ability is in no way a standard wizard class feature. Normally it wouldn't matter, because taking an "opposed" class feature would make the sub level impossible to take, but here you never actually traded away specialization, and that's what's disappearing from your sheet.
Unless the DW had text that said that something to the effect of specializing in a domain being done "in the place of" specializing in a school...

Oh, wait...

[Sliver]

You keep saying that DW's only restriction is that you "cannot be a specialist wizard", which is only half of one sentence.
It is false to claim that this is the only thing DW says about the matter.
Please stop it.
You keep saying that "instead of" means "trade", which you haven't proved, yet continue claiming.
Please stop it.

Giving up the versatility of using a feature doesn't mean that the feature is gone, it means that it's not used. That's just what you want it to mean.

Wearing the red shirt instead of the white shirt doesn't erase the white shirt from existence, and if someone asks to trade your white shirt for their limited edition blue shirt, you can do that.

Using an alternative feature instead of the original doesn't mean that the original doesn't exist, it simply means that you aren't using it, and if another feature comes along and replaces the unused feature, it's okay.

I don't like it, and I wouldn't allow it, but saying "the text says you get X by not using Y, which means that you don't have Y to trade for Z" doesn't make it true. It doesn't follow logic, it follows "I don't feel like this should be allowed, so I'll claim that it's not allowed."

The text at no point says that it replaces the base feature, only that you can't use it. Wouldn't you trade away something that you couldn't use?

You have been repeating your interpretation of "instead of" to anyone that came up with examples for when it doesn't work the way you think it should, instead of addressing the point. Can I trade the feature of you ignoring the point for the alternative "I'll actually say why I think you are wrong, instead of saying why I should be right" feature?

[Mato]

You keep saying that "instead of" means "trade", which you haven't proved, yet continue claiming.
Please stop it.
:smallsigh:

in·stead
inˈsted/

adverb
adverb: instead

* as an alternative or substitute.
"do not use lotions, but put on a clean dressing instead"
synonyms: as an alternative, alternatively, alternately; on second thoughts, all things being equal
"instead, let's take the train"

* as a substitute or alternative to; in place of.
"walk to work instead of going by car"
as an alternative to, as a substitute for, as a replacement for, in place of, in lieu of, in preference to; rather than, as opposed to, as against, as contrasted with, before
"I'll have the blue instead of the yellow, please"
Please watch the video in my signature.

[eggynack]

But your dialogue did not account for someone giving you a "substitute" for something that you had, but had already traded away.
Your dialogue was "I can give you X, or substitute it for Y". A regular wizard already has the ability to specialize in a school. So a DW offering a substitute ability for that is not an accurate parallel to your dialogue.
Fine. "Hey, restaurant, I reserved an order of fish with you a week ago. However, since then, some guy paid me five bucks to never again consume fish. Can I substitute that fish order for chicken?" Parity: constructed. Doesn't really matter whether that'd be a reasonable request, because the word use lines up.


You claimed the RAW said "giving up the versatility associated with specialization".
It is not correct to say this is true.
Because those are not the words of the text. Which is what I was saying.
It seemed that you were arguing you weren't actually giving up that versatility, rather than arguing that such text doesn't reflect the reality. To this point, I'd argue that what I said does, in fact, reflect the reality of the text. The words say that you're getting increased spell power in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of a school. You are, in fact, giving up that versatility.



But detailed semantic analysis DOES. Which is exactly what I am doing by analyzing what "instead" means, and the significance of the semicolon. Those are semantics and syntax.
When I said "basic" I meant that your argument doesn't hold up to simple scrutiny, which precludes the notion that it'd hold up to complex scrutiny.



The table in the class description constitutes rules.
The table doesn't set a generic minimum level either. It just says the wizard class itself grants these spells at these levels, which does not itself preclude the possibility of other sources of higher level spells.



Please refer to DarkSoul's post on the matter. VS does not give you a L2 "slot" it gives you an alternate spell COST, which is "2 L1 slots". Only Precocious Apprentice gives you a L2 slot.

Sure. But versatile spellcaster gives you, if momentarily, the ability to cast second level spells, and that ability means that domain wizard and elven generalist each grant spell slots of those levels.


So you're with me on the Leapfrog Wizard = invalid, then?
I don't see much support for this absolute required caster level associated with wizards, but there's still a murky and undefined required caster level which may or may not theoretically preclude the use of this trick. Basically, the rules just don't say whether it works or not. So, that part, I think, falls into the realm of "strict ambiguity", where it can be roughly proved that the thing cannot be proved in either direction. Not a particularly satisfying result, but a valid one nonetheless. It's actually sometimes a fun position to take, because you wind up pointing out rules inconsistencies on both sides and gaining a strange opposition to everyone. The other elements, by my thinking, just work.


Unless the DW had text that said that something to the effect of specializing in a domain being done "in the place of" specializing in a school...

Oh, wait...
Domain wizard demands that you not make use of the ability to specialize. The weird unlisted specialization ability is still there though, free to be traded away. To use a strained metaphor, it's as a light switch that's glued into the off position. You can't really make any use of it, but you can still sell it to some weird guy that collects light switches.

[zergling.exe]

Hm, specialization isn't actually a wizard class feature, but a special thing wizards are allowed to do. If domain wizards aren't allowed to specialize, and are actually a seperate class from wizard, do they have this non-existant feature to be able to trade?

edit:
Sure. But versatile spellcaster gives you, if momentarily, the ability to cast second level spells, and that ability means that domain wizard and elven generalist each grant spell slots of those levels.

