Viability of Elf Generalist Wizard + Domain Wizard "Leapfrog" combo (cont. from 2016) [Archive]

Silvercrys

2019-09-07, 12:15 AM

Alright... I'm also going to say you can combine Elven Generalist Wizard and Domain Wizard, and I'm going to step-by-step Redmage125's OP from the 2016 thread to see where I end up from there.

-------------

As long as you don't choose a school specialization, you can be a Domain Wizard. That's the RAW: "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school..."

The latter bit does not read (to me) as rules text, it merely provides context for the caster level boost given to Domain Wizards on their Domain spells. A stronger argument is that later on it says that "unlike Specialist Wizards, Domain Wizards do not need to select prohibited schools", but I don't find that particularly persuasive, either, it's just clarifying that you aren't a specialist wizard and don't need to prohibit schools.

Elven Generalist Wizard says specifically that it replaces your ability to specialize in a school of magic; if you apply DW first, you simply are not allowed to choose a specialization, but EGW isn't a specialization anyway. If you apply EGW first, you can still choose to be a Domain Wizard because you aren't choosing a school to specialize in by choosing a Domain. As long as you aren't a Domain Wizard and a Specialist Wizard at the same time, you're clear.

-------------

Versatile Spellcaster doesn't actually specify that you need to expend spontaneous spell slots or that you cannot expend spell slots containing a prepared spell. You need 1 empty spell slot out of your 5 level 1 slots to continue qualifying for Versatile Spellcaster through Alacritous Cogitation, though, because if you don't have an empty spell slot, you can't spontaneously cast spells anymore.

So, since you have Versatile Spellcaster, you can technically cast 2nd level spells by expending 2 1st level spell slots. This allows you to "know" your 2nd level domain spell, and this would, naturally, work the same way as spells learned by the Wizard through a level up where they also magically appear in your spellbook. So you can certainly cast your second level Domain spell using Versatile Spellcaster; it's been in your spellbook since you began play with Versatile Spellcaster.

Even if it didn't, you could ~probably cast a Heightened spell (you already need one flaw for this build, might as well take another).

And even if you couldn't do that, you can almost definitely scribe higher level spells into your spellbook using time/money as long as you can decipher them, and spells in your spellbook are "known" by the PHB definition (or, rather, they're "learned", there is apparently some debate as to whether "learned" is the same thing as "known" in contexts like this one and for the Hathran prestige class).

-------------

On floating slots up, Domain Wizard says "a domain wizard gains one bonus spell per spell level, which must be filled with the spell from that level of the domain spell list..."

EGW says: "The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day. Unlike the specialist wizard ability, this spell may be of any school."

Under the most restrictive interpretation, both slots only care about the highest level of slot you already have. This is definitely, 100% what was intended.

But by RAW, the Domain Wizard is poorly edited and says you already had a 9th level spell all along, and it has your 9th level domain spell in it (or a metamagicked version of a lower level domain spell).

Even if you go halfway between and give a bonus slot of a level you are capable of casting, you still "climb" a spell level each day, because... On D1, you can cast a 2nd level spell so you get a bonus 2nd level spell slot/spell prepared from both ACFs. On D2, you can use those level 2 spells to cast your level 3 Domain spell, and can cast level 3 spells which gives you level 3 slots. On D3 you get level 4 spells. Etc.

Or, rather, it would work that way except for the thing that actually breaks the cheese. Caster levels. From the SRD:

"You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level."

You don't have a high enough caster level to "choose" to cast your 2nd level spell at a high enough caster level to actually cast it, which means you actually can't cast a 2nd level spell, so you actually don't know your 2nd level domain spell, etc. etc. Precocious Apprentice is the only way to actually cast a spell at a lower caster level without a fast progression class, as far as I know, and it limits you to a 2nd level spell.

Early entry tricks using Versatile Spellcaster generally require Practiced Spellcaster or some other kind of CL shenanigans to get a high enough caster level for this reason. Favored Soul 1/Sorcerer 4/Mystic Theruge 10 can arguably use Versatile Spellcaster, Heighten Spell, and Practiced Spellcaster (Favored Soul) to qualify for MT because PS gives you a CL of 5 for Favored Soul, allowing you to cast a 2nd level Favored Soul spell at CL 4 or 5.

Buuut I'm pretty sure that's the only thing stopping the trick.

Elves

2019-09-07, 12:43 AM

Because you don't get a slot when you use Versatile Spellcaster to up your spells. Otherwise Fixed List Casters would get all of their's when they did this trick.

One slot is coming from EGW. The other slot is coming from DW. VS doesn't have to grant a slot.

With caster level 4th you can do this even more easily with the Extra Slot feat.

Re: Silvercrys.

You can't apply EGW before Domain Wizard because variant classes aren't ACFs but rather are their own base classes.

But by RAW, the Domain Wizard is poorly edited and says you already had a 9th level spell all along, and it has your 9th level domain spell in it.

Well, it "must be filled" with that spell, so the slot is there all along but not pre-prepared.

Your caster level argument could be right but also implies that Versatile Spellcaster is useless in the absence of CL boosters.

Blackhawk748

2019-09-07, 12:53 AM

Your caster level argument could be right but also implies that Versatile Spellcaster is useless in the absence of CL boosters.

Useless for doing weird things like this, not for what it was intended for, namely using two lower slots to get a higher one that you already have.

Elves

2019-09-07, 01:11 AM

Fair cop. Might even be good design. I'll check what CL boosters are available at low levels.

DarkSoul

2019-09-07, 08:44 AM

One slot is coming from EGW. The other slot is coming from DW. VS doesn't have to grant a slot.You're not getting extra slots, because you can't already cast spells of the level DW or EGW try to grant the slots for. The number of 2nd-level spell slots a 1st-level wizard has is -- (null). Not 0. (-- + 2) does not equal 2. Read the rest of the original thread if you still think it works; this isn't a discussion I'm willing to have again.

Mato

2019-09-07, 09:03 AM

Why not?Precarious apprentice does not give you the ability to cast 2nd level spells, the feat even says such & the FAQ agrees. Wizards cannot take versatile spellcaster and spontaneous divinations doesn't make them a spontaneous spellcaster according to the RC.

There also isn't any proof VS's ability to combine even lets you cast a higher level spell in the purposed context. Like the examples is combining two 2nds for a 3rd you already know or 1sts for a silent 1st, that doesn't prove it you don't need to know a 2nd & don't need access to 2nds & don't have to have the CL for 2nds & can ignore all the other related rules required to cast 2nds.

And yes, there are limits on alternative class features & class substitution levels. You can't trade something away twice. This thing has always been impossible, but people want the holy grail of accelerated casting and will lie, cheat, and BS their way in desperation to achieve it. It's amazing how few people have heard of how manipulate form in that regard...

Elves

2019-09-07, 09:29 AM

You're not getting extra slots, because you can't already cast spells of the level DW or EGW try to grant the slots for. The number of 2nd-level spell slots a 1st-level wizard has is -- (null). Not 0. (-- + 2) does not equal 2. Read the rest of the original thread if you still think it works; this isn't a discussion I'm willing to have again.

If you're referring to bonus slots from a high ability score, those aren't required. Without them you still end up after 8 days with normal slots at 1st, 1 domain slot from 2nd through 8th, and 1 domain slot plus 1 EGW slot at 9th.

CL does end up nixing this.

Precarious apprentice does not give you the ability to cast 2nd level spells, the feat even says such & the FAQ agrees. Wizards cannot take versatile spellcaster.

Spontaneous casting is through Alacritous Cogitation. Precocious apprentice doesn't feature. VS doesn't have a clause like that; it only specifies "knows".

And yes, there are limits on alternative class features & class substitution levels. You can't trade something away twice.

Domain Wizard explicitly doesn't trade away the option to specialize, nor counts as specializing. That's not what the question of whether you can combine them is about.

DarkSoul

2019-09-07, 09:32 AM

If you're referring to bonus slots from a high ability score, those aren't required. Without them you still end up after 8 days with normal slots at 1st, 1 domain slot from 2nd through 8th, and 1 domain slot plus 1 EGW slot at 9th.I'm not. I'm referring to how spell slots work, what are available at a given level, and the fact that you're not saying anything that wasn't discussed and refuted three years ago.

Silvercrys

2019-09-07, 09:55 AM

Precarious apprentice does not give you the ability to cast 2nd level spells, the feat even says such & the FAQ agrees. Wizards cannot take versatile spellcaster and spontaneous divinations doesn't make them a spontaneous spellcaster according to the RC.I don't agree with this reading of Precocious Apprentice. It doesn't explicitly say you aren't able to cast 2nd level spells, it just says that when you become able to cast second level spells (normally) the slot changes into a regular bonus slot.

There also isn't any proof VS's ability to combine even lets you cast a higher level spell in the purposed context. Like the examples is combining two 2nds for a 3rd you already know or 1sts for a silent 1st, that doesn't prove it you don't need to know a 2nd & don't need access to 2nds & don't have to have the CL for 2nds & can ignore all the other related rules required to cast 2nds.If you can expend two first level spell slots to cast a silent 1st level spell at level 1, you can cast 2nd level spells early with Versatile Spellcaster. Since you can cast 2nd level spells, Domain Wizard says you know your 2nd level Domain spell and you can cast it with Versatile Spellcaster.

And yes, there are limits on alternative class features & class substitution levels. You can't trade something away twice. This thing has always been impossible, but people want the holy grail of accelerated casting and will lie, cheat, and BS their way in desperation to achieve it. It's amazing how few people have heard of how manipulate form in that regard...I agree that this doesn't give you 9s at level 1, but because of the fact that you don't have the caster level to cast 2nd level spells. Not with your characterization of Domain Wizard and EGW combining. I'm also not ~quite sure it's as cheesy as Manipulate Form tricks, partly because Manipulate Form could grant you a cast level of 100 at level 1 if you wanted it to.

Elves

2019-09-07, 10:14 AM

I'm not. I'm referring to how spell slots work, what are available at a given level, and the fact that you're not saying anything that wasn't discussed and refuted three years ago.

The refutation isn't about spell slots in the first place.

As noted in the OG thread, the problem with the PHB p171 rule is that it's inconsistently applied and makes various things nonfunctional. Wild Mage simply doesn't function under this ruling (you can't roll to increase the CL of a spell you can't cast in the first place), nor does Unseen Seer. Chameleon casts spells as a wizard yet gets 2nd level spells at CL 2, meaning they can't use them.

Silvercrys

2019-09-07, 10:23 AM

Chameleon doesn't break anymore than Ur-Priest does; they have an exception because they are specifically granted the ability to cast 2nd level spells at a lower cast level.

I'm not as familiar with Wild Mage, but it isn't "broken" (i.e. non-functional) with this ruling. If your surge isn't enough to make your caster level high enough to cast the spell, the spell fizzles per the Spell Failure section. It just makes the class even worse than it already was.

Doctor Awkward

2019-09-07, 11:23 AM

A substitution level is a level of a given class that you take
instead of the level described for the standard class. Selecting
a substitution level is not the same as multiclassing—you
remain within the class for which the substitution level
is taken. The class features of the substitution level simply
replace those of the standard level.

Based on that definition, a racial substitution level is, for other rules considerations, essentially no different than taking a level in the standard class. You mere alter the class features at the respective level as indicated-- either replacing them, adding them, or subtracting them.

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

School specialization is class feature of wizards, altering the way in which they interact with specific schools of magic. This feature of elf wizard replaces that with a different class feature that changes how school specialization works. The last line states that this is a replacement of school specialization. There are two possible interpretations of this: either you no longer have the "school specialization" class feature, or the class feature Generalist Wizardy is school specialization for all further considerations.

This section presents sixteen variant versions of the
character classes in the Player’s Handbook, along with
several additional variants created by swapping one or
more class features for features of other classes.
Each fully detailed variant has entries for one or
more of the following topics. If an entry does not
appear, use the material for the class as presented in
the Player’s Handbook.
...
Class Features: Changes, additions, or subtractions to the
class’s special features, including spellcasting.

Like racial substitution levels, these variant classes also alter the standard classes by changing how the base mechanics work. Additionally, they are no different than taking levels in standard classes for all other rules considerations.

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

Just like the elf wizard racial substitution level, this variant also changes how the school specialization feature of the standard Player's Handbook wizard class functions. This time, instead of being able to specialize in a school you choose a domain to cast those spells at an increase in power. You explicitly cannot be both a specialist wizard and a domain wizard.

When considering all relevant rules, the features of these two variants are incompatible with one another. If you have given up your ability to specialize in a school of magic through elf wizard in favor of generalist magic, you cannot also give it up through domain wizard. Or put in another way you must give up your new ability of generalist wizardry (which has replaced school specialization for other rules purposes) in order to become a domain wizard. Conversely if you choose to become a domain wizard, you give up your ability to generalize in all schools of magic granted by elf wizard which has replaced your normal ability to specialize in a single school. Or you lack the "school specialization" class feature that you are required to give up in order to be a domain wizard, and you cannot give up something that you do not have in the first place.

The most straightforward common sense ruling is that you cannot be both an Elf Generalist Wizard and a Domain Wizard, as they are two variants that are both altering the same base class feature.

DarkSoul

2019-09-07, 11:37 AM

The refutation isn't about spell slots in the first place.

As noted in the OG thread, the problem with the PHB p171 rule is that it's inconsistently applied and makes various things nonfunctional. Wild Mage simply doesn't function under this ruling (you can't roll to increase the CL of a spell you can't cast in the first place), nor does Unseen Seer. Chameleon casts spells as a wizard yet gets 2nd level spells at CL 2, meaning they can't use them.It's not inconsistently applied. You're just not understanding that the minimum caster level of a spell is dependent on who's casting it.

The minimum caster level for a 2nd-level spell when cast by a Chameleon is 2.
The minimum caster level for a Wild Mage's spells is (Non-Wild Mage CL + Wild Mage Class levels) -2.
The minimum caster level for a 9th-level spell from an Ur-Priest is 9 + half the caster levels in other non-cleric casting classes. It's entirely possible for an Ur-Priest to have a minimum caster level of 9 for a 9th-level spell.

