3rd level spells at level 1

[OgresAreCute]

Certain spellcasting PrCs require 3rd level spells to qualify, but are relatively lax on other requirements such as skills. This means you can get into them as early as level 2 by spending a bunch of feats. One of those is the Rainbow Servant from Complete Divine, and the Rainbow Servant Handbook (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=2660.0) says you can cast 3rd level (equivalent) spells at level 1 by using the feats Versatile Spellcaster, Heighten Spell and Sanctum Spell. Now, I might not be the brightest tool in the shed, but to me it seems like two of these three feats should suffice? If you are in your sanctum and apply both Sanctum and Heighten Spell, shouldn't that make a 3rd level spell? And if you use Versatile Spellcaster to mush together two 1st level spells into one 2nd level spell, then apply Heighten OR Sanctum, that would make 3, would it not? Basically, I don't understand why you need all 3.

[DeTess]

because you can't cast a heightened spell out of a 1st level spell slot (unless you apply it to a level 0 spell, in which case it would be a level 1 spell). You need a 2nd level spell slot to heighten a spell to 2nd level, and then sanctum spell brings you to level 3.

Edit: This is extremely cheesy cheese. Fine for thought experiments, but something you should discuss with your DM if you want to use it in an actual game.

[OgresAreCute]

because you can't cast a heightened spell out of a 1st level spell slot (unless you apply it to a level 0 spell, in which case it would be a level 1 spell). You need a 2nd level spell slot to heighten a spell to 2nd level, and then sanctum spell brings you to level 3.

Edit: This is extremely cheesy cheese. Fine for thought experiments, but something you should discuss with your DM if you want to use it in an actual game.

Oh, right, I was misunderstanding Heighten Spell, thought it just made you cast 1st level spells as 2nd level spells for free. Thanks for clarifying.
And yeah I won't be using this anytime soon, so no problem there.

[16bearswutIdo]

Similar, but not quite OP topic: is it legal to sac 4 1st level spells to get a single 3rd level using versatile spellcaster?

IE. Sac 4 1st levels for 2 second levels, then sac those 2 second levels for a 3rd level.

I played a campaign where the DM used this trick to cast a silent+stilled charm person off a 3rd lvl sorc, and want to know if that was DM fiat or if there's some RAW answer.

[DeTess]

Based on my reading of the feat, I'd say this was either DM fiat or DM misunderstanding of the feat. The feat doesn't give you a higher level spell slot, it allows you to sacrifice two lower level spells to cast a spell of a level higher. As no new spell slot is generated, there's nothing to sacrifice to go even higher with the feat.

I believe this is a slightly controversial topic though, as I've seen a different reading used for some shenanigans to get arbitrarily high level spells on low level casters, so someone else might come by to explain how they think it works.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I mean I think this is the same sort of thing as Precocious Apprentice plus Sanctum Spell. No, your Wizard 1/Rogue 3 can't start taking levels in Arcane Trickster because they can cast their one 2nd-level spell in their sanctum hence having the "ability to cast at least one arcane spell of 3rd level or higher." Why? Because the RAW are ambiguous and the DM thinks this is cheese and says no. End of argument. Unless your DM allows this, in which case good for you I guess? Not good for game balance, or for the spirit of such requirements on PrCs, but I guess if anyone were to try such chicanery it'd be an Arcane Trickster. :smalltongue:

[liquidformat]

Typically Versatile Spellcaster is interpreted as not being able to give you higher level spell slots then you actually have so you can't make two first level spells into a second level if you don't already have second level spells, much less 4 first level into one 3rd level. Meta magic feat+sanctum+snowcasting should be on much more solid ground since I can add snow as a component to my cold spells inside my sanctum and turn a level 1 cold spell effectively into a level 3 spell with no ambiguity, plenty of cheese yes but you are on solid RAW ground.