This is untrue for domain wizards. They gain their domain spell as a spell known when they are able to cast a new spell level, but the text does not say that that is when the gain the bonus spell slot for that level.

[eggynack]

Hm, specialization isn't actually a wizard class feature, but a special thing wizards are allowed to do. If domain wizards aren't allowed to specialize, and are actually a seperate class from wizard, do they have this non-existant feature to be able to trade?
I mean, in a somewhat circular sense, it's treated as an ability by elven generalist, which is the naturally relevant perspective. I think you still have the ability, even if you can't capitalize on it.


This is untrue for domain wizards. They gain their domain spell as a spell known when they are able to cast a new spell level, but the text does not say that that is when the gain the bonus spell slot for that level.
Yeah, but you also generally have one extra spell per spell level, which is itself a slot. The knowledge happens instantly, and the capacity is ever-present as a background process.

[RedMage125]

Sliver, I refer you to Mato's response.
I had also already posted the definition of "instead".
So yes, I did prove that "instead" means "as a replacement for" in am objective maner, not just "my interpretation".

Fine. "Hey, restaurant, I reserved an order of fish with you a week ago. However, since then, some guy paid me five bucks to never again consume fish. Can I substitute that fish order for chicken?" Parity: constructed. Doesn't really matter whether that'd be a reasonable request, because the word use lines up.
Again, not a parallel. Because you were not in possession of the fish, and the fish was not the thing you turned in to exchange for the chicken.

Since "ability to specialize in a school" is something a standard wizard already HAS, but an EGW does not.


It seemed that you were arguing you weren't actually giving up that versatility, rather than arguing that such text doesn't reflect the reality. To this point, I'd argue that what I said does, in fact, reflect the reality of the text. The words say that you're getting increased spell power in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of a school. You are, in fact, giving up that versatility.
By whole point hinges on the crux that, because an EGW does not have the ability to specialize in a school, you don't have the ability needed to substitute for specializing in a domain, thus you never even have the opportunity to give up that versatility.



When I said "basic" I meant that your argument doesn't hold up to simple scrutiny, which precludes the notion that it'd hold up to complex scrutiny.
But that's patently false. A "basic" scrutiny is a simplistic one, that may not account for the nuances of semantics or syntax.



The table doesn't set a generic minimum level either. It just says the wizard class itself grants these spells at these levels, which does not itself preclude the possibility of other sources of higher level spells.
What other sources? Other classes? Those are handled on those class description.
If the source of the spell in question is still "wizard spellcasting", it adheres to the rules for wizard spellcasting. And domain wizards EXPLICITLY "prepare and cast spells like a normal wizard".
There is no "generic" minimum level. The minimum level is different from class to class. And lest you forget, that still calls back to the rule that directed you to the class description in the first place, the PHB, page 7.



Sure. But versatile spellcaster gives you, if momentarily, the ability to cast second level spells, and that ability means that domain wizard and elven generalist each grant spell slots of those levels.
But if you could go your whole adventuring day without using VS, and use only your L1 spells. Even ignoring the minimum level rules point (which precludes you having "the ability to cast L2 spels"), you don't have "the ability to cast L2 spells" until you actually SPEND 2 L1 slots. As EGW lets you prepare an additional spell per day, you only have the ability to prepare L1 spells. EGW doesn't say anything about "ability to prepare" higher level spells. It says "The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day." At the time you are preparing spells, your highest spell level is L1.


I don't see much support for this absolute required caster level associated with wizards, but there's still a murky and undefined required caster level which may or may not theoretically preclude the use of this trick. Basically, the rules just don't say whether it works or not. So, that part, I think, falls into the realm of "strict ambiguity", where it can be roughly proved that the thing cannot be proved in either direction. Not a particularly satisfying result, but a valid one nonetheless. It's actually sometimes a fun position to take, because you wind up pointing out rules inconsistencies on both sides and gaining a strange opposition to everyone. The other elements, by my thinking, just work.
So, in the absence of rules saying that the EGW will "float" continuously throughout the day, you think it does?
This may help you. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469240-The-Munchkin-Fallacy-(by-alphathegreat))



Domain wizard demands that you not make use of the ability to specialize. The weird unlisted specialization ability is still there though, free to be traded away. To use a strained metaphor, it's as a light switch that's glued into the off position. You can't really make any use of it, but you can still sell it to some weird guy that collects light switches.
But that's a false parallel. "You cannot also be a specialist wizard" is not the be-all, end-all, sum total of what the DW text says. If it were, you would be correct.


I mean, in a somewhat circular sense, it's treated as an ability by elven generalist, which is the naturally relevant perspective. I think you still have the ability, even if you can't capitalize on it.
So...just to be clear, you think an EGW (not even counting the addition of DW, just a regular EGW) still has the ability? He just "can't capitalize on it?



Yeah, but you also generally have one extra spell per spell level, which is itself a slot. The knowledge happens instantly, and the capacity is ever-present as a background process.

No, Domain Wizards "prepare and cast spells like a normal wizard". So a DW's spell slots are only refreshed after 8 hours of rest. Since, at the moment the rest ends and spell slots are refreshed, she does not have the ability to cast L2 or higher spells, only L1 spell slots are refreshed.

Even ignoring the rules for minimum level to cast LX spells, the bonus domain slot is not gained when using VS, because DWs are explicitly still bound by the normal preparation and casting rules of normal wizards.

[georgie_leech]

Sliver, I refer you to Mato's response.
I had also already posted the definition of "instead".
So yes, I did prove that "instead" means "as a replacement for" in am objective maner, not just "my interpretation".


