How official is Ask Wizards?

[gogogome]

I have a long time player who frequents this thread and he keeps throwing this quote in my face.



Q: Can a sorcerer combine Versatile Spellcasting with a metamagic feat to cast a spell whose level is higher than the level of spells he’d normally be able to cast?

A: This is possible. For example, a 1st level sorcerer using the Versatile Spellcaster feat can give up two 1st-level spells to cast extended shield.

The important thing here is that this quote destroys the following rule.


Spells per Day: How many spells of each spell level the character can cast each day. If the entry is “—” for a given level of spells, the character may not cast any spells of that level.

It turns it into general, allowing any trick similar to versatile spellcaster claim they are specific and therefore able to override it, like Earth Spell and Sanctum Spell. If this is true then I will rule that any benefits a PrC entered through Earth Spell or Sanctum Spell is removed the moment the character is not on earth or in their sanctum.

So we've come to the point where we're asking, how official is ask wizards? Because I've heard on this forum that the FAQ is terrible. Is Ask Wizards the FAQ? If not, how official are they?

[heavyfuel]

Not official at all.

Personally, I put it in the same category as the FAQ: Something I might be more inclined to accept if there isnt a clear rule for something

[Eldan]

Wizards said it was official. Sadly, it was also very frequently full of flagrant bull****.

[gogogome]

Wizards said it was official. Sadly, it was also very frequently full of flagrant bull****.

Ok, thanks, that settles it then. Versatile Spellcaster + Heighten Spell grants early entry into PrCs, all spellcasters can cast spells they have "-" slots for as long as they got a feat that overrides it, and that rule I quoted above doesn't stop anything, it is always overwritten.

[heavyfuel]

Wizards said it was official. Sadly, it was also very frequently full of flagrant bull****.

Did they? I was under the impression they never gave it official status

[Starbuck_II]

I have a long time player who frequents this thread and he keeps throwing this quote in my face.



The important thing here is that this quote destroys the following rule.



It turns it into general, allowing any trick similar to versatile spellcaster claim they are specific and therefore able to override it, like Earth Spell and Sanctum Spell. If this is true then I will rule that any benefits a PrC entered through Earth Spell or Sanctum Spell is removed the moment the character is not on earth or in their sanctum.

So we've come to the point where we're asking, how official is ask wizards? Because I've heard on this forum that the FAQ is terrible. Is Ask Wizards the FAQ? If not, how official are they?

This is Specific vs General: Generally they can't, but Specifically with the feat they can.

[gogogome]

This is Specific vs General: Generally they can't, but Specifically with the feat they can.

Yeah the most vocal argument i heard was that the specific didn't override this general. You can't cast spell level with "-", period.

[Remuko]

Versatile spellcaster doesn't give you a slot of the level you don't have one but it still lets you cast a spell even if you have - for that level. If someone a sorc knew a second level spell before having second level spell slots he could cast it with VS by using two first level slots instead of his non-existent second level slot.

[Zanos]

Yeah the most vocal argument i heard was that the specific didn't override this general. You can't cast spell level with "-", period.
Why would that be the case?

There are other ways that specifically allow you to cast spells of higher effective level than usual. Circle magic can heighten spells to 20th level, I think some planar effects automatically heighten spells, and the like.

[gogogome]

Like I said the chief counter argument to Versatile Spellcaster is that if you are not of legit level to cast the spell, you cannot use Versatile Spellcaster to cast it, because you may not cast a spell level with "-".

So even if you know a level 2 spell, as a level 1 sorcerer you cannot cast it even if you had a bonus level 9 slot. The only exception is if a feat or ability directly says you can ignore it.

I've been ruling it safe and abided by this argument, but that ask wizard quote official said I was wrong.

There was also an argument about needing minimum CL to cast a level x spell, but that's for item creation only and my players disproved that argument countless times with several methods.

[zergling.exe]

Like I said the chief counter argument to Versatile Spellcaster is that if you are not of legit level to cast the spell, you cannot use Versatile Spellcaster to cast it, because you may not cast a spell level with "-".

So even if you know a level 2 spell, as a level 1 sorcerer you cannot cast it even if you had a bonus level 9 slot. The only exception is if a feat or ability directly says you can ignore it.

I've been ruling it safe and abided by this argument, but that ask wizard quote official said I was wrong.

There was also an argument about needing minimum CL to cast a level x spell, but that's for item creation only and my players disproved that argument countless times with several methods.

Their example is a metamagic'd 1st level spell, so I would say that you can still safely rule that you can cast metamagic'd spells out of spell levels you can't cast, but spells of actually higher level (heightened or otherwise) is still something you can't do, and still be totally within what they said.

[gogogome]

Their example is a metamagic'd 1st level spell, so I would say that you can still safely rule that you can cast metamagic'd spells out of spell levels you can't cast, but spells of actually higher level (heightened or otherwise) is still something you can't do, and still be totally within what they said.

An extended shield is a spell level 2 spell. The effect is a level 1 spell, caster level and DC wise, but that spell is without a doubt a level 2 spell by RAW.

If it works for one metamagic, it works for all metamagic, so heighten spell is included. I think the quote has little wiggle room in the matter.

The only wiggle room I could possibly accept is that you can't cast a legitimate spell you know that is 1 level higher using versatile spellcaster, but heighten spell proves this wrong so...

It's a huge difference in ruling by me, which is why I wanted to know whether Ask Wizards was official or not. It changed my understanding of the game.

[zergling.exe]

An extended shield is a spell level 2 spell. The effect is a level 1 spell, caster level and DC wise, but that spell is without a doubt a level 2 spell by RAW.

If it works for one metamagic, it works for all metamagic, so heighten spell is included. I think the quote has little wiggle room in the matter.

The only wiggle room I could possibly accept is that you can't cast a legitimate spell you know that is 1 level higher using versatile spellcaster, but heighten spell proves this wrong so...

It's a huge difference in ruling by me, which is why I wanted to know whether Ask Wizards was official or not. It changed my understanding of the game.

Not quite. A 1st level spell cast out of a 2nd level slot either by extending it or just casting it from a 2nd level slot is still a 1st level spell. A 1st level spell heightened to 2nd level is a 2nd level spell, and thus subject to being unable to be cast if you can't cast 2nd level spells yet.

edit: The most obvious application of this is globe of invulnerability. It can block an extended 3rd level spell (or just a 3rd level spell cast from a 4th+ slot) in it's lesser form, but a 3rd level spell heightened to 4th will pass through it.

[denthor]

For those of us that are old they were know trees.

Or sages take your pick

[Jay R]

This is a DM call. The DM can choose to use Ask Wizards as a source or not, just like she can choose to use the rules in Tome of Battle or not.

[Thurbane]

The "official-ness" of FAQ and ask Wizards entirely depends: does it support what you want to do, or rule against it? :smalltongue:

I don't think there will ever be a consensus on whether Versatile Spellcaster works "that way" or not. It's usually debated back and forth in regards to Beguilers and other set-list casters.

Let me through another question into the mix: does a Cleric qualify for Versatile Spellcaster by being able to spontaneously cast Cure spells?

[Max Caysey]

Yeah the most vocal argument i heard was that the specific didn't override this general. You can't cast spell level with "-", period.

Its always the issue. Sometimes you have specific against specific and then what do you do...

Generally, specific would override general generally, unless its one of those fundamental rules, of which there is only a few... In the specific case there might be something to it, since spells per day comes in "-", "0", and "1-X" But again I don't know.

I have tried contacting Mike Meals (apparently he was the main antagonist of the 3.x system) a few times to get him to answer some specific questions, without luck. I once got a reply saying "yeah sure I'll help you", but never heard from him again.

[RoboEmperor]

Not quite. A 1st level spell cast out of a 2nd level slot either by extending it or just casting it from a 2nd level slot is still a 1st level spell. A 1st level spell heightened to 2nd level is a 2nd level spell, and thus subject to being unable to be cast if you can't cast 2nd level spells yet.

edit: The most obvious application of this is globe of invulnerability. It can block an extended 3rd level spell (or just a 3rd level spell cast from a 4th+ slot) in it's lesser form, but a 3rd level spell heightened to 4th will pass through it.

You have a very good point. The exact RAW language is that you must use a higher level slot for metamagic.

However, unlike Arcane Thesis, Versatile Spellcaster doesn't have a specific rule saying you can't use heighten spell for it, which means you can.

That "-" rule is the only thing stopping this trick, but the logic chain goes:

extend works -> all metamagic works -> heighten works ("-" rule eliminated) -> level 2 spells cast with lower CL -> all level 2 spells are castable with lower cl for that character (early entry) -> versatile spellcaster only works on spells you know so if it works on metamagic all metamagicked spells are considered "spells known" -> reserve feat shenanigans enabled (versatile spellcaster + heighten spell + fiery burst = 2d6 fiery burst at level 1)


The "official-ness" of FAQ and ask Wizards entirely depends: does it support what you want to do, or rule against it? :smalltongue:

I don't think there will ever be a consensus on whether Versatile Spellcaster works "that way" or not. It's usually debated back and forth in regards to Beguilers and other set-list casters.

Let me through another question into the mix: does a Cleric qualify for Versatile Spellcaster by being able to spontaneously cast Cure spells?

This is hilarious. Exact language says you just need to be able to spontaneously cast spells, and so Cleric qualifies but....


known spell: A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement.

Only arcane spellcasters may "know" spells, so the feat ultimately does nothing for clerics, because they don't know any spells.

[Thurbane]

Only arcane spellcasters may "know" spells, so the feat ultimately does nothing for clerics, because they don't know any spells.

I'm guessing that glossary entry was never updated to accommodate the Favored Soul, who are Divine, and specifically have Spells Known.

[The_Jette]

extend works -> all metamagic works -> heighten works ("-" rule eliminated) -> level 2 spells cast with lower CL -> all level 2 spells are castable with lower cl for that character (early entry) -> versatile spellcaster only works on spells you know so if it works on metamagic all metamagicked spells are considered "spells known" -> reserve feat shenanigans enabled (versatile spellcaster + heighten spell + fiery burst = 2d6 fiery burst at level 1)

Personally, I read it as such: Versatile Spellcaster works with all metamagic, including Heighten Spell. Heighten Spell would barely get any use from it, though, since the only thing it would do is raise the spell DC by one, and possibly overcome very specific defenses. If you've got an enemy using Lesser Globe of Invulnerability against your 5th level party to be immune to 3rd level spells, and the caster wants to expend two of his third level spells to get past it by bumping it up to a 4th level, that would work. However, being able to temporarily boost your spell level doesn't mean that you can use that to gain early access. I would explain it as such: you're not able to cast 4th level spells. you're able to combine the spells that you can cast in order to get a more powerful effect. But, I don't play with people who would try to use cheese like this in order to gain early access. They would use it as it was intended... for versatility.