There's no problem with the rules. And again, all this is discussed in the original thread.

Elven Generalist + Domain Wizard? Sure, if you want. There's nothing saying you can't. Level 9 spells on a level 1 wizard as a result of those two features + some feats? Hell no.

Lorddenorstrus

2019-09-08, 06:34 PM

It's not inconsistently applied. You're just not understanding that the minimum caster level of a spell is dependent on who's casting it.

The minimum caster level for a 2nd-level spell when cast by a Chameleon is 2.
The minimum caster level for a Wild Mage's spells is (Non-Wild Mage CL + Wild Mage Class levels) -2.
The minimum caster level for a 9th-level spell from an Ur-Priest is 9 + half the caster levels in other non-cleric casting classes. It's entirely possible for an Ur-Priest to have a minimum caster level of 9 for a 9th-level spell.

There's no problem with the rules. And again, all this is discussed in the original thread.

Elven Generalist + Domain Wizard? Sure, if you want. There's nothing saying you can't. Level 9 spells on a level 1 wizard as a result of those two features + some feats? Hell no.

See, that's RAI vs RAW in a nutshell. Should it work, vs does it work by reading it? I mean really, the same thought exercise can be applied to Pun pun. This conceptionally is the same debate. It's the same result, it's just one we would never in our sane minds allow in a game. Does this combo work? Technically yes, the only hard part is caster level boosting which considering how cheap Hiring costs are for spells.... hire Bards etc boost CL. Make sure Domain is going to give Gate at 9th lvl... Start with efreeti's.. next your chain gating solars and have infinite wishes... *shrug* Still is gonna be banned in every actual table with sane power levels and any competition people want to keep reasonable.

Doctor Awkward

2019-09-09, 08:16 PM

...Does this combo work? Technically yes, the only hard part is caster level boosting...

There's no problem with the rules. And again, all this is discussed in the original thread.

Elven Generalist + Domain Wizard? Sure, if you want. There's nothing saying you can't...

Domain Wizard explicitly doesn't trade away the option to specialize, nor counts as specializing. That's not what the question of whether you can combine them is about.

I'm... fairly flabbergasted at how anyone thinks RAW is so thoroughly settled in favor of this combination.

Domain Wizard and Elf Wizard are clearly two variants of the same base class that are both attempting to modify the same class feature. They are quite incompatible with one another on the same character.

Domain Wizard explicitly does trade away your ability to specialize. It says so right in the variant description: "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

Generalist wizardry explicitly replaces your ability to specialize in a school of magic. You either no longer have that ability to trade away to become a domain wizard, or generalist wizardry counts as specializing for all other rules purposes, in which case you must then give that up to become a domain wizard.

Silvercrys

2019-09-09, 09:22 PM

I'm... fairly flabbergasted at how anyone thinks RAW is so thoroughly settled in favor of this combination.

Domain Wizard and Elf Wizard are clearly two variants of the same base class that are both attempting to modify the same class feature. They are quite incompatible with one another on the same character.

Domain Wizard explicitly does trade away your ability to specialize. It says so right in the variant description: "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

Generalist wizardry explicitly replaces your ability to specialize in a school of magic. You either no longer have that ability to trade away to become a domain wizard, or generalist wizardry counts as specializing for all other rules purposes, in which case you must then give that up to become a domain wizard.Technically, none of that bit is rules text, it's just fluff. Like the bit of the Great Cleave feat where it says "You can wield a melee weapon with such power that you can strike multiple times when you fell your foes." That isn't rules text, it's a description.

The rules text is the bit where it says "A Domain Wizard has all the standard Wizard class features except as noted below, and then it never actually says you trade specialization for the domain or that the domain is a form of specialization or anything like that. What it does say is that being a Domain Wizard does not require you to prohibit schools, and technically as long as you aren't a specialist wizard you aren't in violation of the fluff, either. Since EGW isn't a specialist wizard, it probably works RAW.

RAI? Yeah, you're probably right, but this was early days, relatively, in the Alternate Class Features game and editing and rules around them were less strict than they are in, say, Pathfinder.

DarkSoul

2019-09-09, 09:32 PM

I'm... fairly flabbergasted at how anyone thinks RAW is so thoroughly settled in favor of this combination.

Domain Wizard and Elf Wizard are clearly two variants of the same base class that are both attempting to modify the same class feature. They are quite incompatible with one another on the same character.

Domain Wizard explicitly does trade away your ability to specialize. It says so right in the variant description: "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

Generalist wizardry explicitly replaces your ability to specialize in a school of magic. You either no longer have that ability to trade away to become a domain wizard, or generalist wizardry counts as specializing for all other rules purposes, in which case you must then give that up to become a domain wizard.Domain Wizards aren't specializing in a school of magic, and elf generalist explicitly states that you have to give up your ability to specialize in a school of magic. Domain wizards can do that without a second thought. If elf generalist said "This substitution feature replaces a wizard's ability to be a specialist wizard." I would agree with you completely. By the letter of the rules, though definitely not the spirit, elf generalist and domain wizard aren't mutually exclusive.

That being said (again, because I said all this in that original thread, too), I wouldn't allow a Domain Wizard to be an elf generalist either, to say nothing of the "leapfrog" absurdity.

Elves

2019-09-09, 09:50 PM

It's not like it's unbalancing anyway. 1 no-choice slot per level + one highest level slot + no schools barred becomes more competitive with normal specialization, though probably still somewhat worse after the low levels.

Doctor Awkward

2019-09-09, 09:52 PM

Technically, none of that bit is rules text, it's just fluff. Like the bit of the Great Cleave feat where it says "You can wield a melee weapon with such power that you can strike multiple times when you fell your foes." That isn't rules text, it's a description.

The rules text is the bit where it says "A Domain Wizard has all the standard Wizard class features except as noted below, and then it never actually says you trade specialization for the domain or that the domain is a form of specialization or anything like that. What it does say is that being a Domain Wizard does not require you to prohibit schools, and technically as long as you aren't a specialist wizard you aren't in violation of the fluff, either. Since EGW isn't a specialist wizard, it probably works RAW.

RAI? Yeah, you're probably right, but this was early days, relatively, in the Alternate Class Features game and editing and rules around them were less strict than they are in, say, Pathfinder.

Calling that fluff is pure speculation. In the usual manual of style the fluff description of abilities are in italics. If any one part of that sentence is rules text then all of it is, and claiming otherwise is sheer willful ignorance of written text that expressly contradicts the assertion that you aren't giving up anything to be a domain wizard. Both the general description of the Unearth Arcana variant classes and the introduction to the domain wizard make it abundantly clear that this is a replacement for school specialization. And furthermore, generalist wizardry, as I have repeatedly noted, is strictly a replacement for school specialization which means that for all other rules considerations it is school specialization. Which, again, is something you are not allowed to have if you are a domain wizard.

Domain Wizards aren't specializing in a school of magic, and elf generalist explicitly states that you have to give up your ability to specialize in a school of magic. Domain wizards can do that without a second thought. If elf generalist said "This substitution feature replaces a wizard's ability to be a specialist wizard." I would agree with you completely. By the letter of the rules, though definitely not the spirit, elf generalist and domain wizard aren't mutually exclusive.

That being said (again, because I said all this in that original thread, too), I wouldn't allow a Domain Wizard to be an elf generalist either, to say nothing of the "leapfrog" absurdity.

That is incorrect. Generalist wizardry explicitly states it replaces your ability to specialize in a school of magic. The idea that there is a meaningful distinction between the text "specialize in a school of magic" and "specialist wizard" is assigning a level of pedantry to the rules that does not exist. Both the text and the intent are quite clear in this regard.

Elves

2019-09-09, 09:55 PM

The idea that there is a meaningful distinction between the text "specialize in a school of magic" and "specialist wizard" is assigning a level of pedantry to the rules that does not exist.

Bluntly wrong since the text of Domain Specialist itself introduces a different kind of specialist: "specializing in a domain instead of a school of magic". I think the strongest ruling against it is still the one mentioned in OP, you don't have the ability to do something you can't do.

Sword Magess

2019-09-10, 12:11 AM

Bluntly wrong since the text of Domain Specialist itself introduces a different kind of specialist: "specializing in a domain instead of a school of magic".
I am not sure what the problem is. The domain wizard text is quite clear about this:

A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard
It says quite clearly that domain wizards are not specialist wizards.

Endarire

2019-09-10, 01:30 AM

I agree with this interpretation and have allowed it in-game as GM:

They stack by RAW. Domain Wizards can't be specialists Wizard, meaning they aren't. Elven Generalist Wizards can't be specialist Wizards, meaning they aren't.

Whether going generalist compared to, say, Abrupt Jaunt Conjurer is better is contextual. Return to thread's main point now.

Malphegor

2019-09-10, 07:34 AM

Why would anyone ever want to play an elf, when they could go changeling and have ALL of the familiars, or be a dwarf and not be an elf? :smallconfused:

Probably because changeling wizards have more prohibitited spell schools.

I would be curious if the morphic familiar also included improved familiar though while we're talking about that.

You thought you were facing a imp! BUT IT WAS I, A HIPPOGRIFF!

Vizzerdrix

2019-09-10, 08:01 AM

Probably because changeling wizards have more prohibitited spell schools.

I would be curious if the morphic familiar also included improved familiar though while we're talking about that.

You thought you were facing a imp! BUT IT WAS I, A HIPPOGRIFF!

The real question is: how does it react to taking extra familiar, or the PRC that turns them into those spell ooze things.

Also it says you have the option to specialize so you can still be a generalist.

Are we naming this hypothetical hippogriff Deo?

Doctor Awkward

2019-09-10, 09:59 AM

I am not sure what the problem is. The domain wizard text is quite clear about this:

It says quite clearly that domain wizards are not specialist wizards.

Agreed. This is reinforced further down in the variant description under "No Prohibited Schools", where it reads, "Unlike a specialist wizard, a domain wizard need not select any prohibited schools or domains. All wizard spells are available to her to learn."

A domain wizard is entirely different from a normal PHB specialist wizard, and most certainly mutually exclusive when considering the rest of the text.

RedMage125

2019-09-27, 05:03 PM

Wow, I feel kind of like a celebrity on this thread, given that it was my thread from 2016 that was linked. *Blush*

Frankly, like I stated in my OP from 2016, whether or not EGW and Domain Wizard can be combined at all is utterly tangential to why Leapfrog Wizard does not work by RAW. Even if you allow the combo, it still doesn't. More on that below, because there's one thing I need to address on this matter:

I'm... fairly flabbergasted at how anyone thinks RAW is so thoroughly settled in favor of this combination.

Domain Wizard and Elf Wizard are clearly two variants of the same base class that are both attempting to modify the same class feature. They are quite incompatible with one another on the same character.

Domain Wizard explicitly does trade away your ability to specialize. It says so right in the variant description: "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

Generalist wizardry explicitly replaces your ability to specialize in a school of magic. You either no longer have that ability to trade away to become a domain wizard, or generalist wizardry counts as specializing for all other rules purposes, in which case you must then give that up to become a domain wizard.

Technically, none of that bit is rules text, it's just fluff. Like the bit of the Great Cleave feat where it says "You can wield a melee weapon with such power that you can strike multiple times when you fell your foes." That isn't rules text, it's a description.

The rules text is the bit where it says "A Domain Wizard has all the standard Wizard class features except as noted below, and then it never actually says you trade specialization for the domain or that the domain is a form of specialization or anything like that. What it does say is that being a Domain Wizard does not require you to prohibit schools, and technically as long as you aren't a specialist wizard you aren't in violation of the fluff, either. Since EGW isn't a specialist wizard, it probably works RAW.

RAI? Yeah, you're probably right, but this was early days, relatively, in the Alternate Class Features game and editing and rules around them were less strict than they are in, say, Pathfinder.
Silvercrys, you have no authority to dismiss the sentence he bolded and underlined as "not rules text". Simple as that. OTOH I can prove that it is rules text. Because it's part of the same sentence as "A domain wizard cannot be a specialist wizard". That's Rules Text, isn't it? Of course it is. Now, these two statements are part of the same sentence, and are separated by a semicolon. Now, this book is originally written in English, yes? What does it mean, in the parlance of the English Language, when 2 otherwise complete sentences are combined and separated by a semicolon?

Answer:
A semicolon is most commonly used to link (in a single sentence) two independent clauses that are closely related in thought.When a semicolon is used to join two or more ideas (parts) in a sentence, those ideas are then given equal position or rank.
Source: Well, really I just remembered this because gramnmar, punctuation and syntax are something I am a stickler for, but I also was able to find it here (https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/semicolons/).

So when 2 clauses are separated by a semicolon, it means they are both equally important. Ergo, if "A domain wizard cannot be a specialist wizard" is Rules Text, then so is "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

Which emans that all of you defending this combination need to justify how "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school", being rules text, does not forbid this combo. Which no one in the 2016 thread was able to do.

*drops microphone*

Now that THAT is out of the way, the point is that allowing the DW+EGW combo still does not allow for the "Leapfrog Wizard".

As was pointed out, the most simple factor is the minimum required caster level for a given spell. Which, in case you are confused, is based on which class is casting it. Take a level 3 spell, for example. For a Wizard, minimum CL is 5, for a Sorcerer, it is 6, and for an Ur-Priest, it is 3. It's very simple, the argument that that section of the PHB "only applies to Fireball" is an asinine claim, because that entire paragraph says "for example", thus clearly indicating that fireball is being used as an example spell, and the rule applies more broadly.

Next up is the fact that EVEN IF you have Alarcitous Cogitation and Versatile Spellcaster (which does, in fact, allow a wizard to leave 2 spell slots "unprepared" and combine them in order to cast a spell of one level higher), your bonus spells from DW and EGW do not "float", and the ones from High INT certainly do not (that's actuallt SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the PHB general rule on minimum caster level).