So if I wear my white shirt as a replacement for my blue shirt, I don't have a blue shirt? :smallconfused:

[Mato]

So if I wear my white shirt as a replacement for my blue shirt, I don't have a blue shirt? :smallconfused:That's an inaccurate analogy that missed the point and you should have realized that the moment you starting talking about what you were wearing and and then had to change the topic to what you own.

A more accurate version of what RedMage125 is trying to say is would be: You traded your blue shirt away for a white one, not changed clothes and kept both, and then you tried to show up to a party that wants you to prove you own a blue shirt before you can enter. All you can do is stand there and make claims like a political candidate. :smallwink:
I wore one this morning. It was a good shirt and I'm going to make blue shirts amazing again!

[Segev]

Redmage, I am still not ignoring "instead." Yelling repeatedly that I am doesn't make it so.

Let me modify the wheelchair race analogy to satisfy your requirements:

"To participate in this particular race, you must propel yourself in a wheelchair with your arms instead of using your legs."

Bobby has all four of his limbs; they are all functional. Suzy has all four limbs, but her legs are paralyzed. Timmy is a double amputee who has no legs at all.

All three can participate in the race, using their arms instead of their legs. Even if neither Suzy nor Timmy had the option to use heir legs in the first place.

If the Leg Witch will let you have one wish for each leg you let her cut off, Bobby and Suzy could get up to two wishes, and still participate in the race.

[DarkSoul]

Since no one can agree on what an appropriate analogy is for this particular combination, how about going back to exactly what the books say?


A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power.Regardless of how anyone feels on the matter (myself included), as written there is a difference between a domain wizard and a specialist wizard; a specialist wizard specializes in a school instead of a domain and the reverse is true for the domain wizard. There's nothing written anywhere that explicitly says that domain specialization replaces school specialization. I personally want it to be a replacement effect. Even if it is a replacement effect, however, elven generalist doesn't care.


This substitution feature replaces the standard wizard’s ability to specialize in a school of magic.Emphasis mine. Elven generalist only cares about school specialization, because that's what's written in the feature. It doesn't care about domain specialization one bit (even if it should) as written. If the boldface words in the quote weren't there this entire debate would be pointless, but they are there and therefore elven generalist only checks for that specific type of specialization.

Yes, a domain wizard is a type of specialized wizard. They are not, however, a specialist wizard because specialists work with schools of magic. A domain wizard is not specialized in a school of magic, which is what elven generalist prevents. I don't want it to work like that, but as written it does.

[Segev]

You know what? We can use the very examples of "instead" given in Redmage's definitions.

"Do not use lotion, use a clean dressing instead."

If you trade your bottle of lotion for a strawberry smoothie (trading specialization for EG), you still can use a clean dressing instead of using lotion (being a DW instead of a specialist). The fact that you no longer have lotion doesn't impede your ability to use a clean dressing.

"Walk to work instead of driving a car."

If you have a car and leave it in your garage, choosing to walk to work instead, you're doing what this says. You're being a DW instead of a specialist. If you trade your car for a trip to Tahiti, you still are walking to work instead of driving a car, but you also have a trip to Tahiti coming up. You're being an EG by trading away your ability to be a specialist.



I hope using the very examples quoted in Redmage's preferred specified definition of "instead" are sufficiently illustrative.

[RedMage125]

Redmage, I am still not ignoring "instead." Yelling repeatedly that I am doesn't make it so.

Let me modify the wheelchair race analogy to satisfy your requirements:

"To participate in this particular race, you must propel yourself in a wheelchair with your arms instead of using your legs."

Bobby has all four of his limbs; they are all functional. Suzy has all four limbs, but her legs are paralyzed. Timmy is a double amputee who has no legs at all.

All three can participate in the race, using their arms instead of their legs. Even if neither Suzy nor Timmy had the option to use heir legs in the first place.

If the Leg Witch will let you have one wish for each leg you let her cut off, Bobby and Suzy could get up to two wishes, and still participate in the race.
I'm not failing to understand your points, I am contesting the premises you build your points on.
You keep defending your points, but not the premises you claim are already true.
Everything about your wheelchair hinges on the presumption of a trade off of abilities equating to "not using" a feature that you "still have". Nothing in the RAW suggests that such is the case. In fact, the way every other alternate class feature or substitution level works says that such interpretation is explicitly wrong. You have yet to prove that when you trade away a class feature that you "still have it but are not using it".

Your metaphor thus lacks clear parallels. Here, I'll go back to the Ferrarri/Porsche one..
The normal class gives you, as a class ability, a sports car. You can choose between a Ferrari (specializing) and a Lamborghini (not specializing).
EGW gives you some extra features on your Lamboghini, but says "you trade this in for the ability to choose a Ferrari"
DW gives you a Porsche, and says "You cannot also have a Ferrari; in exchange for the versatility given up by choosing a Porsche instead of a Ferrari, you get a turbo on your Porsche"
My whole argument is that you cannot combine these to get both a Lamborghini and a Porsche. Or perhaps the more accurate would be a Porsche with the turbo and the extra Lamborghini features installed on it.

Specializing and Not-Specializing are mutually exclusive options, between which one MUST choose. EGW removes the ability to choose. DW provides an alternative option when specializing, choosing a domain to specialize in, as a substitute for specializing in an entire school. See, it's not asking you to exchange things that could be given to you, like eggynack's fish/chicken metaphor. It's asking you to use or trade in abilities which a standard wizard already HAS. And nothing says that you still HAVE an ability that you are just "choosing not to use" when you select the other option. A normal wizard who chooses not to specialize, no longer has "the ability to specialize" once the choice is made. A DW (just a DW), must choose, at character creation, to take the option to specialize in a domain as a substitute for specializing in a school. Because the thing he is "substituting for" is a class feature the normal wizard already possesses, he must have said ability in order to get the substitute. The RAW's use of "instead" means that it is, in fact, an exchange. EGW very explicitly replaces "the ability to specialize" away.