[zergling.exe]

You have a very good point. The exact RAW language is that you must use a higher level slot for metamagic.

However, unlike Arcane Thesis, Versatile Spellcaster doesn't have a specific rule saying you can't use heighten spell for it, which means you can.

That "-" rule is the only thing stopping this trick, but the logic chain goes:

extend works -> all metamagic works -> heighten works ("-" rule eliminated) -> level 2 spells cast with lower CL -> all level 2 spells are castable with lower cl for that character (early entry) -> versatile spellcaster only works on spells you know so if it works on metamagic all metamagicked spells are considered "spells known" -> reserve feat shenanigans enabled (versatile spellcaster + heighten spell + fiery burst = 2d6 fiery burst at level 1)

That's not what I was saying at all. You can't cast a spell heightened to a level that you don't get spells for yet, because your class doesn't allow you to. Nothing in versatile spellcaster overrides this. All it does is allow you to use two lower level slots to get a higher level spell slot to cast from, not overcome ability barriers. You can cast a 1st level spell heightened to 2nd with versatile spellcaster if you already can cast 2nd level spells though.

You can cast an extended 1st level spell without having 2nd level spells available, because it is still a 1st level spell. The only thing that is 2nd level is the slot you are casting it out of, which versatile spellcaster is granting you by sacrificing two 1st level slots. Versatile spellcaster doesn't let you cast spells above your ability to cast.

That entire chain is wrong from step 3.

You can't cast spells with a lower CL than your class allows, so you can't cast 2nd level spells early. Versatile spellcaster has no wording to enable such a thing overcoming having a - on your spells per day table.
You never "know" metamagic spells. You merely apply metamagic to a spell causing it to take a higher level slot to cast and if you are casting spontaneously it takes longer unless you have some means to negate that.
That last part is especially wrong, due to the rules for reserve feats:

A spellcaster who does not need to prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) must know an appropriate spell and must have at least one unused spell slot of that spell's level or higher.
Versatile spellcaster only gives you the higher level spell slot while you are casting the spell. You don't just "have it" always available so long as you have two lower level slots available.

[RoboEmperor]

That's not what I was saying at all. You can't cast a spell heightened to a level that you don't get spells for yet, because your class doesn't allow you to. Nothing in versatile spellcaster overrides this. All it does is allow you to use two lower level slots to get a higher level spell slot to cast from, not overcome ability barriers. You can cast a 1st level spell heightened to 2nd with versatile spellcaster if you already can cast 2nd level spells though.

You can cast an extended 1st level spell without having 2nd level spells available, because it is still a 1st level spell. The only thing that is 2nd level is the slot you are casting it out of, which versatile spellcaster is granting you by sacrificing two 1st level slots. Versatile spellcaster doesn't let you cast spells above your ability to cast.

This is d&d. There is no rule saying you can, and there is no rule saying you can't. So you can't make an argument saying "rule don't explicitly say you can, so you can't" because I can say the exact opposite too "rules don't explicitly say you can't, so you can."

I mentioned Arcane Thesis because it specifically excludes heighten spell, where as neither the Ask Wizards quote nor Versatile Spellcaster feat says you can't.

To be honest, for the longest time, I've been saying versatile spellcaster can't let you cast higher level spells unless you have the legitimate level, because there was nothing in versatile spellcaster saying it overrides that "-" rule. In fact I was even saying Versatile Spellcaster doesn't work with metamagic, because an extended shield is not a spell that you "know".

In fact I even said getting a level 9 spell slot via Pact Insidious still didn't let you cast level 9 spells because of of the "-" rule, But that quote...

If I may rule lawyer that quote:



Q: Can a sorcerer combine Versatile Spellcasting with a metamagic feat to cast a spell whose level is higher than the level of spells he’d normally be able to cast?

A: This is possible. For example, a 1st level sorcerer using the Versatile Spellcaster feat can give up two 1st-level spells to cast extended shield.

The question specifically says, can he cast a higher level spell that he cannot cast using the feat, and the answer was yes. The question includes Heighten Spell because it is the only metamagic that turns a spell into a higher level spell. In fact I believe that question was specifically asking about heighten spell.

Anyways to sum up my points:

Question directly includes heighten spell
There is no specific exclusion of heighten spell in both the quote and versatile spellcaster


And then you know, the heighten spell starts that chain reaction.

You pointed out that the exact language of metamagic feats is that it uses up a higher level spell slot, no mention about spell level, but that question specifically asks about spell level. You could argue Ask Wizards made a misinterpretation, but again, lack of rules that exclude heighten spell, and lack of errata both say heighten is included.

Also, before that quote, there was that argument the OP mentioned, that versatile spellcaster is specific, "-" rule is general, and since versatile spellcaster lets you cast any spell you know, it ignores that "-" rule. Now this is a slight leap in logic which is why I've been saying versatile spellcaster can't do that, but this quote clearly says "-" is overridable. So I'm saying the quote and this old argument both combine to make a very strong case.

You're probably right about Reserve Feats though. "at least one unused spell slot of that spell's level or higher.". It's coming back to me, i've also been saying Versatile Spellcaster + Heighten Spell doesn'twork with reserve feats because of that exact reason and metamagic spells aren't spells that you "know". The quote destroys the latter argument (since versatile spellcaster also only works with spells that you know), but the former argument still prevents that shenanigan I guess.

Now I can abuse that quote and create a 1000 word essay why that quote allows the shenanigan, but I don't care about reserve feats so I'm gonna leave it at that XD. Let someone else debate that fact. I don't like bringing something to a table that only works on implications from various sources and no direct source.


I'm guessing that glossary entry was never updated to accommodate the Favored Soul, who are Divine, and specifically have Spells Known.

Specific trumps general and Favored Soul is specific where as the glossary is general, so it doesn't need to be updated :P

[gogogome]

But, I don't play with people who would try to use cheese like this in order to gain early access. They would use it as it was intended... for versatility.

Skill ranks are the defacto entry limiter. The only thing this early access stuff accomplishes is letting spontaneous casters enter PrCs at the same level prepared casters would. How is this exactly cheese?

Now the real cheese is saying hd=level=max ranks, and using bardic music to boost your hd by 2 and claiming you can put in more skill ranks at level up.

[The_Jette]

Skill ranks are the defacto entry limiter. The only thing this early access stuff accomplishes is letting spontaneous casters enter PrCs at the same level prepared casters would. How is this exactly cheese?

Now the real cheese is saying hd=level=max ranks, and using bardic music to boost your hd by 2 and claiming you can put in more skill ranks at level up.

The use of early entry is rarely to get into a PrC one level early. It's to set up a combination that lets you get into a PrC at level 2 instead of level 6. If a player wants to get into a PrC that requires level 3 spells, and is playing a Sorcerer, they'll have to wait one more level. If that's too much of a sacrifice, then they can choose to play a Wizard instead. Sorcs have some advantages. Wizards have others. That's really all there is to it.

[Jay R]

It's still a judgment call that the DM will have to make. Specific rules trump general rules, but, per the DMG, page 6, DM rulings "even supersed[e] something in the rulebooks".

A DM shouldn't do it often, but this kind of shenanigans with the rules is exactly what DM authority over the rules is for.

[Snowbluff]

Wizards said it was official. Sadly, it was also very frequently full of flagrant bull****.
Damn straight. To this day it remains entirely wrong in every sense of the word about Hellfire Warlock and Strongheart vest. It's clear they didn't read the material before answering a question.

Ok, thanks, that settles it then. Versatile Spellcaster + Heighten Spell grants early entry into PrCs, all spellcasters can cast spells they have "-" slots for as long as they got a feat that overrides it, and that rule I quoted above doesn't stop anything, it is always overwritten.

Indeed it does.
Early entry isn't really that bad.

[RoboEmperor]

Damn straight. To this day it remains entirely wrong in every sense of the word about Hellfire Warlock and Strongheart vest. It's clear they didn't read the material before answering a question.

lol, took a while and finally managed to track that answer down. That is stupid. It should've ruled "Reducing damage to 0 prevents usage of the hellfire blast", but instead he ruled it "doesn't negate the constitution damage of hellfire blast"

But I guess now strongheart vests have an exception clause added to it. "Does not work on ability damage resulted from hellfire warlocks"

[Doctor Awkward]

So we've come to the point where we're asking, how official is ask wizards? Because I've heard on this forum that the FAQ is terrible. Is Ask Wizards the FAQ? If not, how official are they?

-Is it "Official"? Meaning, is it a first party publication from Wizard's of the Coast?

Yes.


-Is it rules text?

Oh lord, no.

The only thing that counts as rules text are the actual rules text and the errata.

The biggest reason why the FAQ is so terrible is that its purpose is often wildly misunderstood: It is there to explain the rules, not write them. The FAQ was not written by the book's authors and editors who were taking a moment to reconsider their work. It was written by one guy skimming the appropriate rules and making a quick judgment. The FAQ is ultimately no more reliable than a reasonably smart player, and is filled with equal parts answers that say, "yes, that RAW stuff does indeed work that way", some notes that say, "yeah, RAW stuff does work that way, but here's what I suggest as a house-rule". some things that clarify actual ambiguities, and then some other stuff that is pulled out of absolutely nowhere and tries to act like it's actually errata instead of just clarifications and suggestions. As a resource, the FAQ is at its best when it admits up-front that the official rules don’t cover a topic, and suggests a houserule. These avoid misleading readers, and occasionally provide useful ideas. But in other cases, the FAQ gave no notice that its statements were in contradiction with the official rules – and indeed, the author was probably unaware of that – and then those statements, if applied in a game, cause problems.

So I would take anything that is stated in the FAQ with a heavy dose of salt. If what the FAQ suggests makes you feel uncomfortable, then I would not feel at all obligated to listen to it. Especially since it wasn’t written by anyone with any kind of special authority or oversight or quality control.

[Snowbluff]

lol, took a while and finally managed to track that answer down. That is stupid. It should've ruled "Reducing damage to 0 prevents usage of the hellfire blast", but instead he ruled it "doesn't negate the constitution damage of hellfire blast"

But I guess now strongheart vests have an exception clause added to it. "Does not work on ability damage resulted from hellfire warlocks"

God no. That's wrong. It shouldn't have been ruled at all.

Strongheart Vest very much works with Hellfire Warlock according to the texts of both articles. The answer given ignores the text of both articles. It's a wrong answer. The definition of a misconception.

[Godskook]

Not quite. A 1st level spell cast out of a 2nd level slot either by extending it or just casting it from a 2nd level slot is still a 1st level spell. A 1st level spell heightened to 2nd level is a 2nd level spell, and thus subject to being unable to be cast if you can't cast 2nd level spells yet.

edit: The most obvious application of this is globe of invulnerability. It can block an extended 3rd level spell (or just a 3rd level spell cast from a 4th+ slot) in it's lesser form, but a 3rd level spell heightened to 4th will pass through it.