Why? I'm glad you asked, my children.

Quite simply, it is because when the wizard finishes resting and preparing spells, she only has level 1 spell slots, and thus only those spell slots are refreshed. Said wizard does not have the "ability to cast 2nd level spells" until the EXACT MOMENT when 2 "unfilled" 1st level slots are spent. And, as per the general rule mentioned above, this does not allow her to cast a 2nd level spell, because her caster level is not high enough. Precocious Apprentice is a specific exception to this rule. Also, after that exact moment of spending 2 level 1 slots passes, the wizard no longer has the ability to cast 2nd level spells.

But most importantly, the EGW "bonus slot" cannot "float". Namely because it is not (as so many people often use in shorthand) "an extra slot of the highest level spell you can cast". EGW, more correctly, says that you may prepare one extra spell per day of the highest level you can cast. And the spell slots used for AC+VS must be left "unfilled" in order for that combo to work. And so the EGW extra spell can not "float". Nothing in the RAW says it does.

Remember everyone, claiming that "there's no rule saying I can't, therefore RAW says I can" is Munchkin Fallacy. It's flat-out untrue.

Endarire

2019-09-29, 12:53 AM

RedMage125: I think you just solved the thread. Thankee!

Elves

2019-09-29, 10:22 AM

Silvercrys, you have no authority to dismiss the sentence he bolded and underlined as "not rules text". Simple as that. OTOH I can prove that it is rules text. Because it's part of the same sentence as "A domain wizard cannot be a specialist wizard". That's Rules Text, isn't it? Of course it is. Now, these two statements are part of the same sentence, and are separated by a semicolon. Now, this book is originally written in English, yes? What does it mean, in the parlance of the English Language, when 2 otherwise complete sentences are combined and separated by a semicolon?[snip]

This doesn't reduce the ambiguity. If you want to look at the two sides of that semicolon clearly, they're actually contradictory, since the first clause says DW can't be a specialist and the second seems to posit DW as an alternate form of specialist.

Now that THAT is out of the way, the point is that allowing the DW+EGW combo still does not allow for the "Leapfrog Wizard".

As was pointed out, the most simple factor is the minimum required caster level for a given spell.

Yes, this was the consensus.

Versatile Spellcaster (which does, in fact, allow a wizard to leave 2 spell slots "unprepared" and combine them in order to cast a spell of one level higher)

My emphasis. You were repeating this error in the original thread as well. The wizard does not have to leave the slots unprepared. A prepared spell is also a spell slot, it's simply a spell slot with a spell prepared in it.

After that exact moment of spending 2 level 1 slots passes, the wizard no longer has the ability to cast 2nd level spells.

Untrue, or the same would apply after normal spell slots get used.

And the spell slots used for AC+VS must be left "unfilled" in order for that combo to work.

No, as mentioned above they don't.

I agree that the combo as a whole doesn't work.

Silvercrys

2019-09-29, 11:03 AM

Think I agree with Elves, the prepared spell must be in a spell slot, and Versatile Spellcaster doesn't specify an empty slot.

The "slot" does float, then, but only when you prepare spells rather than instantly. You have to take the time required to prepare the new spell, at which time the Domain Wizard slot would float up to the next level too.

Or it would if the trick worked, anyway, because it doesn't unless you allow VS to exceed the caster level limit.

RedMage125

2019-09-30, 09:25 AM

RedMage125: I think you just solved the thread. Thankee!
Won the last one in 2016, too. But Thank you.

This doesn't reduce the ambiguity. If you want to look at the two sides of that semicolon clearly, they're actually contradictory, since the first clause says DW can't be a specialist and the second seems to posit DW as an alternate form of specialist.
It's a clarification that you cannot be a [Domain] Conjurer/Evoker/etc. Because DW is an alternate form of specialist, that's the whole point. So you cannot be an alternate specialist and regular specialist at the same time. That's the only reading that takes both clauses into account as rules text that is at all coherent. And like I said, no one has the authority to dismiss it as "not rules text", especially because such an unathorized dismissal is required to allow this combo.

Yes, this was the consensus.
Well, that alone makes the "Leapfrog Wizard" not work.

My emphasis. You were repeating this error in the original thread as well. The wizard does not have to leave the slots unprepared. A prepared spell is also a spell slot, it's simply a spell slot with a spell prepared in it.
But AC requires the spell slot to be left "unfilled" in order to cast spontaneously, and VS requires spontaneous casting slots to work.

So...yes, it does require them left unfilled.

Untrue, or the same would apply after normal spell slots get used.
Except that a 1st level wizard, by definition, does not have, as a class feature, "the ability to cast level 2 spells". The AC+VS combo allows a level 2 spell slot to be cast at the moment when 2 L1 slots are expended. That's what I meant.

No, as mentioned above they don't.
Then you need to re-familiarize yourself with how Alarcitous Cogitation works, as well as Versatile Spellcaster.

I agree that the combo as a whole doesn't work.
Then why argue?

Think I agree with Elves, the prepared spell must be in a spell slot, and Versatile Spellcaster doesn't specify an empty slot.

The "slot" does float, then, but only when you prepare spells rather than instantly. You have to take the time required to prepare the new spell, at which time the Domain Wizard slot would float up to the next level too.
You're missing the point of how how VS works. Using 2 L1 slots does not give you a L2 slot that you can then "prepare a spell in". That is an act of casting. You spend 2 L1 slots to cast a L2 spell. It's essentially an alternate spell slot cost, not a means of gaining higher-level "slots". So no, the slot still does not "float".

Failing to understand that is a big part of why people thought this "Leapfrog Wizard" worked for years.

Or it would if the trick worked, anyway, because it doesn't unless you allow VS to exceed the caster level limit.
Which means that the only thing one CAN do with this (and doesn't even require DW), is spend 2 L1 slots, to cast a Heightened L1 spell, which bumps the save DC up by one.

Elves

2019-09-30, 11:11 AM

and VS requires spontaneous casting slots to work.

It doesn't, which was the point of my post.

Silvercrys

2019-09-30, 07:55 PM

It depends on your reading of "spell level".

The exact text is "The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day." for EGW and "a domain wizard gains one bonus spell per spell level, which must be filled with the spell from that level of the domain spell list" for Domain Wizard.

If "spell level" means "spell level they can cast" in either case, then it works if Versatile Spellcaster also allows you to cast above your normally allowed level. You can cast second level spells when you prepare spells with two 1st level spells unexpended, so the EGW bonus spell and Domain spell both lock into 2nd level spell slots. As long as you don't cast them before you prepare spells again, you can cast a Heightened Domain Spell as a 3rd level spell, and so on and so forth.

If it means "the highest level spell they can prepare" then the slot doesn't float regardless of your reading of Versatile Spellcaster.

I understand you're taking the second reading but I don't think it's all that unambiguous.

Doctor Awkward

2019-09-30, 09:51 PM

It doesn't, which was the point of my post.

It kind of does.

Versatile Spellcasters requires you to use two slots of the same level to "cast a spell you know that is one level higher."

Wizards do not have spells that they know, because they are not spontaneous spellcasters.

The rules draw a very specific distinction between prepared and spontaneous casters in this way. You can note that the wizard class table lacks the spells known section as is found in sorcerer and bard and all other spontaneous casting classes.

You can also see this distinction in other places, such as prestige classes that advance spellcasting:

Spells per Day/Spells Known: When a new archmage level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he added the prestige class level.

Additionally, a cleric and druid's ability to give up a prepared spell in place of a cure or summon nature's ally is also not spontaneous casting. It's spontaneous conversion. The same applies to a wizard who takes the Spontaneous Divination alternate class feature.

Elves

2019-09-30, 11:01 PM

"Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells." - SRD

Doctor Awkward

2019-09-30, 11:13 PM

"Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells." - SRD

How many spells does a 1st-level wizard without a spellbook know?

Elves

2019-09-30, 11:25 PM

The quote clearly says that wizards "know" spells. A wizard needs their spellbook to prepare their spells.

Doctor Awkward

2019-09-30, 11:42 PM

The quote clearly says that wizards "know" spells. A wizard needs their spellbook to prepare their spells.

The correct answer is one: read magic. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#spellbooks)

Regardless, wizards do not qualify for Versatile Spellcaster in the first place as they do not possess the ability to spontaneously cast spells.

"Some characters can cast spells, but they don’t need spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast any spell they know using a daily allotment of spell slots. These characters are called spontaneous spellcasters." - Rules Compendium, pg. 139

If your character has only has levels in a class that prepares spells, they are automatically disqualified from being a spontaneous spellcaster.

AvatarVecna

2019-09-30, 11:44 PM

The quote clearly says that wizards "know" spells. A wizard needs their spellbook to prepare their spells.

That quote is fluff text, not mechanical. If the wizard loses their spellbook and gets a new blank spellbook, AFAICT the RAW of the situation is that they have to gain access to the spells for scribing purposes even if the spells they're trying to scribe were the "free" ones they get as part of leveling up as a wizard. In a certain sense then, wizards "knowing" how to cast their spells is less an inherent understanding of the magical forces involved, the way someone might understand scientific principles, and more the ability to follow instructions and (in-between levels) suss out enough laws of magic to write a new set of instructions that should work. It's more akin to cooking than to scientific experiments, and the recipes are too long and specific for anybody to really know them forwards and backwards unless they've put a lot of time into doing specifically that (via Spell Mastery, which lets you prepare a select number of spells you particularly like from memory without need for a spellbook).

(From that perspective, the memorization side of wizardry could be well-represented in an IRL game: a wizard player can only prepare spells that they can recite from memory, although they get a certain number of cheat-cards with the spell written on it based on their wizard level and in-game money spent acquiring more cheat-cards for the purposes of reciting spells in the morning. And then Spell Mastery represents having memorized certain spells so thoroughly that you don't even need the cheat cards. #WorstHouseruleEver :smalltongue:)

Silvercrys

2019-10-01, 12:11 AM

Elves

2019-10-01, 12:37 AM

Regardless, wizards do not qualify for Versatile Spellcaster in the first place as they do not possess the ability to spontaneously cast spells.

"Some characters can cast spells, but they don’t need spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast any spell they know using a daily allotment of spell slots. These characters are called spontaneous spellcasters." - Rules Compendium, pg. 139

If we're being pedantic enough to interpret this passage to mean a multiclass wizard/sorcerer doesn't count as a spontaneous spellcaster, then by that same pedanticism both AC and the multiclass wizard/sorcerer do qualify for VS, because VS only requires the "ability to spontaneously cast spells", not that you be a spontaneous spellcaster. And if using a more natural reading, so that a wizard/sorcerer would qualify as a spontaneous spellcaster even though some of their spells are prepared, so would a wizard with AC.

That quote is fluff text, not mechanical.

It's in a mechanical section, not a fluff section, so I don't see why you'd think so.

The most reasonable real-game implementation is probably what Silvercrys suggests, that they only know their spells so long as they have their spellbooks at hand.

DarkSoul

2019-10-01, 08:26 AM

Except Spell Mastery explicitly refers to memorizing spells you already know and not needing a spell book to prepare them anymore. That isn't fluff, it's part of the feat's benefit. You have to already know the spell to memorize it with Spell Mastery. Can you only use Spell Mastery on spells you know as a Sorcerer or Bard so you can prepare them in your Wizard slots or something? (No, that would be silly.)

The RAW seems to be that Wizards know all the spells in their spellbook plus Read Magic. If they lose their spell book, they no longer know those spells, but that's hardly the weirdest rules interaction in DnD. Saying that a Wizard knows the spells in their spell book but doesn't know them if the book is lost because spells are too complex to memorize without one isn't that much of a stretch.Wizards know all the spells they've learned. It sounds redundant but the procedure for learning a spell is written down: decipher the writing with read magic, then spend a day studying the spell and make a spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level, get a +2 bonus for a specialized school, auto fail for an opposition school). If you make the check, you learned the spell and can copy it to your spellbook. The process is automatic for the free spells at level up. Once you've copied it into your spellbook using notation you understand, you know the spell. If you master someone else's spellbook using the process in Complete Arcane, you (arguably, depending on the DM) know all those too because you treat the spellbook as your own and can automatically prepare spells from it, no spellcraft check required.

So even after losing a spellbook, if a wizard has written out a spell in a spellbook at some point, they know it. Spell mastery says they know it well enough to not need a book anymore to prepare it.

RedMage125

2019-10-01, 10:19 AM

Elves, looking at the feat again (and at the last bit of the 2016 thread, which I apparently never read the last few posts in), you appear to be correct, that VS does not require the slots to be "unfilled". It's against RAI, certainly, but RAW does not seem to prohibit it.

It kind of does.

Versatile Spellcasters requires you to use two slots of the same level to "cast a spell you know that is one level higher."

Wizards do not have spells that they know, because they are not spontaneous spellcasters.

The rules draw a very specific distinction between prepared and spontaneous casters in this way. You can note that the wizard class table lacks the spells known section as is found in sorcerer and bard and all other spontaneous casting classes.

Doctor Awkward, I appreciate that you are on my side in this matter, but in this instance, you are incorrect. A Wizard's "spells known" refers to the spells in their spellbook. Alacritous Cogitation can only be taken by wizards, and in that context, a "spell known" can only be a spell in their spellbook.

Also, Elves is right that a wizard with AC counts as "able to spontaneously cast spells". I've never disputed that, myself. The feat even says "You can leave a prepared spell slot open to spontaneously cast a spell". Hell, it even specifies that it only takes a full-round action to cast (and the spell must initially have a casting time of 1 round or less), which means you can use it to cast a Summon Monster spell (only thing I can think of with a 1 Round casting time) faster than if you had prepared it normally.

The RAW seems to be that Wizards know all the spells in their spellbook plus Read Magic.
Correct.

It's in a mechanical section, not a fluff section, so I don't see why you'd think so.
I'm glad we can agree that people don't have the authority to dismiss rules text as "fluff"

The most reasonable real-game implementation is probably what Silvercrys suggests, that they only know their spells so long as they have their spellbooks at hand.
That seems reasonable.