You are correct in that the player may choose the order of operations which is most beneficial. But you did not show one which worked. See, if you choose EGW first, you no longer have the ability to specialize in a school. Since specializing in a domain is done as a substitute for specializing in a school, which is now an option you no longer have the ability to take. So you may not do so, and thus never pay the cost of versatility. If you take DW first, you are already choosing to specialize, substituting a domain instead of a school. You may not also specialize in a school. Which means you do not have "the ability to specialize in a school of magic", which is the cost to be paid for EGW.

You have also yet to reconcile your conflict between order of operations in your posts.
You claimed EGW "did not remove your ability to specialize", which I proved categorically false.
You then said that "even by my argument", one could take DW first.
I then pointed out that the very line of "you cannot also be a specialist wizard" in DW meant that you no longer had "the ability to specialize in a school of magic" to trade in as a replacement for EGW.
Your response was literally to just say "then you can take EG first", which, rather than solve anything, brings us back to the initial point.
So which is it?


Since no one can agree on what an appropriate analogy is for this particular combination, how about going back to exactly what the books say?

Regardless of how anyone feels on the matter (myself included), as written there is a difference between a domain wizard and a specialist wizard; a specialist wizard specializes in a school instead of a domain and the reverse is true for the domain wizard. There's nothing written anywhere that explicitly says that domain specialization replaces school specialization.
And yet, there is. It says a DW specializes in a domain instead of an entire school of magic. The meaning of "instead" is "as a replacement for".

That is your proof of replacement.

I personally want it to be a replacement effect. Even if it is a replacement effect, however, elven generalist doesn't care.

Emphasis mine. Elven generalist only cares about school specialization, because that's what's written in the feature. It doesn't care about domain specialization one bit (even if it should) as written. If the boldface words in the quote weren't there this entire debate would be pointless, but they are there and therefore elven generalist only checks for that specific type of specialization.
But a DW "cannot also be a specialist wizard", and thus does not have "the ability to specialize in a school of magic". You focused only on "school of magic", not on the fact that the entire "ability to specialize" is the trade. Which, if you take DW first, you do not have.

And if you take EGW first, you do not have the necessary ante for a "replacement".


Yes, a domain wizard is a type of specialized wizard. They are not, however, a specialist wizard because specialists work with schools of magic. A domain wizard is not specialized in a school of magic, which is what elven generalist prevents. I don't want it to work like that, but as written it does.
DW requires an exchange for specializing in a school of magic, and EGW trades the ability to do that away, it is gone. And that ability is the cost of EGW, so it must be in the wizard's repetoire in order to take EGW.

You know what? We can use the very examples of "instead" given in Redmage's definitions.

"Do not use lotion, use a clean dressing instead."

If you trade your bottle of lotion for a strawberry smoothie (trading specialization for EG), you still can use a clean dressing instead of using lotion (being a DW instead of a specialist). The fact that you no longer have lotion doesn't impede your ability to use a clean dressing.

"Walk to work instead of driving a car."

If you have a car and leave it in your garage, choosing to walk to work instead, you're doing what this says. You're being a DW instead of a specialist. If you trade your car for a trip to Tahiti, you still are walking to work instead of driving a car, but you also have a trip to Tahiti coming up. You're being an EG by trading away your ability to be a specialist.



I hope using the very examples quoted in Redmage's preferred specified definition of "instead" are sufficiently illustrative.
Apples and oranges, since the choices of "specializing or not" are one-time, either-or, mutually exclusive choices which cannot be changed. It's not like "choosing to walk to work" because you still have your car.

All of your parallels fail to account for the binary, mutually exclusive nature of the choice to specialize or not. Which is a choice that MUST be made at character creation, and ONLY at character creation. The ability is not retained past that point.

[Mato]

"Do not use lotion, use a clean dressing instead."
"Walk to work instead of driving a car."Did you just skip using the definition entries ("as an alternative or substitute" & "as a substitute or alternative to; in place of.") just so you can try to enter a pointless language debate based on the examples? :smallsigh:

I thought eggynack's post was perhaps a good summery of one of the side of the debate when he admitted and didn't refute that complete mage was a rule change but claimed because I used it then if we were using races of the dragon he would have been right. Because he thinks the domain wizard is the same as the wizard so the domain take the wizard's substitution levels, but it's not like the same because the domain doesn't lose his class features like the wizard does[citation for exception needed]. But now I can see Segev's points should also be added to the first post when ever it's cleaned up (if ever).

It'll warn everyone that sort of like the people that think the world is flat, or we never landed on the moon, or Elvis is still alive, and so on there are people that want to cling to this debate so desperately that they will never give up no matter what (see the impending rebuttals from eggy & redmage for example). And it's best not to solicit an opinion, but to think for your self. Which to me, appears to be the only thing to take away from this thread.

[Sliver]

:smallsigh:

Please watch the video in my signature.

I know that instead can mean that you trade something for something else, that's obvious and pointing it out is ignoring the point that I'm trying to make in order to ignore actually addressing it. Instead doesn't necessarily mean trade, and doesn't claim anything regarding what happens with the original option. It also means alternative, as you have clearly pointed out.


al·ter·na·tive
ôlˈtərnədiv/
adjective
1.
(of one or more things) available as another possibility.