There is no mechanical difference between Heighten Spell and Extend Spell for the purpose of the answer given in that FAQ.

I hate that ruling, and I'm not particularly fond of the feat either, generally speaking. High-level slots are the most powerful thing in the game, and amplifying their availability, flexibly, is really really strong for a feat, let alone the additional bonkers that Feat gives to the game.

[RoboEmperor]

God no. That's wrong. It shouldn't have been ruled at all.

Strongheart Vest very much works with Hellfire Warlock according to the texts of both articles. The answer given ignores the text of both articles. It's a wrong answer. The definition of a misconception.

Reducing damage by 1 resulting is 0 is preventing damage right? I know it says as long as you're not "immune" to constitution damage it works, but you know, if you're prevented from giving your life as payment for the hellfire, I don't think it should work. I guess this is RAI.

That other item that heals ability damage 1/round though, no question that works and if I were to go hellfire warlock I'd get that item to avoid this rule lawyering argument.

[Rebel7284]

Reducing damage by 1 resulting is 0 is preventing damage right? I know it says as long as you're not "immune" to constitution damage it works, but you know, if you're prevented from giving your life as payment for the hellfire, I don't think it should work. I guess this is RAI.

That other item that heals ability damage 1/round though, no question that works and if I were to go hellfire warlock I'd get that item to avoid this rule lawyering argument.

That's a dip into Binder, not an item. Although it's often a pretty good dip as the diplomancer abilities of Naberius stack nicely with Beguiling Influence for a super easy way to become the party face.

If I am wrong and such an item does exist somewhere, I'd be happy to know!

[Kurald Galain]

So we've come to the point where we're asking, how official is ask wizards? Because I've heard on this forum that the FAQ is terrible. Is Ask Wizards the FAQ? If not, how official are they?

It is official whenever it makes your character stronger, and garbage whenever it makes your character less powerful :smallbiggrin:

[gogogome]

Just out of curiosity, what was WotC or Ask Wizard's stance on Early Entry?

I know for a fact they shutdown Precocious Apprentice for Mystic Theurge.

[sorcererlover]

The FAQ is official. It is RAW. If what they say contradicts what the book says, you add their ruling to the book. So in that strongheart vest hellfire warlock example, even though the exact language of both item and PrC in the books don't say so, strongheart vest does not reduce ability damage from hellfire warlocks.

What the other people of this thread said is true. If the FAQ disagrees with a person's ruling, the person will get really, really, really mad and tries to discredit the FAQ to the absolute best of their ability. But this does not change the fact that the FAQ is RAW. It is an update. It is an errata. It is Official.

If you take a look at 5E, it even says the Sage Column is official ruling, and it overrides all other rulings the WotC staff has made in the past.


Just out of curiosity, what was WotC or Ask Wizard's stance on Early Entry?

I know for a fact they shutdown Precocious Apprentice for Mystic Theurge.

They shutdown Precocious Apprentice and Southern Magician.

Precocious Apprentice gives you the ability to have a chance at casting a level 2 spell, not an inherent ability to cast a level 2 spell, so it does not qualify you for PrCs. Add this fact to the feat description.

Southern Magician turns your spells into divine spells after they are cast. The spell however ignores ACF during cast time as per the feat ruling. The FAQ elaborated/clarified the feat, so you change the feat's description to match the FAQ's ruling.

The confusion here is that people don't know that the FAQ has Nerfing and Buffing powers. They nerfed Precocious Apprentice and Southern Magician because they deemed it too powerful. Same with Strongheart Vest. These nerfs are official and if you are playing a no houserule d&d, you must abide by these nerfs.

Versatile Spellcaster however is the only early entry approved by the FAQ. It gives you an inherent (permanent) ability to cast spells 1 level higher than you so the clause that dismissed Precocious Apprentice does not apply to Versatile Spellcaster.

The rule that says you cannot cast spells when you have "-" spells per day is just as strong as the rule saying you cannot cast spells unless you have CHA 10+Spell level. Versatile Spellcaster does not override either, until the FAQ specifically said it can override the 1st rule.

[Gusmo]

Huh, I wasn't aware of the that stance from WotC about versatile spellcaster. By extension, does that mean that versatile spellcaster+heighten allows you to cast 10th level spells from 9th level slots? Does that have any significant uses?

[Snowbluff]

Reducing damage by 1 resulting is 0 is preventing damage right? I know it says as long as you're not "immune" to constitution damage it works, but you know, if you're prevented from giving your life as payment for the hellfire, I don't think it should work. I guess this is RAI.

You're giving out little soul bits through the incarnum. :3

Their argument was:
1) Strongheart Vest only protects from attacks.
2) And Hellfire blast is not an attack.

Except both of these things are wrong.
Strongvest doesn't say it only works against attacks.
Hellfire Blast IS an attack.

Huh, I wasn't aware of the that stance from WotC about versatile spellcaster. By extension, does that mean that versatile spellcaster+heighten allows you to cast 10th level spells from 9th level slots? Does that have any significant uses?
No, heighten only goes up to 9, IIRC. Try stone spell to bump up the spell level to 10?

[Godskook]

Their argument was:
1) Strongheart Vest only protects from attacks.
2) And Hellfire blast is not an attack.

Except both of these things are wrong.
Strongvest doesn't say it only works against attacks.
Hellfire Blast IS an attack.

Ok, are you deliberately misrepresenting the believability of their position?

@ #1


The Strongheart Vest protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores.

You can try to argue that this is too abstract and is not meant to limit the following sentence, but you can not say "Strongvest doesn't say it only works against attacks." because it very clearly says that this is the situation in which Strongheart Vest applies. No other rule text grants you permission to contradict this sentence.

At best, you have a strong case that there is no RAW in this distinction, and it must be decided by RAI. At worst, the FAQ is completely right.

Either way, the FAQ isn't conjuring this idea from thin air.

@ #2


Each time you use this ability, you take 1 point of Constitution damage. Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, if you do not have a Constitution score or are somehow immune to Constitution damage, you cannot use this ability.

Ok, so this actually makes things very clear, but in a different way from the FAQ uses. I'll cover both.

2a(FAQ).Hellfire Blast "is" an attack, it is not an attack on you. Ergo, you cannot be protected from the attack that doesn't happen. This point relies on FAQ being RAW on #1, rather than it being an ambiguous, but if that's clear, then so is this. You're not being "attacked", you're merely "taking damage".

2b(me).The text makes it painfully clear that you actually must take Con damage to *PAY* for the ability to use this attack. The text is clear that its not the state of immunity or state of lack of con score that prevents you from using the attack, its the inability to pay the price. Ergo, you must actually take damage for the ability to function. This is fundamentally RAW, that I can't see anyway around using Strongheart Vest.

------

Personally, I'd rule contrary to RAW and the FAQ on this in any game in which I allowed Hellfire Warlocks and any of the myriad easy Con-healing tricks the game has(if you can mitigate it with a Binder dip, no reason you can't mitigate it with an Incarnate dip). But then again, I probably wouldn't allow Hellfire Warlocks into my games due to alignment-flavor reasons, in a way I wouldn't want to DM around. But that's a personal preference.

[Rebel7284]

The FAQ is official. It is RAW. If what they say contradicts what the book says, you add their ruling to the book.


Source?



If you take a look at 5E, it even says the Sage Column is official ruling, and it overrides all other rulings the WotC staff has made in the past.


5th edition is radically different from 3.5 in many ways including organization details...




The confusion here is that people don't know that the FAQ has Nerfing and Buffing powers.


No, no we don't, please cite where you are getting this info that goes completely against the general understanding of this forum.

[RoboEmperor]

I've been tearing through various books, rules, prestige classes (like ultimate magus). Not one mentions anything about being of proper level.

All of them just say, Ability Score requirement (10 + spell level), and Spell Slots. Nothing more.

Even the "-" rule says you can cast spells when it's a "0" instead of a "-" if your ability modifier grants you bonus spell slots. The entire language of casting spells across every book in 3.5 is just ability score and spell slots. PrCs consistently repeat the ability score requirement, but absolutely nothing about needing to reach a level, and the few like Ultimate Magus that do mention knowing higher level spells before being able to cast them, they say you just need spell slots. The language is always until you gain spell slots.

I firmly believe now versatile spellcaster works without a doubt (ty zergling.exe for planting doubt in my mind again, this is not sarcasm), and now I have multiple books as quotes to back up my claim.

This made me overturn my belief about the Pact Insidious thing. if a level 1 character has 19 spellcasting stat and a level 9 spell slot (obtained through murder and damning your soul), he can cast level 9 spells.

The only shaky part is whether casting heighten spell qualifies you because although technically heighten spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a higher level spell, iunno, it's just not as strong as casting a legitimately higher level spell.

[Snowbluff]

Ok, are you deliberately misrepresenting the believability of their position?

@ #1



You can try to argue that this is too abstract and is not meant to limit the following sentence, but you can not say "Strongvest doesn't say it only works against attacks." because it very clearly says that this is the situation in which Strongheart Vest applies. No other rule text grants you permission to contradict this sentence.

At best, you have a strong case that there is no RAW in this distinction, and it must be decided by RAI. At worst, the FAQ is completely right.

Either way, the FAQ isn't conjuring this idea from thin air.

@ #2



Ok, so this actually makes things very clear, but in a different way from the FAQ uses. I'll cover both.

2a(FAQ).Hellfire Blast "is" an attack, it is not an attack on you. Ergo, you cannot be protected from the attack that doesn't happen. This point relies on FAQ being RAW on #1, rather than it being an ambiguous, but if that's clear, then so is this. You're not being "attacked", you're merely "taking damage".

2b(me).The text makes it painfully clear that you actually must take Con damage to *PAY* for the ability to use this attack. The text is clear that its not the state of immunity or state of lack of con score that prevents you from using the attack, its the inability to pay the price. Ergo, you must actually take damage for the ability to function. This is fundamentally RAW, that I can't see anyway around using Strongheart Vest.

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-04/24/10/enhanced/webdr02/anigif_enhanced-buzz-6889-1429884226-12.gif

"Any time you would take ability damage, such as Constitution or Strength damage,that damage is reduced by 1 point, to minimum of 0."
So that's wrong, barring distinctly facetious definitions of "any time." what else in this gish gallop to I have to clear?

Ah, yes. Helfire blast is an action used to harm a creature, so if it is an attack unless you're insistent on being wrong. Nothing in strongheart vest says it has to be an attack from an enemy.

So if you make a flow chart, I'm right even if I'm somehow incorrect.

So, there is no way someone could be as wrong as you are being right now. I will counter your claims of misrepresentation with a "no you."

[Zanos]

So it sounds like we have two lines of rules text.