Speaking of ground if you are human or strong heart halfling with two flaws you can go with Earth Sense , Heighten Spell, Earth Spell, snowcasting and cast ray of frost as a level 3 spells as long as you stand on the ground with snow. Though more feat intensive, this does get over a lot of dm's dislike of using sanctum.

[Kalkra]

I'm pretty sure a Sha'ir can get spells of a higher level than he can cast, and then cast them with Versatile Spellcaster.

[edathompson2]

Once you leave your sanctum, you lose the prestige class. the prerequisites are not a one shot thing. You have to always have them. Like attribute qualifiers. feat qualifiers, etc.

[DeTess]

Once you leave your sanctum, you lose the prestige class. the prerequisites are not a one shot thing. You have to always have them. Like attribute qualifiers. feat qualifiers, etc.

That's according to a ruling in complete warrior, I believe. Wether or not that's a universal rule is a matter of some debate.

[liquidformat]

Once you leave your sanctum, you lose the prestige class. the prerequisites are not a one shot thing. You have to always have them. Like attribute qualifiers. feat qualifiers, etc.

I thought the caveat was you had to stay in your sanctum until you actually meet the prerequisites so until you are level 5ish for rainbow. The comical one is with earth spell wood flooring and jumping are your bane if you read it literally.

Anyways jokes aside it is a bit strange since you retain the capability to cast level 3 spells you just currently are unable which puts you into gray area with a prerequisites. The difference between using equipment to bolster your ability scores or provide feats as prerequisites is that those are 'outside' power. IE, if someone destroys/steals said equipment you are stripped of those feats until you can once more qualify. However, no one can strip you of a feat unless you respec, but that is expressly forbidden since you can't respec a feat you still need to qualify for other things in your build, there for leaving your sanctum or in the case of earth spell not standing on rock/dirt doesn't strip you of the prc it might just... suppress it?

[sleepyphoenixx]

Once you leave your sanctum, you lose the prestige class. the prerequisites are not a one shot thing. You have to always have them. Like attribute qualifiers. feat qualifiers, etc.

You're still generally capable of casting 3rd level spells when not in your sanctum the same way you're still generally capable of casting 3rd level spells after you've blown all your daily spells in combat.
Just because you can't cast them right now doesn't mean you lose the PrC any more than using all your daily spells will.

If you're going to make that kind of passive aggressive ruling you should just be upfront about it and ban early entry.

[liquidformat]

You're still generally capable of casting 3rd level spells when not in your sanctum the same way you're still generally capable of casting 3rd level spells after you've blown all your daily spells in combat.
Just because you can't cast them right now doesn't mean you lose the PrC any more than using all your daily spells will.

If you're going to make that kind of passive aggressive ruling you should just be upfront about it and ban early entry.

Ya I would agree with that ruling, you haven't lost the ability to cast those spell you just currently can't. Giving edathompson2 logic as the assumed ruling across the board means you must always have a level x spell available to be cast for whatever prc/feat spell level x qualifies you for and if you use all your daily spells for that level you would be stripped of that prc/feat. That type of ruling is quite extreme and unreasonable.

[flappeercraft]

The Mad Faith feat gets you an extra 3rd level, 2nd level and 1st level divine spell per day if you have severe depravity and it's only prerequisites are mild depravity and ability to cast 1st level divine spells.

[SLOTHRPG95]

You're still generally capable of casting 3rd level spells when not in your sanctum the same way you're still generally capable of casting 3rd level spells after you've blown all your daily spells in combat.
Just because you can't cast them right now doesn't mean you lose the PrC any more than using all your daily spells will.

If you're going to make that kind of passive aggressive ruling you should just be upfront about it and ban early entry.