Using X instead of Y doesn't give us any information about what happens to Y. It is your claim that Y is traded away for X, instead of being unused.

You are the one claiming that the only analogy appropriate is that the white shirt was traded for blue, but that's not true.

"You specialize in a domain instead of a school" = "You wear a blue shirt instead of a white shirt". Why? Because you have both options, but you can't use them at the same time. They are alternatives, not trade-offs. That's the point. You did not prove that instead means trade in this case, you merely showed that it's a possibility. OBVIOUSLY it is. Don't point it out as if it's meaningful and then pretend that the other side doesn't know how to debate, dropping off some fictional mic as if you have proven your case, and others should educate themselves.

"I wore my blue shirt instead of my white shirt, so I traded my white shirt in exchange for a hat and now I'm wearing both" is a better analogy than yours.

"You debate wrong" is a ****ty response, especially while intentionally ignoring the obvious point I am trying to make. This "discussion" is not only going nowhere, but people feel like it's more important to look smart than actually discuss anything, and I'm out. Not RedMage out where I will still try to get the final word if people respond to this, but out. Respond to this as you will, but I no longer care.

[Segev]

I'm not failing to understand your points, I am contesting the premises you build your points on.
You keep defending your points, but not the premises you claim are already true.
Everything about your wheelchair hinges on the presumption of a trade off of abilities equating to "not using" a feature that you "still have". Nothing in the RAW suggests that such is the case. In fact, the way every other alternate class feature or substitution level works says that such interpretation is explicitly wrong. You have yet to prove that when you trade away a class feature that you "still have it but are not using it".Irrelevant whether every other one works that way, because every other one has express wording that says so. DW does not.

I'm not disputing that you can reasonably argue it should work the same way as things actually labeled "Alternative Class Features." The truth, however, is that it isn't called that, and the RAW don't support your argument.


Your metaphor thus lacks clear parallels. Here, I'll go back to the Ferrarri/Porsche one..
The normal class gives you, as a class ability, a sports car. You can choose between a Ferrari (specializing) and a Lamborghini (not specializing).
EGW gives you some extra features on your Lamboghini, but says "you trade this in for the ability to choose a Ferrari"
DW gives you a Porsche, and says "You cannot also have a Ferrari; in exchange for the versatility given up by choosing a Porsche instead of a Ferrari, you get a turbo on your Porsche"
My whole argument is that you cannot combine these to get both a Lamborghini and a Porsche. Or perhaps the more accurate would be a Porsche with the turbo and the extra Lamborghini features installed on it.Actually, your own analogy here has nothing preventing getting both a Lamborghini and a Porsche. Since you didn't take a Ferrari and instead got the Lamborghini with extra features, you can also take the Porsche, which only requires you to have given up the versatility of a Ferrari. Which you have given up. Whatever versatility the Ferrari represents, you didn't take it.

I get your position; your position is simply not in line with the RAW.


Specializing and Not-Specializing are mutually exclusive options, between which one MUST choose. EGW removes the ability to choose.True.


DW provides an alternative option when specializing,Not technically true. DW provides an option you may take as long as you have not specialized, the way it's worded. It says nothing about replacing the option.

A DW (just a DW), must choose, at character creation, to take the option to specialize in a domain as a substitute for specializing in a school. Because the thing he is "substituting for" is a class feature the normal wizard already possesses, he must have said ability in order to get the substitute.[/quote]That isn't actually in the rules anywhere. It only says that he cannot specialize in a school. Not that he has to have had the option to begin with. If he doesn't have that option, he can specialize in a domain insead.


The RAW's use of "instead" means that it is, in fact, an exchange.Nope. It means he can't do both. Not that he has to have one that he gives up for the other.


EGW very explicitly replaces "the ability to specialize" away.Agreed. So you take EGW, trading away your ability to specialize. Because you are not a specialist, you can be a DW instead of being a specialist.


You are correct in that the player may choose the order of operations which is most beneficial. But you did not show one which worked. See, if you choose EGW first, you no longer have the ability to specialize in a school. Since specializing in a domain is done as a substitute for specializing in a school, which is now an option you no longer have the ability to take. So you may not do so, and thus never pay the cost of versatility. If you take DW first, you are already choosing to specialize, substituting a domain instead of a school. You may not also specialize in a school. Which means you do not have "the ability to specialize in a school of magic", which is the cost to be paid for EGW.Nope. The order that works is:

1) Take EGW, giving up the ability to take the option to specialize in a school.
2) Take DW; since you have not specialized in a school, it will allow you to specialize in a domain.

As I have now repeatedly used "instead" in analogies and in explanations of the steps themselves in a completely accurate and natural fashion which follows the definitions you've quoted, I have demonstrated that I am not ignoring that clause. And the fact remains that DW doesn't require you to "trade away" the class feature allowing specialization in a school. It only requires that you not be a specialist in a school. If you're not, you can be a DW instead. Since an EGW is not a specialist in a school, he can be a DW instead of a school specialist.


You have also yet to reconcile your conflict between order of operations in your posts.See just above this quote box.

You claimed EGW "did not remove your ability to specialize", which I proved categorically false. I never claimed that.

You then said that "even by my argument", one could take DW first.I might have been wrong there.

I then pointed out that the very line of "you cannot also be a specialist wizard" in DW meant that you no longer had "the ability to specialize in a school of magic" to trade in as a replacement for EGW.You're right; best I can tell right now, you do have to take EGW first.