"Any time you would take ability damage, such as Constitution or Strength damage,that damage is reduced by 1 point, to minimum of 0."

"The strongheart vest protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores."

Logically, these statements can be combined without any contradiction, as "attacks that would reduce your ability scores" would be a subset of "any time you would take ability damage". So it does both.

I will also point out that the example for strongheart vest is poison, which is not itself an attack.

[LoyalPaladin]

The strongheart vest protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores. Any time you would take ability damage, such as Constitution damage or Strength damage, the amount of the damage is reduced by 1 point, to a minimum of 0.

For example, if you fail a saving throw against the poison of a monstrous centipede and would normally take 2 points of Dexterity damage from its poison, you take 1 point instead. Ten rounds later, if you fail a second saving throw against the poison and would normally take 1 point of Dexterity damage, you take no Dexterity damage instead.
I think the provided text in MoI gives a strong case to Strongheart Vest reducing the damage taken from Hellfire Blast, especially given the bolded text. I'd also say the fluff fit for this, considering they (the "diabolical forces") still taking bits of soul.

If you look under the SRD's definition of damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#Damage), it prefaces all the types with the following quote: "When your attack succeeds, you deal damage." It then goes on to list "Ability Damage" under this block. Maybe it's not the best definition to have, but we're given little to work with.


Each time you use this ability, you take 1 point of Constitution damage. Because the diabolical forces behind the power of hellfire demand part of your essence in exchange for this granted power, if you do not have a Constitution score or are somehow immune to Constitution damage, you cannot use this ability.
Emphasis mine; Strongheart Vest does not fall under either of the categories listed that make it so you cannot use Hellfire Blast.

[The_Jette]

So it sounds like we have two lines of rules text.

"Any time you would take ability damage, such as Constitution or Strength damage,that damage is reduced by 1 point, to minimum of 0."

"The strongheart vest protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores."

Logically, these statements can be combined without any contradiction, as "attacks that would reduce your ability scores" would be a subset of "any time you would take ability damage". So it does both.

I will also point out that the example for strongheart vest is poison, which is not itself an attack.

I think that the argument against Strongheart Vest protecting from the con damage is that it's supposed to be a sacrifice for more power, not that it shouldn't protect from non-attacks. Since the upgrade to the Warlock's Eldritch Blast says, essentially, if you don't take the damage to your con, you don't get the extra power. I know it's not written out that way, not even trying to say it is. It's just why Ask Wizard answered the way they did, and why DM's rule that way.

[Kaleph]

There is no mechanical difference between Heighten Spell and Extend Spell for the purpose of the answer given in that FAQ.

I hate that ruling, and I'm not particularly fond of the feat either, generally speaking. High-level slots are the most powerful thing in the game, and amplifying their availability, flexibly, is really really strong for a feat, let alone the additional bonkers that Feat gives to the game.

To my understanding, an extended mage armor has a minimum caster level of 1, i.e. a wizard may, if he wants so, be level 3 and still decrease the CL to 1. Also according to my understanding, a heightened (to lvl 2) mage armor has instead a minimum CL of 3, since it's effectively a level 2 spell. Which means that, if I'm a level 1 sorcerer, I cannot cast it regardless of versatile spellcaster.

I hope this comes from a rule, not just from my imagination...

[RoboEmperor]

To my understanding, an extended mage armor has a minimum caster level of 1, i.e. a wizard may, if he wants so, be level 3 and still decrease the CL to 1. Also according to my understanding, a heightened (to lvl 2) mage armor has instead a minimum CL of 3, since it's effectively a level 2 spell. Which means that, if I'm a level 1 sorcerer, I cannot cast it regardless of versatile spellcaster.

I hope this comes from a rule, not just from my imagination...

There is no minimum requirement for CL for casting spells. Only for crafting, and even then it's dependent on the character, not the class. Otherwise you'd have wizards who got a spell at a lower-level via wyrm wizard unable to craft scrolls of it because the wizard's version is higher level.

[Kaleph]

There is no minimum requirement for CL for casting spells. Only for crafting, and even then it's dependent on the character, not the class. Otherwise you'd have wizards who got a spell at a lower-level via wyrm wizard unable to craft scrolls of it because the wizard's version is higher level.

Ok, it looks you're very sure, so I assume that there was a discussion on the topic, which led to a certain consensus. Anyhow, how was this sentence from the PHB interpreted: "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.."

[Godskook]

"Any time you would take ability damage, such as Constitution or Strength damage,that damage is reduced by 1 point, to minimum of 0."
So that's wrong, barring distinctly facetious definitions of "any time." what else in this gish gallop to I have to clear?

Do you or do you not understand what a "qualifier" is? The argument you're defending against isn't changing the definition of "any time", its qualifying it to within certain parameters, as defined in the other sentence.


Ah, yes. Helfire blast is an action used to harm a creature, so if it is an attack unless you're insistent on being wrong. Nothing in strongheart vest says it has to be an attack from an enemy.

Not all actions that harm a creature are attacks. A hellfire blast is an attack, as concerns the creature you're attacking. You can tell which creature that is by telling which creature was *TARGETED*. This is exactly how these sorts of rules work in MtG, so don't pretend like I'm off my rocker for suggesting that might be how they work in D&D. If you want to pay a price to get an effect, you either pay the price or you don't get the effect, barring explicit exception. Strongheart Vest doesn't give an explicit exception, so it can't be used in that manner.


So if you make a flow chart, I'm right even if I'm somehow incorrect.

So, there is no way someone could be as wrong as you are being right now. I will counter your claims of misrepresentation with a "no you."

Y'know, if you don't want to act civil, you don't have to.


So it sounds like we have two lines of rules text.

"Any time you would take ability damage, such as Constitution or Strength damage,that damage is reduced by 1 point, to minimum of 0."

"The strongheart vest protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores."

Logically, these statements can be combined without any contradiction, as "attacks that would reduce your ability scores" would be a subset of "any time you would take ability damage". So it does both.

Logically, these statements can be combined as the FAQ combined them, without contradiction, given that they are in the same parag


I will also point out that the example for strongheart vest is poison, which is not itself an attack.

The challenging part of that point is that the poison in question is delivered via an attack. So....it just pushes us into a more "there's no RAW on this, only FAQ and RAI" territory.


I think the provided text in MoI gives a strong case to Strongheart Vest reducing the damage taken from Hellfire Blast, especially given the bolded text. I'd also say the fluff fit for this, considering they (the "diabolical forces") still taking bits of soul.

1.I think the fluff, unlike Binder fluff, is completely contradictory in this case. Fluff is very very mutable, but yeah.

2.Thanks for linking the whole piece, but I still say that, at the very least, FAQ isn't being unreasonable for having the first sentence qualify the second.


If you look under the SRD's definition of damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#Damage), it prefaces all the types with the following quote: "When your attack succeeds, you deal damage." It then goes on to list "Ability Damage" under this block. Maybe it's not the best definition to have, but we're given little to work with.

Dealing damage when you attack does not preclude the possibility of taking damage without having endured an attack. You can't logically proceed backwards from "when X, then Y" to "when Y, then X"


Emphasis mine; Strongheart Vest does not fall under either of the categories listed that make it so you cannot use Hellfire Blast.

Which would work if my argument hinged on that list being complete, rather than suggestive. It doesn't, and I'll concede that my point fails if that list is deemed complete. However, that rules text also gives the mechanic underlying the list, making the list suggestive, not complete. And Strongheart Vest violates the underlying mechanic of actually paying the price listed. The player's Con damage explicitly fuels the ability, and stopping that Con damage before it happens is exactly parallel to plugging the fuel line on your car, and expecting your engine to still run.


I think that the argument against Strongheart Vest protecting from the con damage is that it's supposed to be a sacrifice for more power, not that it shouldn't protect from non-attacks. Since the upgrade to the Warlock's Eldritch Blast says, essentially, if you don't take the damage to your con, you don't get the extra power. I know it's not written out that way, not even trying to say it is. It's just why Ask Wizard answered the way they did, and why DM's rule that way.

This is exactly my argument, except that I'm saying it is written out that way, rather explicitly.

[Snowbluff]

So it sounds like we have two lines of rules text.

"Any time you would take ability damage, such as Constitution or Strength damage,that damage is reduced by 1 point, to minimum of 0."

"The strongheart vest protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores."

Logically, these statements can be combined without any contradiction, as "attacks that would reduce your ability scores" would be a subset of "any time you would take ability damage". So it does both.

I will also point out that the example for strongheart vest is poison, which is not itself an attack.

I agree entirely. I was going to say this but I had a caffeine headache and had to type quickly so I could get someone to drink.

[Godskook]

Ok, it looks you're very sure, so I assume that there was a discussion on the topic, which led to a certain consensus. Anyhow, how was this sentence from the PHB: 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

Uhm, fair warning, surety is a poor litmus for a person's accuracy.

[Zanos]

Logically, these statements can be combined as the FAQ combined them, without contradiction, given that they are in the same parag
Rules only start to override each other in case on an inconsistency or contradiction. There is not one here.


The challenging part of that point is that the poison in question is delivered via an attack. So....it just pushes us into a more "there's no RAW on this, only FAQ and RAI" territory.
It is delivered via an attack. It is not an attack itself. And the secondary damage occurs independently of an attack.


I agree entirely. I was going to say this but I had a caffeine headache and had to type quickly so I could get someone to drink.
Have you been hanging out with Red Fel?

[LoyalPaladin]

2.Thanks for linking the whole piece, but I still say that, at the very least, FAQ isn't being unreasonable for having the first sentence qualify the second.
I can see how the FAQ might use the first sentence to come to that conclusion, but many times in 3.5e they made a brief statement about the ability, only to explain it in the following few sentences. (See Barbarian: Rage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm#rage)) I don't think the rest of the ability is qualifying the statement, I think they make a statement and then flesh out the ability. But to each their own.


Dealing damage when you attack does not preclude the possibility of taking damage without having endured an attack. You can't logically proceed backwards from "when X, then Y" to "when Y, then X"
I don't see it as unreasonable that by agreeing to use their hellfire, you're allowing them to automatically succeed on a ranged touch attack against you. Isn't this how much of the low level cure spells work? Generally, you take damage from an attack and I don't see much case for the other side, personally. That said, I don't believe Strongheart Vest is limited to attacks, so we're not likely to see eye to eye on this...


Which would work if my argument hinged on that list being complete, rather than suggestive. It doesn't, and I'll concede that my point fails if that list is deemed complete. However, that rules text also gives the mechanic underlying the list, making the list suggestive, not complete. And Strongheart Vest violates the underlying mechanic of actually paying the price listed. The player's Con damage explicitly fuels the ability, and stopping that Con damage before it happens is exactly parallel to plugging the fuel line on your car, and expecting your engine to still run.
What isn't complete about the list? They listed the conditions that make Hellfire Blast unusable, which seems fairly complete to me.