HOWEVER, if we're having an anal-retentive myopicly-detailed RAW discussion of what the rules say, then a wizard "knows" all the spells in her spellbook, regardless of where the spellbook is. She may not be able to prepare them if her spellbook is not at hand, but she "knows" them.

Which leads to some interesting things with regards to the wording of Domain Wizards. Because DW "know" their domain spell of each given level as soon as they gain the ability to cast it. Which indicates that it is added to their spellbook when they level, without counting against their 2 free spells known when they gain a level. The reason the "Leapfrog Wizard" reasoning is faulty is because the PHB explicitly tells us (page 171) that a wizard cannot cast L2 spells until she reaches 3rd level. So even if a DW has AC and VS, she does not "know" her L2 Domain spell, because she cannot cast L2 spells.

Now arguably, if you also have Precocious Apprentice, then you also "know" your L2 Domain spell, but PA explicitly says that only the spell chosen as the L2 spell from PA can be cast with that "extra slot" until you hit level 3 of wizard. HOWEVER, as we pointed out in the last thread, a EGW with PA gets two L2 spell slots at level 1, and may prepare the PA spell twice. Which means that a level 1 EGW with PA, AC, VS, and who somehow also gets Heighten Spell can spend 2 L2 slots to heighten a spell to L3.

It depends on your reading of "spell level".

The exact text is "The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day." for EGW and "a domain wizard gains one bonus spell per spell level, which must be filled with the spell from that level of the domain spell list" for Domain Wizard.

If "spell level" means "spell level they can cast" in either case, then it works if Versatile Spellcaster also allows you to cast above your normally allowed level. You can cast second level spells when you prepare spells with two 1st level spells unexpended, so the EGW bonus spell and Domain spell both lock into 2nd level spell slots. As long as you don't cast them before you prepare spells again, you can cast a Heightened Domain Spell as a 3rd level spell, and so on and so forth.

If it means "the highest level spell they can prepare" then the slot doesn't float regardless of your reading of Versatile Spellcaster.

I understand you're taking the second reading but I don't think it's all that unambiguous.
No. Just...all kinds of no.

A Domain Wizard "prepares and casts spells like a normal wizard", so DWs must be able to prepare their Domain spell in order to cast it. The PHB, page 171, is not at all ambiguous, so the DW cannot cast L2 spells, ergo, she does not "know" her L2 Domain spell. And PHB 171 also means that L1 spells are "the highest spell level" that an EGW can cast*. So an EGW, even one with AC and VS does not have L2 spell slots, so there is no "ambiguity" at all with regards to the fact that the EGW bonus spell prepared can only be a L1 spell*.

It's not about some kind of "alternate interpretation of 'spell level'". Because even under your "first interpretation", you fail to account for the fact that a given spell can only be cast with a minimum caster level equal to the level at which [given character's spellcasting class] first gains the ability to cast spells of that level. And both EGW and DW can only cast L1 spells at level 1*. So, to re-use the example I gave in the old thread, minimum caster level for a L3 spell for a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid is 5; minimum for a Sorcerer is 6; minimum for a Bard is 7; minimum for an Ur-Priest is 3. That last one seems odd, but it's the thing that helps explain this the best. Ur-Priest is, technically, a PrC with it's own distinct casting progression, it just happens to use the Cleric spell list. So a Fighter 17/Ur-Priest 3 has a maximum caster level of 3. But a Wizard 10/Ur-Priest 2/Mystic Theurge 8 has a maximum CL of 19 for her Ur-Priest spells (since 1/2 her CL from Wizard adds to Ur-priest levels for CL purposes), but such a character may still cast their L3 divine spells at CL 3, because 3 is the minimum CL that an Ur-Priest gets L3 spells. Make sense?

*Unless she has Precocious Apprentice, see above.

Silvercrys

2019-10-01, 10:37 AM

Elves, looking at the feat again (and at the last bit of the 2016 thread, which I apparently never read the last few posts in), you appear to be correct, that VS does not require the slots to be "unfilled". It's against RAI, certainly, but RAW does not seem to prohibit it.

Doctor Awkward, I appreciate that you are on my side in this matter, but in this instance, you are incorrect. A Wizard's "spells known" refers to the spells in their spellbook. Alacritous Cogitation can only be taken by wizards, and in that context, a "spell known" can only be a spell in their spellbook.

Also, Elves is right that a wizard with AC counts as "able to spontaneously cast spells". I've never disputed that, myself. The feat even says "You can leave a prepared spell slot open to spontaneously cast a spell". Hell, it even specifies that it only takes a full-round action to cast (and the spell must initially have a casting time of 1 round or less), which means you can use it to cast a Summon Monster spell (only thing I can think of with a 1 Round casting time) faster than if you had prepared it normally.

Correct.

I'm glad we can agree that people don't have the authority to dismiss rules text as "fluff"

That seems reasonable.

HOWEVER, if we're having an anal-retentive myopicly-detailed RAW discussion of what the rules say, then a wizard "knows" all the spells in her spellbook, regardless of where the spellbook is. She may not be able to prepare them if her spellbook is not at hand, but she "knows" them.

Which leads to some interesting things with regards to the wording of Domain Wizards. Because DW "know" their domain spell of each given level as soon as they gain the ability to cast it. Which indicates that it is added to their spellbook when they level, without counting against their 2 free spells known when they gain a level. The reason the "Leapfrog Wizard" reasoning is faulty is because the PHB explicitly tells us (page 171) that a wizard cannot cast L2 spells until she reaches 3rd level. So even if a DW has AC and VS, she does not "know" her L2 Domain spell, because she cannot cast L2 spells.

Now arguably, if you also have Precocious Apprentice, then you also "know" your L2 Domain spell, but PA explicitly says that only the spell chosen as the L2 spell from PA can be cast with that "extra slot" until you hit level 3 of wizard. HOWEVER, as we pointed out in the last thread, a EGW with PA gets two L2 spell slots at level 1, and may prepare the PA spell twice. Which means that a level 1 EGW with PA, AC, VS, and who somehow also gets Heighten Spell can spend 2 L2 slots to heighten a spell to L3.

No. Just...all kinds of no.

A Domain Wizard "prepares and casts spells like a normal wizard", so DWs must be able to prepare their Domain spell in order to cast it. The PHB, page 171, is not at all ambiguous, so the DW cannot cast L2 spells, ergo, she does not "know" her L2 Domain spell. And PHB 171 also means that L1 spells are "the highest spell level" that an EGW can cast*. So an EGW, even one with AC and VS does not have L2 spell slots, so there is no "ambiguity" at all with regards to the fact that the EGW bonus spell prepared can only be a L1 spell*.

It's not about some kind of "alternate interpretation of 'spell level'". Because even under your "first interpretation", you fail to account for the fact that a given spell can only be cast with a minimum caster level equal to the level at which [given character's spellcasting class] first gains the ability to cast spells of that level. And both EGW and DW can only cast L1 spells at level 1*. So, to re-use the example I gave in the old thread, minimum caster level for a L3 spell for a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid is 5; minimum for a Sorcerer is 6; minimum for a Bard is 7; minimum for an Ur-Priest is 3. That last one seems odd, but it's the thing that helps explain this the best. Ur-Priest is, technically, a PrC with it's own distinct casting progression, it just happens to use the Cleric spell list. So a Fighter 17/Ur-Priest 3 has a maximum caster level of 3. But a Wizard 10/Ur-Priest 2/Mystic Theurge 8 has a maximum CL of 19 for her Ur-Priest spells (since 1/2 her CL from Wizard adds to Ur-priest levels for CL purposes), but such a character may still cast their L3 divine spells at CL 3, because 3 is the minimum CL that an Ur-Priest gets L3 spells. Make sense?

*Unless she has Precocious Apprentice, see above.I don't think we actually disagree.

The trick doesn't work because even with VS you can't prepare and cast a 2nd level spell without having a caster level that would allow you to do so as a member of your class (e.g. 3 for Wizard).

I'm merely opining that if you allow Versatile Spellcaster to violate this (i.e. you basically ignore page 171) and read "spell level" as "spell level you can cast" then the trick would work, because being able to cast 2nd level spells via VS would grant you 2nd level spell slots per Domain Wizard and EGW.

I don't think VS does allow you to "break" your caster level limit, though. It doesn't specifically allow you to cast spells with a lower caster level than normal, so I don't believe RAW you can even use it to cast a metamagicked 1st level spell unless you're otherwise capable of casting 2nd level spells (definitely not a Heightened one, possibly not one with +1 Metamagic because those are still spells of their original level for almost all purposes besides what level slot you need to cast it). Its main benefit is that once you have higher level spell slots you can burn lower level ones to cast more higher level spells than normal.

RedMage125

2019-10-01, 11:09 AM

I don't think we actually disagree.

The trick doesn't work because even with VS you can't prepare and cast a 2nd level spell without having a caster level that would allow you to do so as a member of your class (e.g. 3 for Wizard).

I'm merely opining that if you allow Versatile Spellcaster to violate this (i.e. you basically ignore page 171) and read "spell level" as "spell level you can cast" then the trick would work, because being able to cast 2nd level spells via VS would grant you 2nd level spell slots per Domain Wizard and EGW.

I don't think VS does allow you to "break" your caster level limit, though. It doesn't specifically allow you to cast spells with a lower caster level than normal, so I don't believe RAW you can even use it to cast a metamagicked 1st level spell unless you're otherwise capable of casting 2nd level spells (definitely not a Heightened one, possibly not one with +1 Metamagic because those are still spells of their original level for almost all purposes besides what level slot you need to cast it). Its main benefit is that once you have higher level spell slots you can burn lower level ones to cast more higher level spells than normal.

You are correct as to what the "intended" benefit is in regards to VS. However, there's nothing preventing AC+VS being used for metamagic, because the spell itself is what has an actual level that determines whether or not it can be cast (according to PHB 171). Adding any metamagic just makes it take up a higher level slot. And I would think even heighten counts here, because it only raises the DC (based on the level of spell slot used), it does not make it a different spell.

HOWEVER, what you have "opined" is, unfortunately, provably wrong. VS does not, by RAW, grant a "Specific > General" exception that allows one to break the General Rule on PHB 171. We know this because Precocious Apprentice does. I wish I could link the DnD Tools page to post the full text of the feat, but the relevant part is: "Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal conditions." THAT is what it looks like when a Specific Rule trumps PHB 171. Versatile Spellcaster explicitly lacks this text, and therefore, the opinion that you posited is not in keeping with RAW.

I understand you qualified it with "if you allow...", but that's entering DM fiat and house rule territory, which is not conducive to a RAW discussion. I'm not trying to be rude, I just wanted to be clear that this issue is not about what a DM may or may not "allow" via house rule or DM fiat, because that could be anything. Example: I know DMs that allow the L1 spell Grease to be flammable, but by RAW it is not. I do not insist that "straight RAW" is some kind of "true" or "best" way to actually play D&D (Lord knows I use a few house rules myself). But since house rules have so many possible permutations, for the purposes of discussing rules on the forums, only what is RAW is "True". That's not always a coherent way to play. For example, "drown healing" is technically a True Thing by RAW. It's absurd, but True. And the whole point of my original thread in 2016 was to point out that EVEN IF you allow EGW+DW (something I still disagree is RAW-permissable), the "Leapfrog Wizard" does not work by RAW. Bonus spells from high-INT are not granted, the EGW bonus spell is one "prepared" so it cannot "float", and most importantly, spells above L1 cannot be cast until the spellcaster in question is of sufficient caster level to do so.

EDIT: Let me just add that I am pleased that this thread has stayed more on topic of "Leapfrog Wizard", rather than a multi-page discussion JUST about EGW+DW.

Doctor Awkward

2019-10-01, 11:12 AM

Doctor Awkward, I appreciate that you are on my side in this matter, but in this instance, you are incorrect. A Wizard's "spells known" refers to the spells in their spellbook. Alacritous Cogitation can only be taken by wizards, and in that context, a "spell known" can only be a spell in their spellbook.

Also, Elves is right that a wizard with AC counts as "able to spontaneously cast spells". I've never disputed that, myself. The feat even says "You can leave a prepared spell slot open to spontaneously cast a spell". Hell, it even specifies that it only takes a full-round action to cast (and the spell must initially have a casting time of 1 round or less), which means you can use it to cast a Summon Monster spell (only thing I can think of with a 1 Round casting time) faster than if you had prepared it normally.

No, it doesn't.

The feat, found no Complete Mage on page 37 states, quote, "Benefit: If you leave an arcane spell slot open when preparing spells, you can use that open slot to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower."

You added the word spontaneous yourself, as has anyone who has ever spoken of that feat to you as evidence of wizards having spontaneous spellcasting.

As I have already shown with the quote from the Rules Compendium, the game draws a very clear distinction between spontaneous and prepared casters. If a class is one type then it cannot be the other type under any circumstances. Classes that have the ability to convert prepared spell slots on the fly to a different spell do not have spontaneous spellcasting. They have spontaneous conversion, which is a different ability entirely.

RedMage125

2019-10-01, 11:24 AM

No, it doesn't.

The feat, found no Complete Mage on page 37 states, quote, "Benefit: If you leave an arcane spell slot open when preparing spells, you can use that open slot to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower."

You added the word spontaneous yourself, as has anyone who has ever spoken of that feat to you as evidence of wizards having spontaneous spellcasting.

As I have already shown with the quote from the Rules Compendium, the game draws a very clear distinction between spontaneous and prepared casters. If a class is one type then it cannot be the other type under any circumstances. Classes that have the ability to convert prepared spell slots on the fly to a different spell do not have spontaneous spellcasting. They have spontaneous conversion, which is a different ability entirely.