Your response was literally to just say "then you can take EG first", which, rather than solve anything, brings us back to the initial point.
So which is it?It does resolve everything, as your premise that DW requires that you have the option to be a specialist in a school is false. As I've demonstrated.

Your best argument that I had failed to demonstrate this relies upon the word "instead," and claims I'm ignoring it. I have now done everything I can to take it into account, and I still prove that it doesn't mean you had to have both options available in the first place. Only that you not have taken the option - whether you had it or not - that the alternative is instead of.


And yet, there is. It says a DW specializes in a domain instead of an entire school of magic. The meaning of "instead" is "as a replacement for".

That is your proof of replacement.As shown above, it is "replacement," but doesn't require there to have been the original option in the first place.

"In exchange for giving up the versatility of a chocolate/vanilla swirl, you can have a mint frozen yogurt."
"Billy double-dog dared me to not have chocolate/vanilla swirl today, and if I don't, I get the title of 'Coolest Kid In The Playground.' Can I still have the mint frozen yogurt instead?"
"Here you go, Coolest Kid In The Playground (who now also has mint frozen yougurt instead of chocolate/vanilla swirl)!"


But a DW "cannot also be a specialist wizard", and thus does not have "the ability to specialize in a school of magic". You focused only on "school of magic", not on the fact that the entire "ability to specialize" is the trade. Which, if you take DW first, you do not have.1) You do. You just aren't using it.
2) Irrelevant, because you can take EG first.


And if you take EGW first, you do not have the necessary ante for a "replacement".There is no necessary ante for replacement. As demonstrated above.


DW requires an exchange for specializing in a school of magic,No, it doesn't. It only requires that you NOT specialize in a school of magic. The option to do so need not exist.


Did you just skip using the definition entries ("as an alternative or substitute" & "as a substitute or alternative to; in place of.") just so you can try to enter a pointless language debate based on the examples? :smallsigh:"As an alternative or substitute" doesn't anywhere say you had to have the other alternative for which it is being substituted. I skipped to the examples because he was saying my analogies didn't track. Therefore, I used the examples of the very word he was defining to show that it doesn't mean what he says it means.

Are you going to actually address my analysis of the examples, or are you more concerned with sighing dramatically and ignoring them so that you can pretend they don't demonstrate exactly what I say they do?



It'll warn everyone that sort of like the people that think the world is flat, or we never landed on the moon, or Elvis is still alive, and so on there are people that want to cling to this debate so desperately that they will never give up no matter what (see the impending rebuttals from eggy & redmage for example). And it's best not to solicit an opinion, but to think for your self. Which to me, appears to be the only thing to take away from this thread.

Honestly? I'm analyzing the words as written in the text. The only denial of the words as written is coming from those pretending "instead" means something other than it does, and those sighing dramatically over daring to use the definition examples quoted by the other side to show that the word "instead" doesn't mean "you have to have something to trade."

[georgie_leech]

That's an inaccurate analogy that missed the point and you should have realized that the moment you starting talking about what you were wearing and and then had to change the topic to what you own.

A more accurate version of what RedMage125 is trying to say is would be: You traded your blue shirt away for a white one, not changed clothes and kept both, and then you tried to show up to a party that wants you to prove you own a blue shirt before you can enter. All you can do is stand there and make claims like a political candidate. :smallwink:
I wore one this morning. It was a good shirt and I'm going to make blue shirts amazing again!

I don't doubt what his position is, I'm attempting to use an analogy to show that 'Instead = as a replacement for, but as a replacement for =/= trade.' I agree that's probably how the rules should be, but frankly, they aren't.

[zergling.exe]

Wouldn't RAW require you to take DW before EG because one is a variant class and the other is a substitution level? For instance, you choose class first, regular wizard or domain wizard, and then you can choose the EG substitution level if you have the necesessary class features to give up?

[AvatarVecna]

I'm reading Unearthed Arcana, and I can't for the life of me find any explicit mechanical text in the Domain Wizard entry that says it replaces your ability to specialize. I see text indicating that a Domain Wizard cannot be a Specialist Wizard, but the kind of text present in basically every other ACF in existence (e.g. "This ability replaces the {blank} ability") is not present. Elven Generalist has that text, so it explicitly replaces the ability; Domain Wizard does not have that text, so it does not explicitly replace the ability. Now, I don't doubt that replacement was the intention, but it's not written that way, and I don't think anybody would accuse Unearthed Arcana of being written well.

Elven Generalist replaces your ability to specialize in a school of magic. Domain Wizard requires that you not be a specialist wizard, but doesn't actually replace the ability. Since an Elven Generalist is not a specialist, they can be a Domain Wizard.

[DarkSoul]

And yet, there is. It says a DW specializes in a domain instead of an entire school of magic. The meaning of "instead" is "as a replacement for".If that were the case then there would be no need to also specify that the domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard. It's horribly worded in general and especially in comparison to other class features. I completely support your stance on this but reading the books exactly as they're written, with no applications of common sense or inferences of intent, leads me to the same conclusion as AvatarVecna just posted.

[Mehangel]

...reading the books exactly as they're written, with no applications of common sense or inferences of intent, leads me to the same conclusion as AvatarVecna just posted.

While I also would never as a GM allow players utilize the EGW + DW to "Leapfrog" I have to agree with AvatarVecna (and MANY others) that strictly RAW the Elven Generalist Wizard and the Domain Wizard are compatible.

[Doctor Awkward]

Wouldn't RAW require you to take DW before EG because one is a variant class and the other is a substitution level? -snip-

Doesn't this statement by itself make Domain Wizard and Elven Generalist Wizard incompatible?