Edit:
Ah. I understand what you're saying, though I have to disagree with it. Being immune to something and being resistant to it are two different things. If all saves vs fear were DC 15 and I had a +17 bonus to saves vs fear, I would still be able to take the Craven feat. This is because I'm not mechanically immune to fear, I just have a 0% chance of failing saves vs fear. While they're functionally identical, they're not mechanically identical. That's the RAW argument.


Have you been hanging out with Red Fel?
Careful, if Red Fel's name is mentioned three times in the same thread, Red Fel will appear- oh bugger...

[RoboEmperor]

Ok, it looks you're very sure, so I assume that there was a discussion on the topic, which led to a certain consensus. Anyhow, how was this sentence from the PHB: 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

Nothing about class restrictions. Again i refer you to adding a spell (hideous laughter for example, bard1 wiz2) with Wyrm Wizard that is lower level than the one on the wizard's spell list. Are you saying he can't cast hideous laughter at CL1 because wizards have it at spell level 2 even though it's in his spellbook as a level 1 spell?


This made me overturn my belief about the Pact Insidious thing. if a level 1 character has 19 spellcasting stat and a level 9 spell slot (obtained through murder and damning your soul), he can cast level 9 spells.

Waiiit, let me think about this some more. @_@. CL1 level 9 spell.

[magicalmagicman]

Waiiit, let me think about this some more. @_@. CL1 level 9 spell.

I don't see why not.

If you make a custom base class that gets a level 9 spell slot and a level 9 spell known at level 1, he too can cast level 9 spells at CL1.

Spells don't have a minimum CL. Classes don't say you need a minimum CL to cast a certain level spell. Just spell slots and ability scores like you said.

[Mato]

Q: How official is Ask Wizards?
A: The opinion is official enough to be hosted on wizards of the coast's official website as an official D&D article and I've seen posts that say the guy behind the sage worked on several of the rule books too.

Not official at all.
And this opinion is only official enough to be anonymously posted on someone else's private forum.

So while I'm not sure how high to rank it, I know it's somewhere near other online articles and above any opinion found on here. But I'm sure someone will claim I'm very conceited for thinking that.

Edit - Just remember WotC decided Twitter to be a official location of rule Q&A and clarifications (which means it functions as rule updates) before you complain something isn't in a book.

[LoyalPaladin]

So while I'm not sure how high to rank it, I know it's somewhere near other online articles and above any opinion found on here. But I'm sure someone will claim I'm very conceited for thinking that.
You're so conceited, Mato! :smallmad:

[Snowbluff]

Do you or do you not understand what a "qualifier" is? The argument you're defending against isn't changing the definition of "any time", its qualifying it to within certain parameters, as defined in the other sentence.
Well anytime is pretty damning.



Not all actions that harm a creature are attacks. A hellfire blast is an attack, as concerns the creature you're attacking. You can tell which creature that is by telling which creature was *TARGETED*. This is exactly how these sorts of rules work in MtG, so don't pretend like I'm off my rocker for suggesting that might be how they work in D&D. If you want to pay a price to get an effect, you either pay the price or you don't get the effect, barring explicit exception. Strongheart Vest doesn't give an explicit exception, so it can't be used in that manner. The vest makes so such distinction.




Y'know, if you don't want to act civil, you don't have to.
Fair. I figured this was limbo and that raising the bar you set would have been against the rule, but I'll lay off.


Have you been hanging out with Red Fel? No, I don't hang out in the minor leagues.
https://68.media.tumblr.com/c18f015c1976395fc4137efdfad24477/tumblr_nn0oeifkvh1tgx5s7o1_500.gif

[sorcererlover]

Q: How official is Ask Wizards?
A: The opinion is official enough to be hosted on wizards of the coast's official website as an official D&D article and I've seen posts that say the guy behind the sage worked on several of the rule books too.

And this opinion is only official enough to be anonymously posted on someone else's private forum.

So while I'm not sure how high to rank it, I know it's somewhere near other online articles and above any opinion found on here. But I'm sure someone will claim I'm very conceited for thinking that.

Edit - Just remember WotC decided Twitter to be a official location of rule Q&A and clarifications (which means it functions as rule updates) before you complain something isn't in a book.

Exactly, which is why people whose munchkin build is destroyed by the official rulings try to attack the official d&d article's credibility so they can keep convincing their DMs that their munchkin build is RAW legal.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Exactly, which is why people whose munchkin build is destroyed by the official rulings try to attack the official d&d article's credibility so they can keep convincing their DMs that their munchkin build is RAW legal.

Now that's just a personal attack.. claiming everyone who disagrees with you is automatically a munchkin. Did you even read the forum rules before joining?

[LoyalPaladin]

Exactly, which is why people whose munchkin build is destroyed by the official rulings try to attack the official d&d article's credibility so they can keep convincing their DMs that their munchkin build is RAW legal.
I wouldn't say users are attacking their credibility. They're just answering the question that was posed to them. If it isn't printed in a D&D sourcebook, that can be considered unofficial to a large majority of D&D's playerbase. You can see this play out in the play by post section often when a DM allows all 3.5e content and players still check to see if the web material is okay with their DM.

As for referring to that base's builds as munchkin, it might be worth taking a stroll over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1).


The D&D 3.5 FAQ inherited the reputation of its predecessor, the “Sage Advice” column in Dragon magazine. The Dungeons & Dragons product line has long had two channels for rules corrections and clarifications: errata and Q&A. Rules errata are edited into the rulebooks themselves and published in later printings. The Q&A channel was originally a regular column written by Skip Williams in TSR’s in-house magazine. Over time, the game evolved and grew, products changed hands, and Williams moved on from Dragon to the core design team. Wizards of the Coast shifted Q&A to their customer service department, which released selected questions as the FAQ.

The common problem with the Q&A articles, both “Sage Advice” and the FAQ, is that they were written by second parties with no better judgment than a good DM or StackExchange contributor. Yes, Williams and his successors were employees of the game publisher, and hypothetically had inside knowledge, but in practice they mostly worked from the rules and first principles like the rest of us do. Overall, their rulings were decent, but they also published quite a few screamers. As a result, online forums and Usenet groups like rec.games.frp.dnd regarded the Q&A folks as no more reliable than a smart player, and rejected arguments that used “Sage Advice” or the FAQ as authorities on the game.

Thus, there’s a bit of confusion between folks who reasonably expect an official rules document to be authoritative, and folks who’ve been in enough online rules debates to realize that you need to take the FAQ with a lot of salt — mostly because it wasn’t written by anyone with any kind of special authority or oversight or quality control.
I think the FAQ/Ask Wizards debate was best explained over on StackExchange (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/60044/what-is-wrong-with-the-dd-3-5-faq).

[zergling.exe]

I don't see why not.

If you make a custom base class that gets a level 9 spell slot and a level 9 spell known at level 1, he too can cast level 9 spells at CL1.

Spells don't have a minimum CL. Classes don't say you need a minimum CL to cast a certain level spell. Just spell slots and ability scores like you said.

There is a general rule for that:

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 minimum CL is what CL you require to cast the spell, combined with the spells per day rules to determine what that CL is.

Spells per Day: How many spells of each spell level the character
can cast each day. If the entry is “—” for a given level of spells, the
character may not cast any spells of that level. If the entry is “0,” the
character may cast spells of that level only if he or she is entitled to
bonus spells because of a high ability score tied to spellcasting.
(Bonus spells for wizards are based on Intelligence; bonus spells for
clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are based on Charisma. See
Table 1–1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8.) If the entry is
a number other than 0, the character may cast that many spells plus
any bonus spells each day.

[sorcererlover]

Now that's just a personal attack.. claiming everyone who disagrees with you is automatically a munchkin. Did you even read the forum rules before joining?

I wasn't attacking anyone, but if we take a look at this thread, the person who disagrees with the FAQ is the one who wants to completely eliminate Hellfire Warlock's cost with a magic item. That's a munchkin build.

I didn't name you or quote you or anything. Why would you think I was attacking you personally? I don't think you even posted in this thread.

I'm sorry if munchkin is a strong word. I meant a powergamer who wants to do some crazy OP stuff by rule-lawyering.

[magicalmagicman]

There is a general rule for that:

The minimum CL is what CL you require to cast the spell, combined with the spells per day rules to determine what that CL is.

Minimum caster level required to cast spells isn't mentioned anywhere. It just says you can't go lower than the minimum required for you to cast. This is different for all characters, not just classes. Every character is unique, some have spells they shouldn't have through wyrm wizard for example, and others can change the school of the spell. That RAW quote doesn't say the lowest CL you can cast at is the average member of that class's minimum CL to cast.

The clearest example that you are wrong is Earth Spell. You're saying that feat is worthless because the extra level of heighten cannot happen due to your CL, because no where in the feat description does it say it boosts your CL by 2.

The second RAW quote doesn't mention caster level at all. It just talks about spell slots. If you have "-" spell slots, you get 0 spell slots from ability scores. If you have "0" spell slots, you can get spell slots from ability scores. If ability scores don't give you the spell slots, then you can't cast the spell due to the lack of spell slots. If you get spell slots in an unconventional matter, that "-" turns into a "1" for you, so you can cast it. Even the FAQ says you can cast level 2 metamagic spells using Versatile Spellcaster even though you don't directly have a level 2 spell slot.

What you're saying is "An average wizard can cast a level 2 spell at CL3 minimum, so this is the required minimum CL to cast level 2 spells for all wizards, even special talented wizards who specficially invested resources to do unconventional things, because an average wizard can't do that"

There is no minimum required CL for spells. Unless you give a direct quote from the rules or an official WotC article saying there is a minimum CL, there is no minimum CL.

[Doctor Awkward]

The FAQ is official. It is RAW. If what they say contradicts what the book says, you add their ruling to the book. So in that strongheart vest hellfire warlock example, even though the exact language of both item and PrC in the books don't say so, strongheart vest does not reduce ability damage from hellfire warlocks.

What the other people of this thread said is true. If the FAQ disagrees with a person's ruling, the person will get really, really, really mad and tries to discredit the FAQ to the absolute best of their ability. But this does not change the fact that the FAQ is RAW. It is an update. It is an errata. It is Official.

If you take a look at 5E, it even says the Sage Column is official ruling, and it overrides all other rulings the WotC staff has made in the past.



They shutdown Precocious Apprentice and Southern Magician.

Precocious Apprentice gives you the ability to have a chance at casting a level 2 spell, not an inherent ability to cast a level 2 spell, so it does not qualify you for PrCs. Add this fact to the feat description.

Southern Magician turns your spells into divine spells after they are cast. The spell however ignores ACF during cast time as per the feat ruling. The FAQ elaborated/clarified the feat, so you change the feat's description to match the FAQ's ruling.