Not sure I agree that those are at all the same. Also that aside, I fail to see how this would be a passive-aggressive ruling. Sure if one of your players specifically asked about this sort of early entry strategy you should be upfront about it, but that's on the player to bring it up. It's not up to the DM to pre-empt any possible shenanigans on the part of the players. Not saying those shenanigans aren't fun, by the way. And far be it for me to tell you how to play. Just saying that that's something that needs to be brought up by the player beforehand and agreed upon with the DM, and not just done under the assumption of "oh if it wasn't okay then the DM would've explicitly said so." It's not as clear-cut as, say, rolling up a Monk only to find out in your DM's campaign Monks don't exist. That'd be a situation where the onus lies firmly on the DM, since Monks are a standard core class and the universal assumption is that the core races, classes, feats, etc. are available unless explicitly stated otherwise before the first session.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Not sure I agree that those are at all the same. Also that aside, I fail to see how this would be a passive-aggressive ruling. Sure if one of your players specifically asked about this sort of early entry strategy you should be upfront about it, but that's on the player to bring it up. It's not up to the DM to pre-empt any possible shenanigans on the part of the players. Not saying those shenanigans aren't fun, by the way. And far be it for me to tell you how to play. Just saying that that's something that needs to be brought up by the player beforehand and agreed upon with the DM, and not just done under the assumption of "oh if it wasn't okay then the DM would've explicitly said so." It's not as clear-cut as, say, rolling up a Monk only to find out in your DM's campaign Monks don't exist. That'd be a situation where the onus lies firmly on the DM, since Monks are a standard core class and the universal assumption is that the core races, classes, feats, etc. are available unless explicitly stated otherwise before the first session.

I don't know about your group, but mine generally discusses characters with the DM before the campaign starts.
Specifically to clear up rules questions like that, establish the general powerlevel and get on the same page about what kind of game it's gonna be. So the "who brings it up" problem doesn't happen.
I've never played or DMed a game where the players just showed up with a character sheet the DM hadn't looked over and approved before.

Even in case a group doesn't do that you're the DM. If you don't want early entry cheese and someone shows up with it tell them to their face to change it.
But basically saying "yeah, you can use that early entry cheese, but i'm going to make it completely useless to you because i don't like it"?
You don't make that kind of ruling by chance, it's intended to screw the player over without you having to say no. That's passive-aggressive.

Either allow it or don't, but if you're doing the former don't go punishing your players for taking it because you really wanted the latter but didn't have the guts to say so.

[MrSandman]

Even in case a group doesn't do that you're the DM. If you don't want early entry cheese and someone shows up with it tell them to their face to change it.
But basically saying "yeah, you can use that early entry cheese, but i'm going to make it completely useless to you because i don't like it"?
You don't make that kind of ruling by chance, it's intended to screw the player over without you having to say no. That's passive-aggressive.

Either allow it or don't, but if you're doing the former don't go punishing your players for taking it because you really wanted the latter but didn't have the guts to say so.

You're just assuming that is a non-spoken, designed to screw players ruling. The guy/girl/person only said that you'd loose it out of the sanctum, never that it wouldn't be discussed or made known to the player beforehand.

[liquidformat]

I don't know about your group, but mine generally discusses characters with the DM before the campaign starts.
Specifically to clear up rules questions like that, establish the general powerlevel and get on the same page about what kind of game it's gonna be. So the "who brings it up" problem doesn't happen.
I've never played or DMed a game where the players just showed up with a character sheet the DM hadn't looked over and approved before.

Even in case a group doesn't do that you're the DM. If you don't want early entry cheese and someone shows up with it tell them to their face to change it.
But basically saying "yeah, you can use that early entry cheese, but i'm going to make it completely useless to you because i don't like it"?
You don't make that kind of ruling by chance, it's intended to screw the player over without you having to say no. That's passive-aggressive.

Either allow it or don't, but if you're doing the former don't go punishing your players for taking it because you really wanted the latter but didn't have the guts to say so.

The "sure but you loose your prc when you leave your sanctum" argument seems like the one that you throw out when someone didn't take the hard no. Though generally if you are having those types of issues there is more wrong with the group than rules interpretation...