So...I don't have my books in front of me, but the text of the feat on D&D Tools, which cites the Complete Mage, says: "You can leave a prepared spell slot open to spontaneously cast a spell". In those exact words. The whole reason we're not allowed to link D&D Tools is because the site doesn't actually have permission to cite material from the books as exactly as they do. The site's actually pretty good about incorporating errata into stuff, actually. So it's a pretty reliable resource. If you have access to the Complete Mage right now, you can look at the feat and tell me if those words are in it or not.

You're citing the latter part of the feat description, so i'd appreciate it kindly if you didn't accuse me of "adding the word myself", as I perceive that as an accusation of me intentionally misrepresenting the text (i.e. lying). Look in the feat description, and you will see what I cited was word-for-word.

As AC says "Prerequisite: Must prepare arcane spells", we know Wizards can take the feat. Hell, there's also "Special: A wizard can select this feat as a wizard bonus feat". So we are 100% sure that Wizards can take the feat, yes? That means that "...any arcane spell that you know" (words from AC) has a meaning for wizards, right? Which was the entire point of my post to you. You claimed that "Wizards do not have spells that they know, because they are not spontaneous spellcasters." That is a direct quote from you, and you are WRONG, sir.

Silvercrys

2019-10-01, 11:32 AM

Doctor Awkward

2019-10-01, 11:43 AM

So...I don't have my books in front of me, but the text of the feat on D&D Tools, which cites the Complete Mage, says: "You can leave a prepared spell slot open to spontaneously cast a spell". In those exact words. The whole reason we're not allowed to link D&D Tools is because the site doesn't actually have permission to cite material from the books as exactly as they do. The site's actually pretty good about incorporating errata into stuff, actually. So it's a pretty reliable resource. If you have access to the Complete Mage right now, you can look at the feat and tell me if those words are in it or not.

You're citing the latter part of the feat description, so i'd appreciate it kindly if you didn't accuse me of "adding the word myself", as I perceive that as an accusation of me intentionally misrepresenting the text (i.e. lying). Look in the feat description, and you will see what I cited was word-for-word.

As AC says "Prerequisite: Must prepare arcane spells", we know Wizards can take the feat. Hell, there's also "Special: A wizard can select this feat as a wizard bonus feat". So we are 100% sure that Wizards can take the feat, yes? That means that "...any arcane spell that you know" (words from AC) has a meaning for wizards, right? Which was the entire point of my post to you. You claimed that "Wizards do not have spells that they know, because they are not spontaneous spellcasters." That is a direct quote from you, and you are WRONG, sir.

It wasn't an accusation of lying. It was an accusation of misremembering the feat. Lying implies malicious intent, and I don't think any reasonable person would think you were maliciously stating something that would serve as evidence against the point you were arguing. :smallconfused:

In any case, that first sentence you cited comes from the short description of the feat which is a short overview of the intended function. It's purpose in the feat description, like the "Normal" entry, is to provide context for when the mechanical benefits are unclear. Much like how Acid Splatter directly above it says, "You can channel magical energy into orbs of acid.", or Captivating Melody from the same book says, "You can expend some of your musical abilities to increase the potency of your enchantment or illusion spells.", these are short descriptions of the in-game consequences of the mechanical effects of the spells and not part of how the feat interacts with the rest of the rules.

Regardless, "spells known" does have meaning to wizards. It refers to read magic, which is (normally) the only spell that they can ever prepare from memory.

It also has meaning if they have the Spell Mastery feat, which allows them to add a number of additional spells from their spellbook to that list that normally only includes read magic.

This is still very distinct from spontaneous casters, who know all of their spells and use their daily allotment of slots to cast from their list of known spells at a whim. If you really want to get this pedantic over rules interpretations, then there is an arguable difference between having "Spells Known" and knowing spells.

Elves

2019-10-01, 12:11 PM

Does text trumps table even apply if the table text doesn't contradict the body text? The table does say "spontaneously", and the text is behaviorally consistent with that.

RedMage125

2019-10-01, 01:02 PM

I guess what I'm mostly trying to say is that I understand why people think it would work, because the rules on page 171 are a bit obscure/infrequently referenced and without them there is a reading that allows the trick to work. I suppose I should have made it clearer that allowing VS to work this way would be a houserule.

I also think you're probably right that you can cast metamagicked spells with VS by RAW, though Heighten is a bit sketchy (it pretty clearly says "actually increases the effective level of the spell it modifies" and "the Heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level", etc. where other Metamagic feats merely "use a slot" x levels higher).
That's an interesting way to look at it. You MAY be correct about Heighten, but I'm not quite convinced.

Here's why: From what I can tell, by the RAW, since the "minimum caster level" of a given spell is predicated on what level a given class would be able to cast that particular spell. The exact words used on pg 171 of the PHB are "the spell in question". Let's use Grease as our example L1 spell. A Heightened Grease spell would be considered a L2 spell. But Grease, itself, is a spell which can be cast at CL1. And said Heightened Grease is still being cast at CL 1. Because it's still the spell Grease, and it's not being cast below its minimum level. I think it's allowed by the same kind of RAW vis RAI disonance that actually allows "drown healing". PHB page 171 was probably intended to say "you can't cast any Level X spells (where X >1) until your level in your class gains access to them". But the way the text is actually worded says that each and every spell is considered on a case-by-case basis, which depends on when the caster's class gains access to that particular spell.

It wasn't an accusation of lying. It was an accusation of misremembering the feat. Lying implies malicious intent, and I don't think any reasonable person would think you were maliciously stating something that would serve as evidence against the point you were arguing. :smallconfused:

In any case, that first sentence you cited comes from the short description of the feat which is a short overview of the intended function. It's purpose in the feat description, like the "Normal" entry, is to provide context for when the mechanical benefits are unclear. Much like how Acid Splatter directly above it says, "You can channel magical energy into orbs of acid.", or Captivating Melody from the same book says, "You can expend some of your musical abilities to increase the potency of your enchantment or illusion spells.", these are short descriptions of the in-game consequences of the mechanical effects of the spells and not part of how the feat interacts with the rest of the rules.
Look, there's really 2 issues you're debating here:
1) Whether "Spells Known" is something that has meaning for Wizards.
2) Whether or not Alarcitous Cogitation makes a wizard able to "spontaneously cast" a spell.

It is apprent that you are a firm 'No" on both. I brought up AC in regards to #1, as it is something for Wizards that also references "spells known". More on that below, I'm going to tackle #2 first.
Wizards normally must prepare their spells ahead of time in order to cast them. However, AC does in fact, allow a Wizard to cast a spell that she did not previously have specifically prepared (thus an exception to the normal rules for prepared casters). This is a fact, and not up for debate. Complete Mage does refer to this as 'spontaneously cast" said spell. Also a fact and not up for debate. The text under "Benefit" details exactly how this is accomplished mechanically. That doesn't make the feat description not a true thing. To use your examples, can a Bard with captivating Melody "expend some of [his] musical abilities to increase the potency of [his] enchantment or illusion spells"? Yes or no? If yes, then it is clear that AC does, in fact, allow the Wizard with the spell to "spontaneously cast" one spell per day, which can be any one of a number of spells (plural) that the Wizard "knows".

Versatile Spellcaster does not say, as a prerequisite "Must be of a class that spontaneously casts spells". If it did, even a single-classed Wizard with AC would be excluded. No, VS says "Ability to spontaneously cast spells". Ergo, AC allows a Wizard to meet the prerequisite for VS.

Regardless, "spells known" does have meaning to wizards. It refers to read magic, which is (normally) the only spell that they can ever prepare from memory.

It also has meaning if they have the Spell Mastery feat, which allows them to add a number of additional spells from their spellbook to that list that normally only includes read magic.

This is still very distinct from spontaneous casters, who [I]know all of their spells and use their daily allotment of slots to cast from their list of known spells at a whim. If you really want to get this pedantic over rules interpretations, then there is an arguable difference between having "Spells Known" and knowing spells.

You're overlooking what has already been posted and cited to you from the PHB (and SRD) in regards to Wizards, which my mention of AC was only meant to supplement, not supplant. PHB: "unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells", this is RAW. Period. Those are exact words in the text, and there is nothing in the text that supports your claim that "spells known" only means Read Magic (and spells taken with Spell Mastery). What is true about Read Magic (and spells taken with Spell Mastery) is that a Wizard may prepare them without her spellbook. But at no point are those spells referred to in the RAW as "spells known". I invite you to check the PHB yourself. Read Magic is specifically called out as being able to be prepared without a spellbook. The term "known" is never used. Let's get as pedantic as you want, it only undercuts your claim about "Spells Known" vis "knowing spells". In fact, the only other time the word "know" (in any context, including "knows" or "known") is used in context with Wizards is in the Magic section, under the heading "Wizard Spells and Borrowed Spellbooks". It says: "A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured".

As I said to Elves, a wizard "knows" all the spells in her spellbook, regardless of where the spellbook is. She may not be able to prepare them if her spellbook is not at hand, but she "knows" them. Which may seem like a pedantic distinction, because if she doesn't have her spellbook, then "knowing" a spell doesn't do any good, does it? Which is true.

So what does all this mean? Well, functionally, it means that, for a wizard, the term "spells known" is usually worthless drivvel. :smallbiggrin: Because what spells are in the spellbook that she has on-hand are more important with regards to what spells she can prepare (and thus cast) for the day, as per the general rules regarding prepared casters under their "Spellcasting" class feature.

HOWEVER, Alarcitous Cogitation creates a 1/day exception to those general rules, doesn't it? Ah, yes it does. Specific Overrides General, remember? NOW "spells known" is actually a term that the Wizard cares about. Because AC allows them "to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower" with the spell slot they left unfilled.

This means that, using the same kind of pedantic adherence to RAW that permits "drown healing", a wizard with AC whose spellbook has been taken from her may, once per day, use a full-round action to cast any arcane spell she knows, as long as the spell is of the same level or lower than said unfilled slot (which will likely be all of them, since she doesn't have her spellbook), and the casting time of the spell is 1 round or less.

Doctor Awkward, I love debate and nitpicky details like this. I absolutely invite you to try and poke holes in this if you can, but if you are going to do so, please cite your sources (you've been pretty good about it so far). Or say so if this has convinced you, either way. Remember, this is from the perspective of what the RAW says in text, and is meant to be as pedantic and anal-retentive as it needs to be. Because one thing is certain: Spells that a wizard "knows" means something.

Elves

2019-10-01, 01:35 PM

This means that, using the same kind of pedantic adherence to RAW that permits "drown healing", a wizard with AC whose spellbook has been taken from her may, once per day, use a full-round action to cast any arcane spell she knows, as long as the spell is of the same level or lower than said unfilled slot

This actually convinces me that the literal reading (a wizard knows all their spells and only needs a spellbook to prepare them) is smoother in practice than the compromise of saying they only know them while the book is at hand.

RedMage125

2019-10-01, 01:52 PM

This actually convinces me that the literal reading (a wizard knows all their spells and only needs a spellbook to prepare them) is smoother in practice than the compromise of saying they only know them while the book is at hand.

Right. Because otherwise the line that says "A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation success is not assured" would be meaningless.

FUN NOTE: I just realized that TODAY is the 3 year anniversary of that other thread starting! Happy Birthday, old thread!

Doctor Awkward

2019-10-01, 03:18 PM

...
The text under "Benefit" details exactly how this is accomplished mechanically. That doesn't make the feat description not a true thing.
Correct.
It makes it irrelevant for the purposes of rules adjudication unless the mechanical aspects under Benefit are otherwise unclear.
In this instance they are quite clear. It does not grant spontaneous casting.

Versatile Spellcaster does not say, as a prerequisite "Must be of a class that spontaneously casts spells". If it did, even a single-classed Wizard with AC would be excluded. No, VS says "Ability to spontaneously cast spells". Ergo, AC allows a Wizard to meet the prerequisite for VS.

And as an aside, even if you were correct, you would only be correct once. The moment you use Alacritous Cogitation it ceases to function for the rest of the day. At which point the wizard would no longer have "the ability to spontaneously cast spells" and since he lost the prerequisite for Versatile Spellcaster he would then lose the benefit of it until the next day when the prerequisite was restored.

PHB: "unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells", this is RAW. Period. Those are exact words in the text, and there is nothing in the text that supports your claim that "spells known" only means Read Magic (and spells taken with Spell Mastery).

Show me the rules text which states unequivocally that a wizard "knowing spells" in their spellbook is functionally identical for all other rules purposes to having "Spells Known", as a sorcerer does. Because I've shown several instances that suggest there could be such a distinction.

And do keep in mind that I didn't start at this level of pedantry over interpretations. I'm merely following it to it's logical conclusion.

Elves

2019-10-01, 03:41 PM

And as an aside, even if you were correct, you would only be correct once. The moment you use Alacritous Cogitation it ceases to function for the rest of the day. At which point the wizard would no longer have "the ability to spontaneously cast spells" and since he lost the prerequisite for Versatile Spellcaster he would then lose the benefit of it until the next day when the prerequisite was restored.

I think this is torqued logic. My interpretation is that possessing the feat gives you that ability; the frequency restrictions on use of the ability are neither here nor there. Otherwise, eg a martial adept whose maneuvers are all currently expended does not count as "having the ability to initiate maneuvers" and would lose feats or whatever that hinge on that, and similar dumb cases would abound.

RedMage125

2019-10-01, 04:47 PM

Correct.
It makes it irrelevant for the purposes of rules adjudication unless the mechanical aspects under Benefit are otherwise unclear.
In this instance they are quite clear. It does not grant spontaneous casting.
Do you have a definition for "spontaneous casting" that differs from "able to cast a spell without having to have that specific spell prepared in advance"?

Because that's what AC grants wizards. 1/day, anyway.

Keep in mind publication dates for Complete Mage and Rules Compendium, and what the RAW says vis a vis "primary sources". Except where it explicitly states itself to be an update to existing rules (such as the RAW regarding Swift Actions). Which...I don't believe the RC does...