The confusion here is that people don't know that the FAQ has Nerfing and Buffing powers. They nerfed Precocious Apprentice and Southern Magician because they deemed it too powerful. Same with Strongheart Vest. These nerfs are official and if you are playing a no houserule d&d, you must abide by these nerfs.

Versatile Spellcaster however is the only early entry approved by the FAQ. It gives you an inherent (permanent) ability to cast spells 1 level higher than you so the clause that dismissed Precocious Apprentice does not apply to Versatile Spellcaster.

The rule that says you cannot cast spells when you have "-" spells per day is just as strong as the rule saying you cannot cast spells unless you have CHA 10+Spell level. Versatile Spellcaster does not override either, until the FAQ specifically said it can override the 1st rule.


No. All of this is wrong.
The FAQ is an official first-party document. But it is not rules text and it never was.

Wizard's had an official communication line for book discrepancies and updates: the errata You can clearly see this in the radically different tone and style between the two documents. The Sage muses about the rules in the FAQ. The errata is all business, surgically editing out and adding in up to several lines of text at a time. The FAQ was never given any authority to change the rules.

Here's a line from the Player's Handbook errata:


When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. [...]

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player’s Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master’s Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player’s Handbook, you should assume the Player’s Handbook is the primary source.

It is there that the errata documents were given permission to change the rules.

While at no point does it talk directly about the FAQ, it is clearly not the primary source on anything-- the books where the rules are printed are. Therefore any contradiction between the rule books and the FAQ is always decided in favor of the books.

The purpose of the FAQ is to answer questions about the rules, based on those rules. It was not the place for fixing, caveating, updating, qualifying, or editorializing about the rules.

[LoyalPaladin]

Here's a line from the Player's Handbook errata:
Holy smokes. That's a great source for citation.

[sorcererlover]

Here's a line from the Player's Handbook errata:

I have to admit, that is a nice quote.

But I don't see a conflict in the FAQ and Precocious Apprentice, Southern Magician, and Versatile Spellcaster. Neither of these three feats mention PrC qualifications.

[zergling.exe]

Minimum caster level required to cast spells isn't mentioned anywhere. It just says you can't go lower than the minimum required for you to cast. This is different for all characters, not just classes. Every character is unique, some have spells they shouldn't have through wyrm wizard for example, and others can change the school of the spell. That RAW quote doesn't say the lowest CL you can cast at is the average member of that class's minimum CL to cast.
Whatever level your character's class permits them to cast spells of a certain level is the minimum CL. If a wyrm wizard gains a spell they shouldn't otherwise have or at a lower level (or higher level, potentially) than normal, their minimum CL for it still matches when their class grants access to that level.


The clearest example that you are wrong is Earth Spell. You're saying that feat is worthless because the extra level of heighten cannot happen due to your CL, because no where in the feat description does it say it boosts your CL by 2.
No, because earth spell says that the spell is treated as x+1 levels higher. So the spell remains it's actual level and there is no problem with being unable to cast that level of spell, because you technically aren't. This might mean that it can't be used for early entry.


The second RAW quote doesn't mention caster level at all. It just talks about spell slots. If you have "-" spell slots, you get 0 spell slots from ability scores. If you have "0" spell slots, you can get spell slots from ability scores. If ability scores don't give you the spell slots, then you can't cast the spell due to the lack of spell slots. If you get spell slots in an unconventional matter, that "-" turns into a "1" for you, so you can cast it. Even the FAQ says you can cast level 2 metamagic spells using Versatile Spellcaster even though you don't directly have a level 2 spell slot.

What you're saying is "An average wizard can cast a level 2 spell at CL3 minimum, so this is the required minimum CL to cast level 2 spells for all wizards, even special talented wizards who specficially invested resources to do unconventional things, because an average wizard can't do that"
There are no methods to turn a "-" into a 1 or 0 that I know of aside from increasing your spellcaster level till you can cast spells of the appropriate level. The only metamagic that makes you actually cast a 2nd level spell is heighten spell. Every other one has you casting a 1st level spell out of a higher slot.

The only thing that I know of that lets you cast spells beyond normal ability is precocious spell caster letting you cast 2nd level spells early.


There is no minimum required CL for spells. Unless you give a direct quote from the rules or an official WotC article saying there is a minimum CL, there is no minimum CL.
There is, WotC just didn't put in the word count to either tell you the minimum for each spell or for every class.

[magicalmagicman]

Sublime Chords can cast Level 4 Wizard spells at CL2. (Bard9/Wizard1/SublimeChord1)

Another Sublime Chord can cast level 4 wizard spells at a CL11 minimum (Bard10/SublimeChord1)

So what is the minimum CL for a Sublime Chord?

Either all Sublime Chords can cast wizard spells at CL 2, or it is independent for each character, not class.

Therefore, minimum CL required for a class to cast a spell does not exist.

Therefore minimum CL a character can cast a spell at is based on their build, not class.

Therefore, you made up the rule that there is a minimum CL for spells for a class to cast.

None of the quotes you quoted say a wizard needs CL3 to cast a level 2 spell. All of them talk about CL reduction of a spell you want to cast to your minimum, the character not class.

[zergling.exe]

Sublime Chords can cast Level 4 Wizard spells at CL2. (Bard9/Wizard1/SublimeChord1)

Another Sublime Chord can cast level 4 wizard spells at a CL11 minimum (Bard10/SublimeChord1)

So what is the minimum CL for a Sublime Chord?

Either all Sublime Chords can cast wizard spells at CL 2, or it is independent for each character, not class.

Therefore, minimum CL required for a class to cast a spell does not exist.

Therefore minimum CL a character can cast a spell at is based on their build, not class.

Therefore, you made up the rule that there is a minimum CL for spells for a class to cast.

None of the quotes you quoted say a wizard needs CL3 to cast a level 2 spell. All of them talk about CL reduction of a spell you want to cast.

Any examples that do this aside from Sublime Chord? Exceptions not existing at the time of the rule being printed doesn't do a whole lot to say that the rule is untrue anyway. It just means they are an exception that works differently.

[magicalmagicman]

Any examples that do this aside from Sublime Chord? Exceptions not existing at the time of the rule being printed doesn't do a whole lot to say that the rule is untrue anyway. It just means they are an exception that works differently.

Nar Demonbinder, or any other PrC with an independent spellcasting progression that tacks on their caster level with a spellcasting class of your choice. The two classes here are from different books.

Thank Troacctid for this, I used one of his/her posts.

The rule you are arguing that exists is unprinted. It is created from inference only and because supplemental material contradict the indirect, inferenced rule, I firmly believe there is no minimum CL for spells by class.

edit: there is nothing stopping me from claiming Versatile Spellcaster is another one of these "exceptions", because there is no rule saying it is not, or that spontaneous casters must abide some minimum CL chart.

[Red Fel]

Have you been hanging out with Red Fel?

...?


Careful, if Red Fel's name is mentioned three times in the same thread, Red Fel will appear- oh bugger...

http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/36600000/Hoozuki-No-Reitetsu-image-hoozuki-no-reitetsu-36667126-500-233.gif

Mmmyes? I'm trying out new gifs!


No, I don't hang out in the minor leagues.
https://68.media.tumblr.com/c18f015c1976395fc4137efdfad24477/tumblr_nn0oeifkvh1tgx5s7o1_500.gif

Words hurt too. Not that I'm particularly bothered.

https://gaikokumaniakku.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/hellclub1389523220402.gif

On the topic... Can't say I have all that much to add. Ask Wizards is about as official as your DM decides it is. It's slightly more authoritative, and slightly less accurate, than asking around on these forums, but that's about it.

[LoyalPaladin]

Mmmyes?
Long time no see! I should get some new GIFs...

[Red Fel]

Long time no see! I should get some new GIFs...

Hey, it's LP! Long time!

Yeah, you should work on some new gifs. Like I do.

https://i2.wp.com/capinaremos.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/01/Omnivoresrchoozukinoreitetsu_36edc1_5084749.gif

Lots of work.

[LoyalPaladin]

Hey, it's LP! Long time!

Yeah, you should work on some new gifs. Like I do.

https://i2.wp.com/capinaremos.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/01/Omnivoresrchoozukinoreitetsu_36edc1_5084749.gif

Lots of work.
Yeah, I need to frequent this forum again. I've been in the PBP subforum lately...

Oh... That's a nice gif...

[Lorddenorstrus]

Hey, it's LP! Long time!

Yeah, you should work on some new gifs. Like I do.

Lots of work.

The gif with the horned ogre? (Is that an ogre?) Looks kinda interesting. What is it pls lol I want to go watch it.



I wasn't attacking anyone, but if we take a look at this thread, the person who disagrees with the FAQ is the one who wants to completely eliminate Hellfire Warlock's cost with a magic item. That's a munchkin build.

I didn't name you or quote you or anything. Why would you think I was attacking you personally? I don't think you even posted in this thread.

I'm sorry if munchkin is a strong word. I meant a powergamer who wants to do some crazy OP stuff by rule-lawyering.

Warlocks are garbage anyway. When your players constantly play Wizards, Druids and Clerics you have to give them a reason to even bother playing something else. So if any of my players tried this I would have 0 problem with it. Because they'd have to abuse a ton of crap like making duplicates of themselves to keep up with the tier 1s.

Also, Snowbluff is correct the FAQ is a mess with a ton of cases where they didn't take things into context and just made bad "rulings". Also you realize you're on an optimizer board / forum right? Insulting everyone here who likes to play at higher power levels with the standard whiny child 'bad wrong fun' argument, calling us munchkins or power gamers trying to abuse the rules just to be OP is down right sad. Not everyone plays D&D the same way as you. Get over it. Every style of D&D is still D&D and so long as people have fun, it doesn't matter. Also yes I found it personally insulting, all of my players in the group I run play at a high power level. Not at Ryu / Tippy level but still high power.

[Mato]

You're so conceited, Mato! :smallmad:And I'm shocked someone said that. :smalleek:


Exactly, which is why people whose munchkin build is destroyed by the official rulings try to attack the official d&d article's credibility so they can keep convincing their DMs that their munchkin build is RAW legal.I think the truth is probably closer to people like to hear things that confirm what they know and oppose anything that disagrees with what they know. And they will do something like attempt to take a moral stance and explain how they dislike something else the rule's say else where but they accept it, so how can they be biaist against nerfs if they accept that (fallacy of appeal).

For example,


Thus, there’s a bit of confusion between folks who reasonably expect an official rules document to be authoritative, and folks who’ve been in enough online rules debates to realize that you need to take the FAQ with a lot of salt — mostly because it wasn’t written by anyone with any kind of special authority or oversight or quality control.I believe the author assumes the FAQ to be like a wikipedia article where everyone but him can log in and make changes. But we know WotC didn't hand out their server passwords to everyone, that the Sage was a specifically hired position to handle rule questions, and not of the Sage's answers became listed as part of the game rules (faq was listed as them, ask sage was not). So we can see this biaism in practice as the author firmly believes the FAQ should be ignored for a range of reasons that can be proven to be untrue.