[sleepyphoenixx]

You're just assuming that is a non-spoken, designed to screw players ruling. The guy/girl/person only said that you'd loose it out of the sanctum, never that it wouldn't be discussed or made known to the player beforehand.
I'm assuming nothing of the sort. Of course it's made known to the players. As i've said in my post, the point is that that kind of ruling doesn't happen by accident.
It's deliberately taking the single most useless interpretation possible to effectively ban something without having to tell your player you're banning it.

It's the same thing as the DM who constantly fiats the wizard to lose his spellbook to "address caster balance" (read: because he doesn't like casters) or gives the paladin lose/lose situations where he'll fall either way (because he doesn't like paladins) but can't/won't ban them for whatever reasons.
So instead they're made as unpalatable as possible to the player without coming right out and saying "i don't want you to play this".


The "sure but you loose your prc when you leave your sanctum" argument seems like the one that you throw out when someone didn't take the hard no. Though generally if you are having those types of issues there is more wrong with the group than rules interpretation...
Yeah, "not taking the hard no" is a big indicator for a problem player. I'm generally open to compromise as a DM, but if i still decide not to allow it that's that (and arguments happen outside of normal game time).
Thankfully i've not had to deal with one of those for a long time.

[MrSandman]

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. Of course it's made known to the players. As i've said in my post, the point is that that kind of ruling doesn't happen by accident.
It's deliberately taking the single most useless interpretation possible to effectively ban something without having to tell your player you're banning it.

It's the same thing as the DM who constantly fiats the wizard to lose his spellbook to "address caster balance" (read: because he doesn't like casters) or gives the paladin lose/lose situations where he'll fall either way (because he doesn't like paladins) but can't/won't ban them for whatever reasons.
So instead they're made as unpalatable as possible to the player without coming right out and saying "i don't want you to play this".

Or maybe it's simply stating the position "I think that RAW is this" in a theoretical discussion in a forum without intending to, as you say, ban something without saying that you're banning it?

I just thought I'd throw the thought, since this is a theoretical discussion in a forum about what rules will or won't allow.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I don't know about your group, but mine generally discusses characters with the DM before the campaign starts.
Specifically to clear up rules questions like that, establish the general powerlevel and get on the same page about what kind of game it's gonna be. So the "who brings it up" problem doesn't happen.
I've never played or DMed a game where the players just showed up with a character sheet the DM hadn't looked over and approved before.

Even in case a group doesn't do that you're the DM. If you don't want early entry cheese and someone shows up with it tell them to their face to change it.
But basically saying "yeah, you can use that early entry cheese, but i'm going to make it completely useless to you because i don't like it"?
You don't make that kind of ruling by chance, it's intended to screw the player over without you having to say no. That's passive-aggressive.

Either allow it or don't, but if you're doing the former don't go punishing your players for taking it because you really wanted the latter but didn't have the guts to say so.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought when you were talking about a "passive-aggressive ruling" you were merely referring to disallowing such methods without as you viewed it sufficient prior notice. It now seems you were instead referring to the idea of allowing it but then severely gimping it on the fly without warning, which is another matter entirely. Yeah that's much more similar to the DM trying to screw with your Wizard for "balance" by targeting their spellbook every other session, and that's not good DMing (IMO). As for what communication happens between me and my players (or me and my DM if I'm sitting in the player chair this campaign), it really depends. I/the DM will generally provide anything they view notable (e.g. Monks being banned for setting flavor), but... other than that a lot of trust is generally put in the players. Most of the people I play with know what they're doing and I trust them to be reasonable, and when one of them is DMing they trust me to be so too. And the ones who are new and don't know what they're doing? They're not the ones who would be able to figure out early entry cheese.

[Sleven]

I find discussions like this hilarious. I won’t even sit at a table that doesn’t allow early entry for featureless classes like sorcerer unless I know the DM.