And as an aside, even if you were correct, you would only be correct once. The moment you use Alacritous Cogitation it ceases to function for the rest of the day. At which point the wizard would no longer have "the ability to spontaneously cast spells" and since he lost the prerequisite for Versatile Spellcaster he would then lose the benefit of it until the next day when the prerequisite was restored.
Elves actually handled this nicely. I defer to his post.

Show me the rules text which states unequivocally that a wizard "knowing spells" in their spellbook is functionally identical for all other rules purposes to having "Spells Known", as a sorcerer does. Because I've shown several instances that suggest there could be such a distinction.

And do keep in mind that I didn't start at this level of pedantry over interpretations. I'm merely following it to it's logical conclusion.

I actually cited every instance of an iteration of "know" (to include "knows" and "known") spells that relate to wizards in the RAW. There's only those 2. Like I said, I'm AFB, so I can't cite page numbers in the PHB (I had to use the SRD), but I told you which chapter they were in, and under which heading in that chapter. And that's just because I remember the books so well, lol. Which is why I knew which sections to "CTRL+F" search for in regards to this.

And what "other purposes" could you possibly be talking about? In my last post to you, I specifically said:
"Well, functionally, it means that, for a wizard, the term "spells known" is usually worthless drivvel. :smallbiggrin: Because what spells are in the spellbook that she has on-hand are more important with regards to what spells she can prepare (and thus cast) for the day, as per the general rules regarding prepared casters under their "Spellcasting" class feature."
And then I went on to point out that only when a wizard takes AC does this distinction matter for purposes of this discussion. Although, if you were paying attention, "a spell that a wizard knows and is recorded in her own spellbook" is an important distinction if she needs to use another wizard's spellbook to attempt to prepare her spells.

Also, I never claimed that "knowing spells in their spellbook" was "functionally identical to 'Spells Known', as a sorcerer does". YOU said that. And if that's the point you've been trying to "disprove", then I'm afraid you were arguing with a Straw Man, because I never said that. Alacritous Cogitation is a spell that actually requires one to be an arcane spellcaster who prepares spells (and can specifically be taken by wizards as a wizard bonus feat, just like Metamagic, Item Creation, or Spell Mastery). AC mentions that a wizard may, once per day, leave one spell slot unfilled to "cast an arcane spell that you know". If it only meant Read Magic (a 0-level spell), why would it specify that the "known" spell could be of any level equal to or lower than the level of the slot left empty? And if it only meant spells that the wizard had taken with Spell Mastery, would Spell Mastery not be a prerequisite, and the feat say "cast one of the spells you have taken with Spell Mastery, as long as it is of equal or lower level than the empty spell slot you are expending", or something to that effect?

To the contrary, you have not furnished any of the proof I requested. You did not cite even ONE instance of Read Magic being a "spell known". Nor did you cite any use of "spells known" in regards to wizards taking Spell Mastery. Nor did you concede that what I said was correct (SPOILER ALERT: It is). Read Magic -and spells taken with Spell Mastery- are simply "spells that can be prepared without a spellbook in hand". And that is VASTLY different from "Spells Known" like a sorcerer or bard uses the term, because the wizard still must PREPARE the spell.

Feel free to engage this level of pedantry, that's what a RAW discussion is about, after all. But right now, I have RAW citations that "a wizard may know any number of spells" and one that says "a wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook", as well as a feat that is definetely for wizards that refers to a wizard being able to have a single-instance exception to the general rule about how wizard spellcasting works and be able to cast a spell that she "knows". Those are all RAW quotes. None of those facts are up for debate. And those are all pursuant to point #1 as I mentioned in my last post. Whether or not you agree that all that makes the wizard meet the prerequisite of Versatile Spellcaster is an entirely different point (point #2).

Doctor Awkward

2019-10-01, 06:12 PM

Do you have a definition for "spontaneous casting" that differs from "able to cast a spell without having to have that specific spell prepared in advance"?

Because that's what AC grants wizards. 1/day, anyway.

Keep in mind publication dates for Complete Mage and Rules Compendium, and what the RAW says vis a vis "primary sources". Except where it explicitly states itself to be an update to existing rules (such as the RAW regarding Swift Actions). Which...I don't believe the RC does...

Yes. In the Rules Compendium. You have the page number and the quote.
The Rules Compendium, as is stated in its introduction, is explicitly a collection of the most up to date books and errata at the time of it's publication. It also explicitly gives itself permission to override previous publications in the case of primary source questions. If books were not allowed to do this then swift and immediate actions would not exist, as no book could override the Player's Handbook general rules on what types of actions there are. Nor would any true dragons exist beyond what is found in the Monster Manual. There are many, many, instances where a source explicitly gives itself permission to take precedence over an earlier source on a specific topic.

I think this is torqued logic. My interpretation is that possessing the feat gives you that ability; the frequency restrictions on use of the ability are neither here nor there. Otherwise, eg a martial adept whose maneuvers are all currently expended does not count as "having the ability to initiate maneuvers" and would lose feats or whatever that hinge on that, and similar dumb cases would abound.

Elves actually handled this nicely. I defer to his post.

And you can both be wrong together.
Per the general rules on feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#prerequisites), the moment you lose access to a prerequisite for a feat, you lose the benefit of that feat until the prerequisite is restored.

Elves's extreme hypothetical is likewise unfounded, as there are zero feats or prestige classes that hinge on ones "ability to initiate maneuvers." The prerequisites are merely having knowledge of a given maneuver (or stance), as, ironically, martial initiators are explicitly described as "knowing" their maneuvers and stances in exactly the same way that a sorcerer "knows" their spell.

This particular corner case currently under discussion applies only because the both of you insist on using the specific literal wording of the prerequisite for Versatile Spellcaster in allowing a wizard with Alacritous Cogitation to qualify for it: the "ability to spontaneously cast spells." If the prerequisite is literally and specifically that, then the moment you lose the ability to spontaneously cast spells for any reason you cease to qualify for the feat.

With regards to feats and prerequisites, your interpretations are fractally wrong.

"Well, functionally, it means that, for a wizard, the term "spells known" is usually worthless drivvel. :smallbiggrin: Because what spells are in the spellbook that she has on-hand are more important with regards to what spells she can prepare (and thus cast) for the day, as per the general rules regarding prepared casters under their "Spellcasting" class feature."
You can leave it at this. This is the correct interpretation. A wizard does not "know" the spells in their spellbook in the same way a sorcerer "knows" the spells on their Spells Known list. Unless you have additional rules that state otherwise, this is how these classes work when the text is taken to the literal extremes necessary to even entertain the notion of "Leapfrogging" to higher level spell slots.

RedMage125

2019-10-01, 06:45 PM

Yes. In the Rules Compendium. You have the page number and the quote.
The Rules Compendium, as is stated in its introduction, is explicitly a collection of the most up to date books and errata at the time of it's publication. It also explicitly gives itself permission to override previous publications in the case of primary source questions. If books were not allowed to do this then swift and immediate actions would not exist, as no book could override the Player's Handbook general rules on what types of actions there are. Nor would any true dragons exist beyond what is found in the Monster Manual. There are many, many, instances where a source explicitly gives itself permission to take precedence over an earlier source on a specific topic.
Had to look back for it. You posted the definition of "Spontaneous Caster", not "Spontaneous Casting".

"Some characters can cast spells, but they don’t need spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast any spell they know using a daily allotment of spell slots. These characters are called spontaneous spellcasters." --Rules Compendium, pg. 139

Okay, since you want to go here. I guess we can extrapolate from that. Well, Alacritous Cogitation allows a wizard a "daily allotment of spell slots" (One) by which she cast a spell WITHOUT preparing it in advance, and thus not needing to consult her spellbook. She can, as per the wording of AC, "cast any spell she knows".

And you can both be wrong together.
Per the general rules on feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#prerequisites), the moment you lose access to a prerequisite for a feat, you lose the benefit of that feat until the prerequisite is restored.

Elves's extreme hypothetical is likewise unfounded, as there are zero feats or prestige classes that hinge on ones "ability to initiate maneuvers." The prerequisites are merely having knowledge of a given maneuver (or stance), as, ironically, martial initiators are explicitly described as "knowing" their maneuvers and stances in exactly the same way that a sorcerer "knows" their spell.

This particular corner case currently under discussion applies only because the both of you insist on using the specific literal wording of the prerequisite for Versatile Spellcaster in allowing a wizard with Alacritous Cogitation to qualify for it: the "ability to spontaneously cast spells." If the prerequisite is literally and specifically that, then the moment you lose the ability to spontaneously cast spells for any reason you cease to qualify for the feat.

With regards to feats and prerequisites, your interpretations are fractally wrong.
And yet, they are FACTUALLY right. :smallbiggrin:

Sorry, but even accepting that doesn't mean they can't take VS, It only means that she could not USE it once she expands the "spontaneous cast" from AC.

But that reading is kind of bunk, when you consider how many PrC and other features would go away when prerequisites that are limited in use get expended.

A PrC that requires "ability to cast Level X arcane spells", for example. If she spends all her slots of that level, does she immediately lose all her PrC features until she rests and regains spells?

You can leave it at this. This is the correct interpretation. A wizard does not "know" the spells in their spellbook in the same way a sorcerer "knows" the spells on their Spells Known list. Unless you have additional rules that state otherwise, this is how these classes work when the text is taken to the literal extremes necessary to even entertain the notion of "Leapfrogging" to higher level spell slots.

Wait...WHAT? Who, exactly, do you think you're discussing this with? You DO know that I am the OP of the 2016 thread, right? The one who has been saying why "Leapfrog Wizard" absolutely, positively does not work, right? You know that's me, right?

This is all a tangent you have drawn us down with regards to what a wizard's "known spells" means. Because you're actually wrong on that detail. And this little snippet that you've said, right here? You don't cite any kind of factual evidence to contradict the direct RAW citation that refers to "a spell that a wizard knows and is recorded in her own spellbook".

So...just out of curiosity...given that Alacritous Cogitation IS a feat...what do YOU think it does? Do you seriously argue that AC ONLY allows a wizard to cast Read Magic once per day without preparing it? Clearly that's absurd.

I'm calling you out, Ante up some evidence. What constitutes a spell that a wizard "knows"? Because I've cited the RAW, you have cited nothing. You made a spurious and baseless claim that it "only means Read Magic and the spells taken with Spell Mastery", but cited no evidence to back that up, and when I checked the SRD, neither of those things use the word "know", "known", or "knows" in reference to those spells at all. Alacritous Cogitation allows a wizard to 1/day cast a spell that they "know" without preparing it in advance. That is a fact of RAW, and one you refuse to address.

To be clear I am discussing point #1 of:

1) Whether "Spells Known" is something that has meaning for Wizards.
2) Whether or not Alarcitous Cogitation makes a wizard able to "spontaneously cast" a spell.

Acknowledging that you're wrong about Point #1 doesn't make you less of a person. I admitted I was wrong to Elves, earlier. Since with the AC+VS combo, it does not specify that a spell slot spent for VS needs to be "unfilled". I was wrong and admitted it. Admitting it also doesn't mean you have to acknowledge Point #2. You're gonna fight Point #2 no matter what, because you don't think the feat description means anything, and I get that.

But you are DEAD WRONG on Point #1, and nothing short of you providing a RAW quote that explicitly states what it does mean to a be a spell that a wizard "knows" is going to be a valid claim at this point. I did a search for all instances of "know" in the Wizard section, and one in the Spellbook section, so I am 100% confident that you are wrong.

Elves

2019-10-01, 06:59 PM

And you can both be wrong together.
Per the general rules on feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#prerequisites), the moment you lose access to a prerequisite for a feat, you lose the benefit of that feat until the prerequisite is restored.

Elves's extreme hypothetical is likewise unfounded, as there are zero feats or prestige classes that hinge on ones "ability to initiate maneuvers."
Hardly an "extreme" hypothetical when there are many things that do work like that. For example the Incarnum Spellshaping feat, which requires the "ability to cast 1st level spells". The key question is what having the "ability" to do something means in this case. No one is questioning that you would lose the above feat's benefit if your casting stat dropped too low to cast 1st level spells. But to say that if you use this feat to prepare incarnum spells, then you can no longer cast those spells as soon as you have used your 1st level spells for the day is not a very functional reading.

And note, I'm not saying "but it can't be so", I'm arguing for a different and frankly more intuitive reading of "ability".

RedMage125

2019-10-01, 07:44 PM

Ok, looking back at my last post, I realize I came off as very abrasive. Blame it on the shock of having someone think they're telling ME, of all posters on this forum, that "Leapfrog Wizard" doesn't work.

Doctor Awkward, I appreciate that you have been on my side of the whole Leapfrog Wizard thing, and most of the points you have made have been very good ones. The Leapfrog thing doesn't work for a number of reasons.

But as far as the wizards thing goes with "spells that you know", you are mistaken, sir. Quite simply. Alacritous Cogitation is a feat for wizards, and it references "a spell you know". In the section about a wizard having to prepare spells from a borrowed spellbook, they only have a chance to prepare it if it is a "spell she knows, and is in her own spellbook". And in the wizard class description, it says they may "know" any number of spells. So wizards "know" the spells they scribe into their spellbook.

Yes, in a game in which a wizard never loses her spellbook, the distinction of what spells she "knows" will never be relevant, because those spells are the same thing. A wizard without her spellbook "knows" all kinds of spells, but cannot prepare any, except Read Magic (more if she has Spell Mastery). But Alacritous Cogitation hinges on which spells she "knows", specifically not just what is "prepared".
AC is an example of Specific Overrides General, something D&D is replete with. You are so focused on repeating what the General rules are regarding the term "Spells Known" in regards to spontaneous casters, that you have lost sight of this. The feat explicitly calls to wizards and the spells they "know" and which are explicitly NOT prepared.

You disagree that the feat description which says "allows you to spontaneously cast" allows the wizard to meet the prereq of VS. Fine. That's Point #2. I will discuss that in another post later. For now, though, I want to focus SOLELY on Point #1.