Holy smokes. That's a great source for citation.The player's handbook also says "The Races, described in Chapter 2, are human, dwarf, elf, gnome, halflings, half-elf, and half-orc." on page six and many books disagree with this by adding new races to choose from in different chapters in different books.

Tonymitsu's quote only appears in the PHB, MM1, DMG, Frostburn, Book of Exalted Deeds, & Unapproachable East erratas. Tome of Magic's errata drops the second paragraph. And Complete Divine, Planar Handbook, Serpent Kingdom, Complete Arcane, Complete Warrior, Complete Adventurer, Eberron Campaign Setting, Sharn: City of Towers, Monster Manual 3, Player's Handbook 2, Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, and Tome of Battle all use the following.

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 in a table or a character’s statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.So what defines a "primary source"? As the newer entry says, text vs table. Book vs book is no longer part of the emphasis of how a DM should make rulings.

Back when it was mostly just the core books it was obvious to use books through, PHB over the DMG for races for example, but what about swift actions? Is feather fall a swift action as all the updates have said or is it a free action like the PHB says and the errata doesn't correct? Libris Mortis changed the rules on incorporeality and it's changes were kept for the rule's compendium so where does that rank?

How you answer that question should be exactly the same way you handle every single rule source you come across and your order may not be the same as someone else's order. The only real goal I would like you all to have is to make sure you are not illogically delegating things. Like I'm sure Tonymitsu thinks there are more than seven races so the content of the PHB is subjective to other rule sources which means he also ignores the outdated errata entry when it doesn't support his views, but I could be wrong about him and good for him if he only uses the core books.

[RoboEmperor]

Sublime Chords can cast Level 4 Wizard spells at CL2. (Bard9/Wizard1/SublimeChord1)

Another Sublime Chord can cast level 4 wizard spells at a CL11 minimum (Bard10/SublimeChord1)

So what is the minimum CL for a Sublime Chord?

Either all Sublime Chords can cast wizard spells at CL 2, or it is independent for each character, not class.

Therefore, minimum CL required for a class to cast a spell does not exist.

Therefore minimum CL a character can cast a spell at is based on their build, not class.

Therefore, you made up the rule that there is a minimum CL for spells for a class to cast.

None of the quotes you quoted say a wizard needs CL3 to cast a level 2 spell. All of them talk about CL reduction of a spell you want to cast to your minimum, the character not class.

That is one nice proof. So...

1. There is no minimum CL for spells.
2. FAQ directly says Versatile spellcaster can cast higher level spells you normally can't.
3. There is no contradiction in the FAQ and the books regarding this matter.
4. 100% of the feats/prcs out there only mention ability score requirement and spell slots. If you have spell slots and the necessary ability score you can cast the spell, and versatile spellcaster lets you use lower level spell slots.

[LoyalPaladin]

And I'm shocked someone said that. :smalleek:
Welcome to the internet. Where everything is made up, and the points don't matter. I'm your host, LoyalPaladin.


I think the truth is probably closer to people like to hear things that confirm what they know and oppose anything that disagrees with what they know. And they will do something like attempt to take a moral stance and explain how they dislike something else the rule's say else where but they accept it, so how can they be biaist against nerfs if they accept that (fallacy of appeal).
Discrediting a group's opinion and calling them biased because you believe they think a certain way isn't exactly good practice, especially when many people in this very thread have very different ideal play styles. Personally, I prefer a low powered level of play. As my name suggests, I don't exactly pick my classes based on power appeal or game breaking mechanics. So it's probably safe to say I don't fall into the "munchkin" category, as it was so labeled. While the FAQ/Ask Wizards articles don't really alter anything that I ever interact with, I still disagree with their validity, as I disagree with the stereotype that people disregard them because they don't want their mechanics nerfed. As has been stated many times before in the thread, they've made some downright bad judgement calls and some really off the wall ones that ignore printed rules. But, to each their own.


I believe the author assumes the FAQ to be like a wikipedia article where everyone but him can log in and make changes. But we know WotC didn't hand out their server passwords to everyone, that the Sage was a specifically hired position to handle rule questions, and not of the Sage's answers became listed as part of the game rules (faq was listed as them, ask sage was not). So we can see this biaism in practice as the author firmly believes the FAQ should be ignored for a range of reasons that can be proven to be untrue.
I don't believe the author is assuming anything; he very clearly showed an in depth understanding of the history of the subject. The author also never asked or told OP of that particular thread to ignore the FAQ, only to take it with a grain of salt, something many a player can agree with.


The player's handbook also says "The Races, described in Chapter 2, are human, dwarf, elf, gnome, halflings, half-elf, and half-orc." on page six and many books disagree with this by adding new races to choose from in different chapters in different books.
It's very easy to take a quote from a sourcebook and use it out of context, but this one doesn't even state something like "All the races in 3rd edition are listed in Chapter 2." Instead, the quote is from the section teaching you how to build a character and introducing you to the edition's rules. On the flip side of this argument, Tonymitsu's cited quote clearly states how to handle discrepancies between two sources.


Tonymitsu's quote only appears in the PHB, MM1, DMG, Frostburn, Book of Exalted Deeds, & Unapproachable East erratas. Tome of Magic's errata drops the second paragraph. And Complete Divine, Planar Handbook, Serpent Kingdom, Complete Arcane, Complete Warrior, Complete Adventurer, Eberron Campaign Setting, Sharn: City of Towers, Monster Manual 3, Player's Handbook 2, Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, and Tome of Battle all use the following.
But it does appear. I imagine we'd get mighty tired if they included the rules for grappling in every sourcebook as well. I wouldn't have been surprised if it was just in the first errata they published.


So what defines a "primary source"? As the newer entry says, text vs table. Book vs book is no longer part of the emphasis of how a DM should make rulings.
I'd rather go to an official source for a definition, instead of bickering over our individual definitions:


One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.
If you're in the crowd that appreciates the FAQ, a user on Stackexchange said it touched on this while answering a question with the following statement.


Unless stated otherwise, any time that a rule appears in two different sourcebooks (other than the PH, DMG, and MM), the most current sourcebook is considered correct and all previous sources are superseded. A book’s credits page lists its publication date (typically near the bottom of the page).

In this case, [Complete Arcane] (published in November 2004) supersedes [Player's Guide to Faerûn] (published in March 2004), and thus its version of Innate Spell should be considered the official version. (41-2)
The link to the question is here (http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/faq). Like most of WotC's links, this has ceased to function since it was originally posted, so I can't attest to its validity.

[sorcererlover]

The gif with the horned ogre? (Is that an ogre?) Looks kinda interesting. What is it pls lol I want to go watch it.




Warlocks are garbage anyway. When your players constantly play Wizards, Druids and Clerics you have to give them a reason to even bother playing something else. So if any of my players tried this I would have 0 problem with it. Because they'd have to abuse a ton of crap like making duplicates of themselves to keep up with the tier 1s.

Also, Snowbluff is correct the FAQ is a mess with a ton of cases where they didn't take things into context and just made bad "rulings". Also you realize you're on an optimizer board / forum right? Insulting everyone here who likes to play at higher power levels with the standard whiny child 'bad wrong fun' argument, calling us munchkins or power gamers trying to abuse the rules just to be OP is down right sad. Not everyone plays D&D the same way as you. Get over it. Every style of D&D is still D&D and so long as people have fun, it doesn't matter. Also yes I found it personally insulting, all of my players in the group I run play at a high power level. Not at Ryu / Tippy level but still high power.

I optimize. I power game. What I don't do is bring in the Oxford english dictionary to argue that the Shades spell allows you to mimic any conjuration spell in the game and not just creation/summoning on the wizard's list. I also don't argue that Precocious Apprentice grants the ability to cast 2nd level spells and debate whether that would cause a self-termination loop, or casting polymorph any object on a rock lets you create a permanent duration prismatic dragon corpse because both are "objects", or that using the exact language in hellfire warlock and strongheart vest to claim that the 0 ability damage doesn't make you "immune" to it and therefore allowed.

The FAQ is official. Despite its "flaws", that is the official ruling, so any DM who doesn't wish to use house rules must abide by them. You can power game plenty within the FAQ's rulings, which is clearly apparent in this thread who has some people trying very hard with versatile spellcaster, and the one who is vehemently opposed to that is arguing within the FAQ's rulings instead of trying to discredit it and insulting the author's intelligence.

If you hate the FAQ and rule against it, just know that you are house ruling, just like you would if you ignore Rules of the Game articles, whose author is actually a co-designer of the 3rd edition. Rules of the Game specifically and directly ruled that polymorph does not remove racial bonus feats and class features even though the books specifically say you do, yet you still have people saying the PHB is the primary source and RotG is overridden.

[Bronk]

The FAQ is official. Despite its "flaws", that is the official ruling, so any DM who doesn't wish to use house rules must abide by them. You can power game plenty within the FAQ's rulings, which is clearly apparent in this thread who has some people trying very hard with versatile spellcaster, and the one who is vehemently opposed to that is arguing within the FAQ's rulings instead of trying to discredit it and insulting the author's intelligence.

If you hate the FAQ and rule against it, just know that you are house ruling, just like you would if you ignore Rules of the Game articles, whose author is actually a co-designer of the 3rd edition. Rules of the Game specifically and directly ruled that polymorph does not remove racial bonus feats and class features even though the books specifically say you do, yet you still have people saying the PHB is the primary source and RotG is overridden.

Sorry, I agree with the others. The FAQ and Rules of the Game are unofficial rules explanations only, existing outside the framework of published rules and errata files. Wizards established that framework themselves, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that they subsequently changed it to include anything else.

[sorcererlover]

Sorry, I agree with the others. The FAQ and Rules of the Game are unofficial rules explanations only, existing outside the framework of published rules and errata files. Wizards established that framework themselves, and I haven't seen anything to indicate that they subsequently changed it to include anything else.

Ok, despite being created by the same company that made the books, despite being written by the co-designer of the entire third edition, and despite the rules of the game specifically stating it is the official revised ruling based on the newly released erratas, it's unofficial. It's some third party random stuff posted not on the company's website and not alongside all the erratas.

I mean if the co-designer of the 3rd edition releasing more in-depth ruling information based on the polymorph erratas of the PHB don't make it official, I guess I just don't know what that word means. FAQ is one thing but even saying rules of the game aren't official?

I guess everything J.K. Rowling says in an interview is also unofficial because what she says isn't in her harry potter books despite being the author.