I play to have fun and take part in a story, not deal with punitive game balance decisions. Someone playing Sorcerer or Warmage 1 / Rainbow Servant X isn’t going to ruin anyone’s game. Someone who isn’t invested in the story, characters, or campaign will; because they’ll ignore things like narrative and characterization in favor of ridiculous power plays. In my experience, good DMs know the difference.

[Crichton]

I find discussions like this hilarious. I won’t even sit at a table that doesn’t allow early entry for featureless classes like sorcerer unless I know the DM.

I play to have fun and take part in a story, not deal with punitive game balance decisions. Someone playing Sorcerer or Warmage 1 / Rainbow Servant X isn’t going to ruin anyone’s game. Someone who isn’t invested in the story, characters, or campaign will; because they’ll ignore things like narrative and characterization in favor of ridiculous power plays. In my experience, good DMs know the difference.

THIS! Yes, this! I have these feels in so many threads recently, but don't trust myself to respond without snark. Thank you!

[liquidformat]

Or maybe it's simply stating the position "I think that RAW is this" in a theoretical discussion in a forum without intending to, as you say, ban something without saying that you're banning it?

I just thought I'd throw the thought, since this is a theoretical discussion in a forum about what rules will or won't allow.

So how would you propose this would function? It seems extremely dysfunctional and strange to try and logically follow as a rule.

Let's first look at Sanctum Spell, and the statement "Once you leave your sanctum, you lose the prestige class."

- What does this even mean, are you saying if you ever leave the sanctum you loose the prc and can never take levels in it again and you now have dead levels?
- Am I now dropped back down to level 1 loosing all my previous prc levels?
- Does it only take effect if I leave before I am capable of casting level 3 spells without the spell, or is it if I leave period?
- In the case of using an item it is an outside source of power that is very capable of being lost stolen or destroyed, how does that compare to a feat and leaving a location that I can utilize said feat? By leaving my sanctum I haven't lost anything at best I am just unable to cast 3rd level spells for a
period of time. Which similarly happens when I use all my spells for the day. Do I similarly loose my prc that I otherwise qualify for if I have used all my spells for the day?

Looking on at earth spell, how would this function based on this type of ruling?
- If I ever jump or am tackled or step on a wood floor, or so on or so forth, do I loose my prc?
- Do I gain it back when I am back on the ground?
- Is it only until I am capable of casting level 3 spells without earth spell or forever?

Such a ruling doesn't stand up to RAW nor RAI for the simple fact that it creates such crazy dysfunction that isn't covered anywhere in the rules nor is there anything else that functions similarly. If I loose a piece of equipment that gave me a feat to qualify for another feat I have something physically missing. If I happen to jump off the ground for a moment what has actually changed? Giving a hard no to the cheese is one thing, trying to house rule some wacky nonfunctional rule that requires 20 other nonfunctional rules to go along with it is just being rude and causing more work and headaches for everyone involved. So no not a constructive or useful argument theoretical or otherwise.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I find discussions like this hilarious. I won’t even sit at a table that doesn’t allow early entry for featureless classes like sorcerer unless I know the DM.

I play to have fun and take part in a story, not deal with punitive game balance decisions. Someone playing Sorcerer or Warmage 1 / Rainbow Servant X isn’t going to ruin anyone’s game. Someone who isn’t invested in the story, characters, or campaign will; because they’ll ignore things like narrative and characterization in favor of ridiculous power plays. In my experience, good DMs know the difference.

Hey, if that's how you like to play then that's your style, and that's fine. Personally, I don't see how such a ruling is punitive, it's just keeping closer to the original idea that prestige classes are something special that happen later on in your adventuring career (if at all), not something that happens the first time you level up. But if you find the Sorcerer to be a bland class to play (but still want to play a primary CHA-based caster) then what's stopping you from picking a different one like the Warmage or Shugenja, or even something more feature-heavy (if not as powerful) like the Binder or heck even the Bard? I mean sure, early entry into Rainbow Servant isn't going to break your game's power curve, you're sacking four whole levels of casting. But that doesn't mean that it fits well with the world narrative to access it so early. Of course, every campaign is different. But there are plenty of non-punitive reasons to not want early entry in your campaign as a DM.