This section presents sixteen variant versions of the character classes in the Player’s Handbook...

The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm) text even explicitly says standard character classes.



A substitution level is a level of a given class that you take instead of the level described for the standard class.


So by strict RAW, if are a level 1 character with the Elf Wizard racial substitution level, you are neither a standard wizard, nor the wizard found in the Player's Handbook.

Doesn't that then mean you are ineligible for the Domain Wizard variant described in Unearthed Arcana?

[zergling.exe]

I'm reading Unearthed Arcana, and I can't for the life of me find any explicit mechanical text in the Domain Wizard entry that says it replaces your ability to specialize. I see text indicating that a Domain Wizard cannot be a Specialist Wizard, but the kind of text present in basically every other ACF in existence (e.g. "This ability replaces the {blank} ability") is not present. Elven Generalist has that text, so it explicitly replaces the ability; Domain Wizard does not have that text, so it does not explicitly replace the ability. Now, I don't doubt that replacement was the intention, but it's not written that way, and I don't think anybody would accuse Unearthed Arcana of being written well.

Elven Generalist replaces your ability to specialize in a school of magic. Domain Wizard requires that you not be a specialist wizard, but doesn't actually replace the ability. Since an Elven Generalist is not a specialist, they can be a Domain Wizard.

The inherent problem with specialization, is that it is, in and of itself, actually not a class feature of wizards. It exists in a nebulous state, in a sidebar, as an option for wizards to take at level one, but that is all it exists as. If variant classes existed at the time of the PHB's printing, I assume that it would be one. But since they didn't, specialization remains an odd ball in being completely unclassified.

Now I know what you're saying, 'But EG says it replaces the ability to specialize!' and that's just it. Specialization is an unclassified ability. Not a class feature, and not a variant class. Just an ability wizards get to choose at level 1. And since a DW is not a wizard, they do not get the ability to specialize, and thus can't trade it away.

[AvatarVecna]

The inherent problem with specialization, is that it is, in and of itself, actually not a class feature of wizards. It exists in a nebulous state, in a sidebar, as an option for wizards to take at level one, but that is all it exists as. If variant classes existed at the time of the PHB's printing, I assume that it would be one. But since they didn't, specialization remains an odd ball in being completely unclassified.

Now I know what you're saying, 'But EG says it replaces the ability to specialize!' and that's just it. Specialization is an unclassified ability. Not a class feature, and not a variant class. Just an ability wizards get to choose at level 1. And since a DW is not a wizard, they do not get the ability to specialize, and thus can't trade it away.

I think I understand. Your argument is that the Domain Wizard option is not an alternate class feature/ability, but rather an alternate class that is almost perfectly identical to the Wizard? That is to say, it is as much a Wizard as the Witch class from the DMG: it's based on the Wizard, but it's its own separate class? Well yes, in that case they couldn't be combined, because Elven Generalist is only available to Elves who take the Wizard class, and Domain Wizard is a separate almost-identical class that is not a Wizard; this would also prove true for every other Wizard ACF (that they couldn't be combined with Domain Wizard, because Domain Wizard is not the Wizard class, and thus can't be combined with Wizard Class ACFs even if it possesses the class features the Wizard ACF would replace).

Do you have a rules quote on that? Like, some kind of explicit text declaring the Domain Wizard to be a separate base class rather than an alternate wizard? I can't seem to find one.

[Segev]

So by strict RAW, if are a level 1 character with the Elf Wizard racial substitution level, you are neither a standard wizard, nor the wizard found in the Player's Handbook.Not accurate, I'm afraid. Even with the text quoted, it replaces the level, not the class. So you're still a "standard wizard." You've just swapped out the level.

Which means you're still eligible to be a Domain Wizard.


The inherent problem with specialization, is that it is, in and of itself, actually not a class feature of wizards. It exists in a nebulous state, in a sidebar, as an option for wizards to take at level one, but that is all it exists as. If variant classes existed at the time of the PHB's printing, I assume that it would be one. But since they didn't, specialization remains an odd ball in being completely unclassified.

Now I know what you're saying, 'But EG says it replaces the ability to specialize!' and that's just it. Specialization is an unclassified ability. Not a class feature, and not a variant class. Just an ability wizards get to choose at level 1. And since a DW is not a wizard, they do not get the ability to specialize, and thus can't trade it away.
Irrelevant, since EG applies first, and once you're an EG, you are not specializing in a school and are not a specialist wizard, so you can take DW "instead" of specializing in a school.

[DarkSoul]

I think I understand. Your argument is that the Domain Wizard option is not an alternate class feature/ability, but rather an alternate class that is almost perfectly identical to the Wizard? That is to say, it is as much a Wizard as the Witch class from the DMG: it's based on the Wizard, but it's its own separate class? Well yes, in that case they couldn't be combined, because Elven Generalist is only available to Elves who take the Wizard class, and Domain Wizard is a separate almost-identical class that is not a Wizard; this would also prove true for every other Wizard ACF (that they couldn't be combined with Domain Wizard, because Domain Wizard is not the Wizard class, and thus can't be combined with Wizard Class ACFs even if it possesses the class features the Wizard ACF would replace).

Do you have a rules quote on that? Like, some kind of explicit text declaring the Domain Wizard to be a separate base class rather than an alternate wizard? I can't seem to find one.Based on Unearthed Arcana, and where the Domain Wizard appears in that book, Zergling.exe has as compelling an argument as any, I think. The Domain Wizard appears in the section devoted to variant classes, and there's a separate section for ACF's, which are formatted much more closely to how we see them in later books.