[Bronk]

Ok, despite being created by the same company that made the books, despite being written by the co-designer of the entire third edition, and despite the rules of the game specifically stating it is the official revised ruling based on the newly released erratas, it's unofficial. It's some third party random stuff posted not on the company's website and not alongside all the erratas.

I mean if the co-designer of the 3rd edition releasing more in-depth ruling information based on the polymorph erratas of the PHB don't make it official, I guess I just don't know what that word means. FAQ is one thing but even saying rules of the game aren't official?

I guess everything J.K. Rowling says in an interview is also unofficial because what she says isn't in her harry potter books despite being the author.

What can I say? DnD is a rules heavy game. Wizards of the Coast made the rules and defined how they interact. If they wanted to make the FAQ or the Rules of the Game material represent official games rules, they could have just said so, like they did with the errata. As it is, they're just people answering questions as best they can, as if you were asking a friend who had more experience with the game. They're useful, but they don't even source their material.

As for new rulings from a co-designer? Well, they had their chance the first time around, and if they were still affiliated with the game they could just issue another errata or rule book or something. Plus, did they consult the other co-designers? It's just a mess.

As for J.K. Rowling... I mean, it's her book, her story, and she retains control of it, so she can do what she wants, even if what she wants is to give us minutia about where Harry's family fortune came from. (Selling hair products? How ironic for his own hair then...)

Taking new rules decisions from a former co-designer is less a Rowling situation and more of a Lucas situation. When George Lucas controlled Star Wars, he was able to go back to the original trilogy and update or change things around as he pleased. Now that he's sold it off to Disney, though, they've gently disregarded his ideas.

Anyway, it seems to me that people discuss the rules around here quite a bit (even when it's not just about optimization, as others in the thread have said), and it's much easier to discuss new rules, or propose house rules, etcetera, when you have a shared starting point. That's why people care about the rules order, general vs specific, and so on.

[LoyalPaladin]

I
If you hate the FAQ and rule against it, just know that you are house ruling, just like you would if you ignore Rules of the Game articles, whose author is actually a co-designer of the 3rd edition.
If you look at the quote I posted earlier, this is actually false. Skip Williams worked on TSR's magazine and when WotC switched to the FAQ, they handed it over to their help desk.

If you read the quotes I posted just above, the eratta tells you do always refer back to the sourcebooks for rulings, using the latest printed one as an update. The FAQ seems to be in harmony with this in the quote above as well.

[gogogome]

You bring up an interesting issue someonenoone11.

Can a level 1 sorcerer with 11 charisma cast a level 2 spell with Versatile Spellcaster?

[Lorddenorstrus]

You bring up an interesting issue someonenoone11.

Can a level 1 sorcerer with 11 charisma cast a level 2 spell with Versatile Spellcaster?

They would have to have some way to get a 2nd level spell as a known spell but yes there isn't a restriction on character or caster level allowing people to cast spells of any level. Otherwise why would Ur Priest even be any good? Oh no I have these 9th level spells early but wait I can't use them because I'm not high enough lvl? Yeah no that makes no sense what so ever. There's also the fact that there isn't a single rule in any book that states "To cast a spell of X level you must have X Y or Z" No it states that you must have nothing other than a high enough stat. Being int wis or cha for your casting.

[gogogome]

They would have to have some way to get a 2nd level spell as a known spell but yes there isn't a restriction on character or caster level allowing people to cast spells of any level. Otherwise why would Ur Priest even be any good? Oh no I have these 9th level spells early but wait I can't use them because I'm not high enough lvl? Yeah no that makes no sense what so ever. There's also the fact that there isn't a single rule in any book that states "To cast a spell of X level you must have X Y or Z" No it states that you must have nothing other than a high enough stat. Being int wis or cha for your casting.

In this example, the sorcerer does not have a high enough stat.

[RoboEmperor]

You bring up an interesting issue someonenoone11.

Can a level 1 sorcerer with 11 charisma cast a level 2 spell with Versatile Spellcaster?

No, spells require casting stat and spell slots. "-" rule talks about spell slots which is overridden by Versatile Spellcaster, but the "10+spell level" is not, because Versatile Spellcaster doesn't talk about ability scores.


They would have to have some way to get a 2nd level spell as a known spell but yes there isn't a restriction on character or caster level allowing people to cast spells of any level. Otherwise why would Ur Priest even be any good? Oh no I have these 9th level spells early but wait I can't use them because I'm not high enough lvl? Yeah no that makes no sense what so ever. There's also the fact that there isn't a single rule in any book that states "To cast a spell of X level you must have X Y or Z" No it states that you must have nothing other than a high enough stat. Being int wis or cha for your casting.

Another example. Ur-Priest, Sublime Chord, Nar Demonbinder, all with varying caster levels dependent on the character build.

[Doctor Awkward]

Tonymitsu's quote only appears in the PHB, MM1, DMG, Frostburn, Book of Exalted Deeds, & Unapproachable East erratas. Tome of Magic's errata drops the second paragraph. And Complete Divine, Planar Handbook, Serpent Kingdom, Complete Arcane, Complete Warrior, Complete Adventurer, Eberron Campaign Setting, Sharn: City of Towers, Monster Manual 3, Player's Handbook 2, Spell Compendium, Complete Mage, and Tome of Battle all use the following.
So what defines a "primary source"? As the newer entry says, text vs table. Book vs book is no longer part of the emphasis of how a DM should make rulings.

You know, in order to test the veracity of that statement, I opened three random errata documents I happened to have within easy click reach: Monster Manual II, Fiend Folio, and Forgotten Realms Campaign setting.

The first two both had the Primary Sources rule exactly as I quoted it. The third had nothing, not even the Text Trumps Table citation.

So no, I really don't have an explanation for you. Maybe Wizard's didn't have a standardized errata format when those other one's were written. Maybe they just didn't care that much.



Back when it was mostly just the core books it was obvious to use books through, PHB over the DMG for races for example, but what about swift actions? Is feather fall a swift action as all the updates have said or is it a free action like the PHB says and the errata doesn't correct? Libris Mortis changed the rules on incorporeality and it's changes were kept for the rule's compendium so where does that rank?

Well, if you love the FAQ so much, on page 41 it states pretty unequivocally that "Unless stated otherwise, any time that a rule appears in two different sourcebooks (other than the PH, DMG, and MM), the most current sourcebook is considered correct and all previous sources are superseded. A book’s credits page lists its publication date (typically near the bottom of the page)."

And if you don't feel like treating the FAQ as authoritative, the Rules Compendium says this on pg. 5 in the Introduction:

The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for
how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources
from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules
clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing
the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well
as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and
easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supplement
differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is
meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how
to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer
that question.

For some reason, I feel like this is a point of contention that could have been easily solved by actually reading the books in question...




How you answer that question should be exactly the same way you handle every single rule source you come across and your order may not be the same as someone else's order. The only real goal I would like you all to have is to make sure you are not illogically delegating things. Like I'm sure Tonymitsu thinks there are more than seven races so the content of the PHB is subjective to other rule sources which means he also ignores the outdated errata entry when it doesn't support his views, but I could be wrong about him and good for him if he only uses the core books.

Well thank you for putting words in my mouth, but I'd rather use my own:

For one thing, there is no rule, nor any text at all, in the entirety of the Chapter 2: Races in the Player's Handbook that indicates the playable races presented there is or is intended to be exhaustive. In fact, the very first suggestion in the DMG regarding races is that changing the races available to players is an easy way to customize your campaign.

Secondly, whether or not a rule "supports my views" really doesn't factor in to my judgement when I'm arguing RAW. RAW Tonymitsu doesn't have feelings, and doesn't care about what is fair or not. The rules either say a thing or they don't. GM Tonymitsu finds a number of the written rules to be arbitrary and stupid, and actively ignores them during games (Like Multiclass EXP Penalties, for starters).

Finally it might behoove you to remember that accusation goes both ways: Just because you might like something that is said in the FAQ doesn't make it authoritative. I like a number of things it says too, but it still has no more authority over the Rules As Written than you or I do.

[Honest Tiefling]

So...Has anyone ever encountered anyone in the wild who actually knew these documents existed? I'm curious if they've ever gotten used.

[Mato]

Welcome to the internet. Where everything is made up, and the points don't matter. I'm your host, LoyalPaladin.It's time for another hoedown!
♫ Dun dun dun ♫

Great show, more of a Drew fan through :smalltongue:


Discrediting a group's opinion and calling them biased because you believe they think a certain way isn't exactly good practice,I wasn't discrediting them, besides a discredited source may still be accurate in certain areas, but trying to point out the bias and used the quoted section as proof to raise awareness of it and to better explain that not all people do it for munchkin-related reasons.


It's very easy to take a quote from a sourcebook and use it out of context,And now you're touching on stuff like "fake news", where real facts may be used but out of context and against the original purpose.


I'd rather go to an official source for a definition, instead of bickering over our individual definitions:It's accurate, and here is the direct link (http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv06302008.zip) which still works, only the web pages are broken (for now).

[GilesTheCleric]

So...Has anyone ever encountered anyone in the wild who actually knew these documents existed? I'm curious if they've ever gotten used.

My usual group spends a fair amount of time working on builds and optimising, and they've never mentioned them to me. They will look at book errata or ask about typos, dragmag, and PF/ 3rd party materials. Just never the FAQ. That's four players for your datapoint. I don't think any of them have accounts here/ elsewhere, and they also don't seem to read the forums beyond looking up handbooks.

Other folks I've GMed are less experienced, either because they're new or they simply don't seem to care that there's more books that exist beyond core. Whether they're fair to include in such an analysis is up to you. That total would be 6, I think.

[RoboEmperor]

So...Has anyone ever encountered anyone in the wild who actually knew these documents existed? I'm curious if they've ever gotten used.

if you google search for clarification, they always come up. If you don't use anything that requires clarification, then you wouldn't know these documents existed.

Polymorph was the biggest reason people learn of the RotG's existence, at least in the games I played.

Early Entry Shenanigans and trying to get Fiery Burst at level 3 with sorcerers led me to the FAQ (I virtually failed at all of the former, and completely failed at the latter)

[Mato]

Every group I've played in knew of them. As someonenoone11 said, if you attempt to research something you become aware of them thanks to the tons of threads that bring them up across the internet and open discussions on the tabletop increase the likelihood of coming across someone who has had an active account at one of those places.

But I feel that the question is a little unfair, if they don't solicit opinions or research the material it's not surprising if they have never heard of the errata or even Dragonlance on their own. And if they are the kind of person who sticks to their opinions based off a limited knowledge then it doesn't really matter what the source of disagreeance is.

[magicalmagicman]

I just want to add that if there was a minimum CL for spells, the 3 PrCs mentioned above should've stated something about required CL for spells, something along the lines of ignoring it, but there isn't. Like someonenoone11 said, it only talks about required ability scores and spell slots, and what the CL of the class is.