[flappeercraft]

Hey, if that's how you like to play then that's your style, and that's fine. Personally, I don't see how such a ruling is punitive, it's just keeping closer to the original idea that prestige classes are something special that happen later on in your adventuring career (if at all), not something that happens the first time you level up. But if you find the Sorcerer to be a bland class to play (but still want to play a primary CHA-based caster) then what's stopping you from picking a different one like the Warmage or Shugenja, or even something more feature-heavy (if not as powerful) like the Binder or heck even the Bard? I mean sure, early entry into Rainbow Servant isn't going to break your game's power curve, you're sacking four whole levels of casting. But that doesn't mean that it fits well with the world narrative to access it so early. Of course, every campaign is different. But there are plenty of non-punitive reasons to not want early entry in your campaign as a DM.

What's stopping him is that he wants to play Sorcerer not a Warmage, Shugenja, Binder or Bard. I'm honestly on the same stance. After all they are all pretty different beginning with spell list, spell progression, MAD and ACF's among others.

[Vertharrad]

Your not wanting to play those classes...your wanting to play a Rainbow Servant, or theurge, etc. Otherwise you'd not be pulling shenanigans. If s/he wants to play a sorcerer than do it. Nothing I know of except maybe certain campaign worlds would disallow you from doing so.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought when you were talking about a "passive-aggressive ruling" you were merely referring to disallowing such methods without as you viewed it sufficient prior notice. It now seems you were instead referring to the idea of allowing it but then severely gimping it on the fly without warning, which is another matter entirely.
Yeah, that's my problem with it. I don't mind a DM banning things unless they get really ridiculous about it (or ban ToB, that's one of my pet peeves), but i really dislike that kind of "i don't want this but won't say it outright" ruling.


As for what communication happens between me and my players (or me and my DM if I'm sitting in the player chair this campaign), it really depends. I/the DM will generally provide anything they view notable (e.g. Monks being banned for setting flavor), but... other than that a lot of trust is generally put in the players. Most of the people I play with know what they're doing and I trust them to be reasonable, and when one of them is DMing they trust me to be so too. And the ones who are new and don't know what they're doing? They're not the ones who would be able to figure out early entry cheese.
It's not really about trust. There's just so many rules that can be interpreted in different ways and varying powerlevels that talking to each other is pretty much a necessity to get a good game running.
What's reasonable with one DM/group might be a gamebreaker for another. Or turn you into the party deadweight for a third.
Even different campaigns from the same DM can have wildly varying power levels. I know mine do. And someone bringing a wizard to the one that has a fighter, rogue, warmage & healer party would be a problem.

I've found it avoids a lot of problems during actual gametime if the DM and players are on the same page about what characters can do before the game starts and what general powerlevel the DM expects.


I find discussions like this hilarious. I won’t even sit at a table that doesn’t allow early entry for featureless classes like sorcerer unless I know the DM.

I play to have fun and take part in a story, not deal with punitive game balance decisions. Someone playing Sorcerer or Warmage 1 / Rainbow Servant X isn’t going to ruin anyone’s game. Someone who isn’t invested in the story, characters, or campaign will; because they’ll ignore things like narrative and characterization in favor of ridiculous power plays. In my experience, good DMs know the difference.

That Rainbow Warsnake might actually break some games, depending on the power level. Spontaneous access to the entire cleric list is a pretty powerful thing.
It's especially problematic because it's such a big jump from "Warmage with a few mediocre domains" from 1-10 and then "spontaneously cast from the full cleric list" at 11. That's a massive jump in power and versatility. It's less of a problem on a sorcerer because they still have their spells known limit.