If you've realized you were mistaken, please say so. But if you're going to contest it further, you're going to need some kind of RAW citation that reconciles what spells a wizard is considered to "know". And you're also going to need to either admit you were wrong about, or find citation to support your claim that it only means Read Magic and spells with Spell Mastery. Because what you seem to have overlooked, missed, or gotten confused on is that the words "spell that you know" does not NEED to mean "in a manner functionally identical to what it means for sorcerers". Because really, that would be nonsense. They cast in entirely different manners. But wizards can still have spells "that they know", and those words mean something specific to them.

EDIT:
Here's something fun. I just looked at Spell Mastery again, and while it does not reference those spells as being "known", it requires the wizard to choose from spells she knows.
FULL TEXT: Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without refering to your spellbook.
How about that? So even the very thing you claimed was "what spells a wizard 'knows' means" is not only untrue, but requires a different understanding of "spells that a wizard knows" to even function as a feat.
Convinced you were in error yet?

Elves

2019-10-02, 11:18 AM

In another, and much more practical TOB example that is not about a feat but also hinges on what it means to have the "ability" to do something, take this: "To initiate a maneuver, you must be able to move." Does this mean that after you take your move action, you can no longer initiate maneuvers? Of course not.

RedMage125

2019-10-07, 11:29 AM

Silvercrys

2019-10-07, 01:06 PM

RedMage125

2019-10-07, 01:45 PM

Even if it wasn't, I believe Versatile Spellcaster can be qualified for with Spell Mastery and Signature Spell (unless Clerics do not qualify for Versatile Spellcaster with their ability to spontaneously cast cure/inflict wounds, I suppose).

They do not. Doctor Awkward was correct in that regard. The ability for Clerics and Druids to spontaneously cast cure/inflict spells and summon spells respectively is referred to as spontaneous conversion, as it still requires the expenditure of a spell slot that has been previously "prepared". Which means it is not "spontaneous casting".

EDIT: To be clear, that means Signature Spell also does not work. Neither does Spell Mastery, but that's a whole nother thing. Spell Mastery allows one to prepare spells without a spellbook, not "cast spells without preparing them".

Honestly, Doctor Awkward was correct in almost everything else he said. The only thing he got wrong was 1)what he claimed about what a "spell that a wizard knows" means and 2)his claim that Alacritous Cogitation did not meet the requirement for Versatile Spellcaster. That's seriously what the last 20 or so posts have been about. Everything else he said was right.

Doctor Awkward

2019-10-07, 09:33 PM

At this point, he's not going to respond further. I messaged him, and I think it might be reluctance to admit he was wrong about Point #1.

I think between all the PHB quotes (under wizard entry, spellbooks, and Spell Mastery), it is safe to say that the RAW fully support that the "spells a wizard knows" are the ones she has scribed into her spellbook, irrespective of where the spellbook is. In a game in which the wizard never loses her spellbook, this is a moot distinction. Especially so, because a wizard without some kind of spellbook on hand cannot prepare anything (except Read Magic and spells taken with Spell Mastery).

Point #1 is entirely proved, with no counter points (none supported by RAW, anyway). Moving on...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QibwX2CbIYk/hqdefault.jpg

It's not. RAW does not support this.

If the Rules As Written considered a wizard's spellbook to be known spells in the exact same way as a sorcerer's list of Known Spells then you would find text that states exactly that: "Much like a sorcerer, a wizard's knows all of the spells they have transcribed into their personal spellbook."

The rules don't say that. Anywhere. All they say is that "Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells." The operative word there is unlike. It's not drawing a comparison. It's drawing a distinction. And that's not the only time it does so.

As I previously pointed out with Archmage, prestige classes that advance spellcasting all say the exact same thing: "new spells per day, an increase in caster level (and spells known if applicable)." Why bother singling that last part out? What difference does it make unless to point out that some classes don't automatically gain spells known?

You can see it again with Unseen Seer's Advanced Learning: "At 2nd, 5th, and 8th level, you can add a new spell to your spellbook or list of spells known..." Again, why the distinction? If spells known is spells known is spells known then what difference does it make?

The only logical conclusion is that there is a difference. Wizards "know" spells for specific rules purposes that pertain to them, and spontaneous caster have their list of Known Spells for entirely different ones. They are functionally similar yet distinct features of their respective classes. And because a distinction exists then they don't overlap. Abilities that reference spontaneous casting require you to have a Known Spell list in order to function, which is something entirely different from a wizard's spellbook, which contains their specific list of known spells.

Additionally, I find it mildly amusing that this little nonsense claim only ever goes one way: you never see anyone try to argue that a sorcerer with the Arcane Preparation feat qualifies them to take Alacritous Cogitation.

....And on a personal note, the next time you go sniping at someone from atop your Ivory Tower of Self-Righteous Indignation with that smug attitude, you better make damn sure that the rules specifically back up your claim. Not just that they are sort of vague and if you tilt your head and squint they could possibly be interpreted in such a way as to not specifically forbid your claim.

Elves

2019-10-07, 10:04 PM

Look, I don't share Redmage's fiery and heightened attitude toward this extremely dry question of rules minutiae, but I think you're overextending the logic of this.

If the Rules As Written considered a wizard's spellbook to be known spells in the exact same way as a sorcerer's list of Known Spells then you would find text that states exactly that: "Much like a sorcerer, a wizard's knows all of the spells they have transcribed into their personal spellbook."
This is the reverse of the Munchkin Fallacy.

It's not drawing a comparison. It's drawing a distinction.
And the distinction being called out is how many spells they know, not anything else.

As I previously pointed out with Archmage, prestige classes that advance spellcasting all say the exact same thing: "new spells per day, an increase in caster level (and spells known if applicable)." Why bother singling that last part out? What difference does it make unless to point out that some classes don't automatically gain spells known?

Arguably, it refers in the wizard's case to the spells they learn automatically by leveling up.

Additionally, I find it mildly amusing that this little nonsense claim only ever goes one way: you never see anyone try to argue that a sorcerer with the Arcane Preparation feat qualifies them to take Alacritous Cogitation.

Yeah, because that combination is seldom used. That's why no one argues about it. I would totally say it qualifies them.

Personally, I don't see the point of having the ghost of designer intentionality hovering on your shoulder like an extra superego. Or at least, have it be there, but don't pretend you have to offer it sacrifices to appease it.

The quote in your signature is right, but its complement is the "danger" of attributing a smothering presence to something that is ambiguous, unclear, or not present, just out of fear of offending an absent designer.

Doctor Awkward

2019-10-07, 11:40 PM

This is the reverse of the Munchkin Fallacy.

By "reverse" you mean "correctly interpreting the written text?"

And the distinction being called out is how many spells they know, not anything else.

....Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Arguably, it refers in the wizard's case to the spells they learn automatically by leveling up.

If that were true, then "spells known" would always be applicable. There would be no point in including the phrase "if applicable" if you were correct because every spellcasting class would have "spells known." And the text could simply say "[comma] and spells known."

...I wonder why it doesn't say that?

Yeah, because that combination is seldom used. That's why no one argues about it. I would totally say it qualifies them.

Then I really can't help you.

Elves

2019-10-08, 09:45 AM

"Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells." (PHB)

"A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook..." (RC)

"A domain wizard automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells as soon as she becomes able to cast it." (UA)

vs

"the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable)..." (DMG & splats)

Note that PHB and RC both take precedence over the DMG and splatbooks on the subject of wizards, and also that the most mechanistic interpretation of that clause is "Yes, I learn new spells by gaining wizard levels, check". Your argument is for RAI more than RAW. It's not a perfectly spelled out situation, but your claim that any ambiguity always results in the negative reading ("If the Rules As Written considered a wizard's spellbook to be known spells in the exact same way as a sorcerer's list of Known Spells then you would find text that states exactly that") is absurd in a complex game. It's illogical even from an RAI standpoint, because RAI is based on modeling designer psychology, and counting omissions and ambiguities as omniscience is not an accurate psychological model. A much more reasonable kind of RAI argument is your argument against EGW+DW upthread.

RedMage125

2019-10-08, 11:10 AM

It's not. RAW does not support this.

If the Rules As Written considered a wizard's spellbook to be known spells in the exact same way as a sorcerer's list of Known Spells then you would find text that states exactly that: "Much like a sorcerer, a wizard's knows all of the spells they have transcribed into their personal spellbook."
Full stop for a moment, because you have missed this three times now.

No one has said "a wizard's spells known in the exact same way a sorcerer's list of Known Spells" or anything to that effect. YOU said that. And, for the fourth time now, if this is the point you have been contesting, you have been arguing with a Straw Man. I've made that clear twice in the thread, and once in our PMs.

ALL wizards have "spells that they know", this is something that we can and have shown to be true in the RAW. Before we ever even start talking about Alacritous Cogitation, this is a thing that is true of the RAW.

What's odd is that you claim that I'm wrong, but below you recite exactly what I have been saying to you as if you are somehow the one educating me.

The rules don't say that. Anywhere. All they say is that "Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells." The operative word there is unlike. It's not drawing a comparison. It's drawing a distinction. And that's not the only time it does so.
Then what is meant by "spells that a wizard knows", by your estimation? If you are claiming I am wrong, then provide what YOU think the RAW means. And provide RAW citation this time. Because last time, you claimed it meant Read Magic, and spells taken with Spell Mastery. I thoroughly debunked both of those points. If you're going to provide a different meaning for "spells that a wizard knows", then it needs to be one coherent with all the RAW citation quoted to you thus far, to include the lines about preparing from another wizard's spellbook, the number they may "know", AND what is meant by "spell you already know" in the line of the Spell Mastery feat, since that makes MY point rather than yours.

As I previously pointed out with Archmage, prestige classes that advance spellcasting all say the exact same thing: "new spells per day, an increase in caster level (and spells known if applicable)." Why bother singling that last part out? What difference does it make unless to point out that some classes don't automatically gain spells known?

You can see it again with Unseen Seer's Advanced Learning: "At 2nd, 5th, and 8th level, you can add a new spell to your spellbook or list of spells known..." Again, why the distinction? If spells known is spells known is spells known then what difference does it make?
Because the Prestige Class is open to both Wizards and Sorcerers, and it would be useless to Sorcerers if only their spells per day increased, but their Spells Known didn't.

The only logical conclusion is that there is a difference. Wizards "know" spells for specific rules purposes that pertain to them, and spontaneous caster have their list of Known Spells for entirely different ones. They are functionally similar yet distinct features of their respective classes. And because a distinction exists then they don't overlap. Abilities that reference spontaneous casting require you to have a Known Spell list in order to function, which is something entirely different from a wizard's spellbook, which contains their specific list of known spells.
Full stop. Again.

That is literally what I have been saying to you this whole time, but you've been so focused on "disproving" your Straw Man that you have not acknowledged it. Now, I don't think you made this Straw Man on purpose. But every time I said "spells a wizard knows", you somehow interpreted me as saying "spells a wizard knows, which are in every way functionally identical to a sorcerer's Spells Known". Even though I explicitly said that was not the case several times. And explicitly told you that such was a Straw Man.
Here's my earlier quotes, I have bolded the text where I explicitly tell you that I am not claiming that "spells a wizard knows" is "functionally identical to a sorcerer's Spells Known". I have also trimmed everything not directly related to these points, so verything in the quote box is relevant, please re-read them in entirety.

As I said to Elves, a wizard "knows" all the spells in her spellbook, regardless of where the spellbook is. She may not be able to prepare them if her spellbook is not at hand, but she "knows" them. Which may seem like a pedantic distinction, because if she doesn't have her spellbook, then "knowing" a spell doesn't do any good, does it? Which is true.

So what does all this mean? Well, functionally, it means that, for a wizard, the term "spells known" is usually worthless drivvel. :smallbiggrin: Because what spells are in the spellbook that she has on-hand are more important with regards to what spells she can prepare (and thus cast) for the day, as per the general rules regarding prepared casters under their "Spellcasting" class feature.
*snip*
Because one thing is certain: Spells that a wizard "knows" means something.

Although, if you were paying attention, "a spell that a wizard knows and is recorded in her own spellbook" is an important distinction if she needs to use another wizard's spellbook to attempt to prepare her spells.

Also, I never claimed that "knowing spells in their spellbook" was "functionally identical to 'Spells Known', as a sorcerer does". YOU said that. And if that's the point you've been trying to "disprove", then I'm afraid you were arguing with a Straw Man, because I never said that.
*snip*
To the contrary, you have not furnished any of the proof I requested. You did not cite even ONE instance of Read Magic being a "spell known". Nor did you cite any use of "spells known" in regards to wizards taking Spell Mastery. Nor did you concede that what I said was correct (SPOILER ALERT: It is). Read Magic -and spells taken with Spell Mastery- are simply "spells that can be prepared without a spellbook in hand". And that is VASTLY different from "Spells Known" like a sorcerer or bard uses the term, because the wizard still must PREPARE the spell.

In the section about a wizard having to prepare spells from a borrowed spellbook, they only have a chance to prepare it if it is a "spell she knows, and is in her own spellbook". And in the wizard class description, it says they may "know" any number of spells. So wizards "know" the spells they scribe into their spellbook.

Yes, in a game in which a wizard never loses her spellbook, the distinction of what spells she "knows" will never be relevant, because those spells are the same thing. A wizard without her spellbook "knows" all kinds of spells, but cannot prepare any, except Read Magic (more if she has Spell Mastery).
*snip*
If you've realized you were mistaken, please say so. But if you're going to contest it further, you're going to need some kind of RAW citation that reconciles what spells a wizard is considered to "know". And you're also going to need to either admit you were wrong about, or find citation to support your claim that it only means Read Magic and spells with Spell Mastery. Because what you seem to have overlooked, missed, or gotten confused on is that the words "spell that you know" does not NEED to mean "in a manner functionally identical to what it means for sorcerers". Because really, that would be nonsense. They cast in entirely different manners. But wizards can still have spells "that they know", and those words mean something specific to them.