As for a rules quote:


With your DM’s permission, you can use any one of these variant classes in place of the standard class of the same name. Depending on the campaign world, variant classes may exist side by side with standard classes, or they may replace standard classes entirely. For instance, the DM may decide that all monks must choose a fighting style that reflects their original training, or that all barbarians must choose a totem.

So it's just as valid to say that Domain Wizard is a different class altogether from the standard wizard as it is to say domain wizards are just a different kind of standard wizard. The former would simply not have the option to specialize in a school, and the latter would have the choice of being a domain specialist, school specialist, or non-specialized. However, all of this is completely up to the DM, which is where the discussion breaks down on these forums because the "RAW DM" pretty much allows everything in the books without making any decisions one way or another.

[georgie_leech]

Based on Unearthed Arcana, and where the Domain Wizard appears in that book, Zergling.exe has as compelling an argument as any, I think. The Domain Wizard appears in the section devoted to variant classes, and there's a separate section for ACF's, which are formatted much more closely to how we see them in later books.

As for a rules quote:



So it's just as valid to say that Domain Wizard is a different class altogether from the standard wizard as it is to say domain wizards are just a different kind of standard wizard. The former would simply not have the option to specialize in a school, and the latter would have the choice of being a domain specialist, school specialist, or non-specialized. However, all of this is completely up to the DM, which is where the discussion breaks down on these forums because the "RAW DM" pretty much allows everything in the books without making any decisions one way or another.

If DW is an entirely distinct class, do we have any rules defining what spells they can cast? If it's entirely separate I'm not sure we can just assume they have access to the Wizard spell list.

[DarkSoul]

If DW is an entirely distinct class, do we have any rules defining what spells they can cast? If it's entirely separate I'm not sure we can just assume they have access to the Wizard spell list.Under Domain Wizard Class Features:


The domain wizard has all the standard wizard class features, except as noted below.
And further down, under "No Prohibited Schools"

All wizard spells are available to her to learn.

[zergling.exe]

Irrelevant, since EG applies first, and once you're an EG, you are not specializing in a school and are not a specialist wizard, so you can take DW "instead" of specializing in a school.

But you can't take EG first, since you have to choose your variant class before you take your substitution level. You have to decide whether to be a regular wizard or a domain wizard first, as those are the classes to take, and then you get to choose your substitution level if you still qualify. To do it the other way around would be like saying 'I'm going to take the paladin substitution level, and then my class will be ranger'. You have to choose class first.

[Segev]

But you can't take EG first, since you have to choose your variant class before you take your substitution level. You have to decide whether to be a regular wizard or a domain wizard first, as those are the classes to take, and then you get to choose your substitution level if you still qualify. To do it the other way around would be like saying 'I'm going to take the paladin substitution level, and then my class will be ranger'. You have to choose class first.

I'm not convinced "variant wizard" is actively a different class, and not a "variant" on the standard class. It very clearly discusses what the DW gets and cannot choose to take. It actually never specifies that the DW loses access to the option to specialize; merely that he cannot take it.

That said, this is the strongest argument I've heard thus far.

But let's be honest; it's going to boil down to whether the DM allows them both or not. We can argue over whether the RAW supports it or not all we like. I still think it does, as this argument still lacks text that prevents EG from trading away the class feature DWs have but are not allowed to utilize. And any DM who's going to try to parse "variant Wizard" so finely as to exclude the class feature in a way that compromises ability to take EG is already doing it just to forbid EG + DW. So rather than trying to do fine parsing, I think the best we're going to get is, "It's up to the DM whether he'd allow such a combination or not."

[zergling.exe]

And any DM who's going to try to parse "variant Wizard" so finely as to exclude the class feature in a way that compromises ability to take EG is already doing it just to forbid EG + DW.

I'll agree to disagree, but specialization isn't a class feature. It's only an option open to wizards, since it is neither called out as one nor in the wizard's table, being only in the one sidebar saying that a wizard can.

[Segev]

I'll agree to disagree, but specialization isn't a class feature. It's only an option open to wizards, since it is neither called out as one nor in the wizard's table, being only in the one sidebar saying that a wizard can.

That's a flimsy ruling, which actually makes EG simply fail outright. Nobody can take it, if it's not a class feature, since EG requires you to give up that class feature to take it.

[zergling.exe]

That's a flimsy ruling, which actually makes EG simply fail outright. Nobody can take it, if it's not a class feature, since EG requires you to give up that class feature to take it.

No, EG requires giving up the ability to specialize. It may not be a class feature, but wizards are granted the ability to specialize at level one, and if they choose not to take it lose it anyway, as that was their one shot.

[Segev]

No, EG requires giving up the ability to specialize. It may not be a class feature, but wizards are granted the ability to specialize at level one, and if they choose not to take it lose it anyway, as that was their one shot.

I think any reading that puts that reasoning in play also allows DW to say they still have the ability to specialize but have not taken it.

Like I said, to find readings that forbid the combo, we're having to parse things so finely and so shakily that I think we're into "the DM is better off just saying 'no, because I don't want to allow the combo' rather than trying to justify it in-RAW" territory.

[zergling.exe]

I think any reading that puts that reasoning in play also allows DW to say they still have the ability to specialize but have not taken it.

Like I said, to find readings that forbid the combo, we're having to parse things so finely and so shakily that I think we're into "the DM is better off just saying 'no, because I don't want to allow the combo' rather than trying to justify it in-RAW" territory.

In my mind at least, domain wizard does not get the specialization ability because it is not the base wizard, since the option is open to the base wizard and not its alternatives.