On the other hand Rainbow Servant gets you essentially nothing of value until level 10, so if that's a problem disallowing early entry will only delay the problem, not fix it.
Might as well ban it (or the Warmage/RS combo in particular) outright in that case.

That aside not allowing early entry isn't a dealbreaker for me, though i wouldn't play a theurge without it unless the game is low power.
It's just generally an indicator that the DM isn't that good at balance, since plenty of single progression PrCs are more powerful than an early entry theurge.

[MrSandman]

So how would you propose this would function? It seems extremely dysfunctional and strange to try and logically follow as a rule.


I'm not saying that this is my understanding of the rules. My point is that it requires a fair bit of unwarranted assumption to understand from what edathompson2 said that it is a passive-aggressive ruling made with the deliberate intention to effectively ban something without saying that you are banning it.

Also, you could argue that RAW is absurd and troublesome because Sanctum and Earth Spell were never intended to qualify your to enter a PrC. So you're getting into RAW problems because you're not using RAI. Again, not that this is my position.

[SLOTHRPG95]

What's stopping him is that he wants to play Sorcerer not a Warmage, Shugenja, Binder or Bard. I'm honestly on the same stance. After all they are all pretty different beginning with spell list, spell progression, MAD and ACF's among others.


Your not wanting to play those classes...your wanting to play a Rainbow Servant, or theurge, etc. Otherwise you'd not be pulling shenanigans. If s/he wants to play a sorcerer than do it. Nothing I know of except maybe certain campaign worlds would disallow you from doing so.

Yes lack of additional features of the Sorcerer was specifically suggested. And no another class isn't going to be identical, but as said above if one really wishes to play a Sorcerer one need only play one. A Rainbow Servant is really not at all the same feel as a single-classed Sorcerer.

[Sleven]

Spontaneous access to the entire cleric list is a pretty powerful thing.
It's especially problematic because it's such a big jump from "Warmage with a few mediocre domains" from 1-10 and then "spontaneously cast from the full cleric list" at 11.

Yes. I was aware of the difference when I made my post. My intent was to highlight the entire range of the class’ use to show the extent to which I stand behind my overall point.


Your not wanting to play those classes...your wanting to play a Rainbow Servant, or theurge, etc. Otherwise you'd not be pulling shenanigans. If s/he wants to play a sorcerer than do it. Nothing I know of except maybe certain campaign worlds would disallow you from doing so.

You don’t know any of that, because you never asked me.


Yes lack of additional features of the Sorcerer was specifically suggested. And no another class isn't going to be identical, but as said above if one really wishes to play a Sorcerer one need only play one. A Rainbow Servant is really not at all the same feel as a single-classed Sorcerer.

You’re right, it’s a better feeling, it’s sorcerer+. Sorcerer with class features to compliment a character background. Sorcerous power from a celestial, coutl-based origin. It has something tangible to it when you see its rainbow wings, or recognize its mastery over unique and different magicks. Maybe we can make-believe some of these things, but is this not a lot more fun and rewarding for the player? Rather than having nothing to show for all the effort they put into creating a character that feels like it has a connection to the fantasy world you’ll be sharing over the next few weeks, months, or even years?

[sleepyphoenixx]

You’re right, it’s a better feeling, it’s sorcerer+. Sorcerer with class features to compliment a character background. Sorcerous power from a celestial, coutl-based origin. It has something tangible to it when you see its rainbow wings, or recognize its mastery over unique and different magicks. Maybe we can make-believe some of these things, but is this not a lot more fun and rewarding for the player? Rather than having nothing to show for all the effort they put into creating a character that feels like it has a connection to the fantasy world you’ll be sharing over the next few weeks, months, or even years?
Not every character needs to be a special snowflake, especially not from level 1. Sometimes you're just a guy who does magic.
There's also plenty of feats and ACFs that offer that kind of flavor.

I'm hardly against early entry in principle - more the opposite, really. But i acknowledge it's not suitable or desirable for all tables. And certainly not necessary to enjoy the game.