The RAW actually refer to what spells a wizard knows several times. This is fact.
You seem to be very hung up on the term "Spells Known" as it applies to spontaneous casters, and think any reference to a wizard having "spells that they know" must somehow be in error because you are not getting past that hurdle you have put up in front of yourself.
*snip*
You have not cited any sources, and the RAW have been cited to you. I think it's time to admit you were really hung up on a connection between "spells a wizard knows" and thinking that had to be "functionally identical to 'Spell Known' as a sorcerer" (your words), and admit that you were wrong.
There you go. I have explictly stated several times that "spells that a wizard knows" means something different for them than "Spells Known" does for a sorcerer. I have explicitly told YOU several times that continuing to argue that I am saying they are the same is a Straw Man. And that you are the only person saying that.

The fact that you think you are "making this point" to me is insulting.

However, I am not some closed-minded jerkbag. I am perfectly willing to accept that this was all an honest mistake of misunderstanding, and that you did not intend to make this Straw Man, as I said before. But being as that you HAVE been making a Straw Man and arguing that, and then tried to turn smug and condescending as you regurgitated my own point back at me, I think some back and forth apologies are in order, and then we can move forward with the discussion like reasonable adults. I'm willing to acknowledge and apologize for any "smug attitude" that you perceived if I receive one as well.

Additionally, I find it mildly amusing that this little nonsense claim only ever goes one way: you never see anyone try to argue that a sorcerer with the Arcane Preparation feat qualifies them to take Alacritous Cogitation.
Well...technically, yes, it does. But that would serve very little point.

D&D is replete with General Rules, and then occasionally Specific Rules that allow that general Rule to be broken.

Arcane Preparation is a feat that allows Sorcerers to prepare and cast like wizards. Alacritous Cogitation is a feat that allows Wizards to cast one spell per day without preparing it ahead of time, kind of like how a sorcerer does. Why on earth would a Sorcerer take a feat that allows him to cast like a wizard, only to use that to waste a feat to allow him to cast in a manner that he already does? I mean, technically, yes, such is perfectly RAW-legal, but it would be a stupid thing to do. Sorcerers do not need Alacritous Cogitation.

....And on a personal note, the next time you go sniping at someone from atop your Ivory Tower of Self-Righteous Indignation with that smug attitude, you better make damn sure that the rules specifically back up your claim. Not just that they are sort of vague and if you tilt your head and squint they could possibly be interpreted in such a way as to not specifically forbid your claim.
How about take your own advice?

Because you just regurgitated exactly what I've been saying to you, and acted smug like you were the one proving something to me. The rules DO back up what I have claimed, just not "what you have been insisting that I am claiming".

What I have said does not require anyone to "tilt their head and squint". By contrast, what you have been saying up until this post requires you to 1)Flat-out ignore what the RAW text says and B) Straw Man other people's posts just to refuse to admit that you were wrong.

Because you were wrong, and you have not copped to it yet. You said:

Regardless, "spells known" does have meaning to wizards. It refers to read magic, which is (normally) the only spell that they can ever prepare from memory.

It also has meaning if they have the Spell Mastery feat, which allows them to add a number of additional spells from their spellbook to that list that normally only includes read magic.

And yet NOWEHERE in the text is this claim supported. By contrary, the text of Spell Mastery says: "Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without refering to your spellbook." So "spells that a wizard knows" must be something that already has meaning before they can even take Spell Mastery.

By "reverse" you mean "correctly interpreting the written text?"
No, by "reverse" he means that you have been saying "the rules don't say [what I'm falsely claiming your point to be], so all the rules you are citing that support your point are wrong". Whereas Munchkin Fallacy is "if the rules don't say I can't, I therefore can".

....Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
It's not his opinion, it's literally all that is being said in the text. Number of spells a wizard may know. This is a RAW discussion, which means being as pedantic and literal with the RAW as possible. So when the text says "Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells", it is literally only talking about how many spells a wizard may know. That is not an opinion, your statement is provably false.

If that were true, then "spells known" would always be applicable. There would be no point in including the phrase "if applicable" if you were correct because every spellcasting class would have "spells known." And the text could simply say "[comma] and spells known."

...I wonder why it doesn't say that?
So the distinction, again, is because that PrC may be taken by Wizards and Sorcerers.

There's actually quite a few people who argue that the RAW does not grant wizards 2 new spells into their spellbook when they gain a level in a Prestige Class like Archmage (or other "full caster" PrCs). They argue that only levels taken in "Wizard" grant that, as well as PrCs that explicitly say that they gain new spells into their spellbook when they gain a level of the PrC. This is argued by the text in the wizard's class features that seem to indicate that when she gains new spells per day she also gains new spells in her spellbook.

It's people arguing RAI vis RAW.

Then I really can't help you.
What was that about "sniping at someone from atop your Ivory Tower of Self-Righteous Indignation with that smug attitude"? Because by the RAW, a sorcerer with Arcane Preparation meets the prerequisite of Alacritous Cogitation, which is "Must prepare arcane spells".
But I suppose that depends on your definition of "must". Because if it means "if you are able to cast spontaneously at all you are disqualified for this feat", then no, a sorcerer with AP cannot take AC. But if it means "you must be able to prepare arcane spells", then yes, a socrerer with AP can take AC. That's actually a good find for RAW ambiguity, and is not as cut-and-dried as you claim. But personally, I think that if it was the former then the prequisite would say "Able to prepare and cast arcane spells; Must not cast arcane spells spontaneously".

Elves

2019-10-08, 11:38 AM

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_knownspell&alpha=

RedMage125

2019-10-08, 12:25 PM

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_knownspell&alpha=

*Hands over a microphone*
You dropped this.

RedMage125

2019-10-08, 06:56 PM

Not really a double post, since it's been six hours. But I'm back with my books and I have a PHB page number for that Glossary quote, in case anyone wants to argue that the wotc site "doesn't count as RAW"

"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." -PHB, page 310 (Glossary)

"Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard
may know any number of spells" -PHB page 57 (Wizard Class)

"You are so intimately familiar with certain
spells that you don’t need a spellbook to
prepare them anymore.
Prerequisite: Wizard level 1st.
Benefit: Each time you take this feat,
choose a number of spells equal to your
Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on,
you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.
Normal: Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to prepare
all your spells, except read magic."-PHB page 100 (Spell Mastery feat)

"A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already
knows and has recorded in her own spellbook, but preparation
success is not assured."-PHB pg 178 (Magic chapter)

Doctor Awkward

2019-10-08, 10:19 PM

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/PlasticWateryCuckoo-small.gif

...If the both of you are already aware that spells known for spontaneous casters is something completely different than spells known for wizards then how can you possibly still be arguing that a prepared spell feat can qualify you for a spontaneous casting feat?

Silvercrys

2019-10-08, 10:25 PM

The argument is that the feat allows a prepared spellcaster to spontaneously cast a spell, and since they can spontaneously cast a spell they qualify for feats with the requirement "ability to spontaneously cast spells".

The prerequisite does not say "levels in a class that spontaneously casts spells" or "spellcasting class feature from a spontaneous spellcasting class" or something like that.

Elves

2019-10-08, 10:53 PM

...spells known for spontaneous casters is something completely different than spells known for wizards...

I knew you would interpret it that way, and it's a charming abuse of syntax, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand since the only question re VS is whether a wizard "knows" their spells which the glossary makes clear they do.

RedMage125

2019-10-09, 07:04 AM

...If the both of you are already aware that spells known for spontaneous casters is something completely different than spells known for wizards then how can you possibly still be arguing that a prepared spell feat can qualify you for a spontaneous casting feat?

That's enough of that. Doctor Awkward, whether you realize or not, this is either dishonest, or you made an honest mistake so far back, and you are too proud to admit it. So which is it? Stubborn and proud, or dishonest?

In post #42, you responded to Elves, who was responding to me, in regards to Versatile Spellcaster "needing spontaneous casting slots to work". You were backing me up about what I had said.

But here's the thing, Doc...I was incorrect. And so were you. And I told you then (post #51) that while I appreciated the backup, that you were also wrong specifically on the issue of a wizard's "spells known".

Let's break it down, shall we? Now that you're finally on board with what a "spell that a wizard knows" means.

The feat Alacritous Cogitation (a feat for prepared spellcasters, which can explicitly be taken by wizards) says:

You can leave a prepared spell slot open to spontaneously cast a spell.

Prerequisite
Must prepare arcane spells,

Benefit
If you leave an arcane spell slot open when preparing spells, you can use that open slot to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower and of casting time no longer than 1 round. Casting the spell requires a full-round action. You can use this feat only once per day, regardless of the number of slots you leave open.

Special
A wizard can select this feat as a wizard bonus feat.
This feat allows a wizard to now cast one spell spontaneously. Says so in the feat description. But you argued that earlier, saying it did not meet the definition of "spontaneous spellcasting". To support your claim, you cited the Rules Compendium, page 139, which says:
"Some characters can cast spells, but they don’t need
spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast
any spell they know using a daily allotment of spell slots.
These characters are called spontaneous spellcasters"

Here's the crux. Alacritous Cogitation does in fact, allow a wizard a daily allotment of spell slots (one) that she can cast a spell that she knows, without needing her spellbook, nor preparing it beforehand.

See, that's the thing, I've been trying to get to common ground regarding what a "spell a wizard knows" means with you for over 20 posts. Now that you get that, here's the twist: Specifically in regards to Alacritous Cogitation, since the wizard may cast "any spell she knows", now that list works in a manner functionally identical to sorcerer's. But it's a much bigger list.

Seems overpowered, right? Being able to cast from the entire list of spells in her spellbook without preparation? That's why it's limited to once per day, and nothing in the feat says it can be taken more than once, ergo, it cannot. This is a once per day ability that allows a wizard to cast one spell "that she knows". Remember how I kept pointing out that Specific Overrides General? This is what I meant. AC is a feat that breaks the normal General rules. Just like Arcane Preparation allows a sorcerer to prepare spells (and thus meet prerequisites that require prepared arcane spells). Note that this isn't "Munchkining" anything. That's actually the RAW and RAI of the feat. It was intended to be a powerful feat.

So AC (which is definitely a feat for wizards) allows a wizard to meet the very definition you insisted it must. So what do you know? They DO cast spontaneously.

Now we get to Versatile Spellcaster, which says:

You can use two lower-level spell slots to cast a spell one level higher.

Prerequisite
Ability to spontaneously cast spells,

Benefit
You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.

Note that the prerequisite is "ability to spontaneously cast spells", and not, as I pointed out earlier, and Silvercrys just did again "levels in a spontaneous spellcasting class". Since we just established that AC allows a wizard to "spontaneously cast spells", a wizard who has AC may now take VS. For a wizard, AC is a prerequisite to VS. The rules on feats say that you may take a feat the same level you meet the prerequisite for it. So much like a Level 1 Fighter may take Power Attack and Cleave as his starting feats, a level 1 Wizard who has 2 feats (from taking a flaw, being human, or whatever) may take AC and then VS.

Now, why I was wrong before (and your first statement that spun all of this off was, too)...VS only specifies spontaneous casting as an ability needed to take the feat. The description under "benefit" only says spell slots must be expended. Obviously Rules As Intended (RAI) was for Sorcerers to have an alternate casting cost when they ran out of higher level spells. But it also means that a level 6 wizard who has AC and VS may spend two L2 prepared spell slots and cast any of her L3 spells "that she knows", which means any L3 spell in her spellbook.

It is a pretty powerful combination, yes. Wizard with AC + VS is now able to have all the versatility of a sorcerer by not having to rely only on foresight and preparation, but is now no longer limited to 1/day. But also has a high cost. Wizards don't have as many spells per day as a sorcerer, so they're sacrificing a lot to do this. 2 spell slots for one spell. The point is that doing this is entirely RAW-legal.

Is it exploiting what the rules say to eke out an advantage that probably runs contrary to RAI? Certainly, yes. I would probably not allow it at my table, especially in a game I intended to go to high levels. High level wizards have a ton of spell slots, and their spellbooks contain dozens of spells. Being able to cast from all spells she knows multiple times is overpowered for a class that's already one of the most powerful in the game. But I would also let a player who seemed to be doing this know that in advance that it was not going to be allowed. But that would be a house rule on my part. I freely acknowledge that is legal by the RAW. But then...so is "drown healing". I wouldn't allow that at my table, either.

The whole "Leapfrog" thing hinges on the wording of domain wizard that gives DW their higher level Domain spells as soon as they "can cast spells of that level", but the creator of that trick utterly fails to comprehend the limitations on caster level for spells above L1, and basically equated "ability to gain a L2 spell slot" with "able to cast L2 spells". Obviously that individual was dead wrong.

But just because he was wrong about the "Leapfrogging", doesn't mean he was wrong about being able to combine Alacritous Cogitation and Versatile Spellcaster.

Are you on the same page now?

Doctor Awkward

2019-10-09, 08:59 PM

I knew you would interpret it that way, and it's a charming abuse of syntax, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand since the only question re VS is whether a wizard "knows" their spells which the glossary makes clear they do.

*Will Smith genie face*

The whole... issue... is the issue at hand!"
:smallconfused:

The glossary yet again spells out my entire argument explicitly:
Spells known = X for Wizard
Spells known = Y for Sorcerer

Spontaneous spellcaster has a Spells Known list. Wizard does not. A wizard has a list of "spells that they know." This is a functionally similar but distinct feature than a Spells Known list.

Your position is rooted entirely in taking the specific words of the rules text of a feat and ignoring the context in which they appear.

You.... you are aware that is the Munchkin Fallacy, right?

That's enough of that. Doctor Awkward, whether you realize or not, this is either dishonest, or you made an honest mistake so far back, and you are too proud to admit it. So which is it? Stubborn and proud, or dishonest?

This? No this is utter bewilderment and confusion at how I somehow missed the fact that you already agreed with my position while still somehow arguing that "no your points actually support my position instead."

...Gaslighting? I guess is the word?

This feat allows a wizard to now cast one spell spontaneously. Says so in the feat description. But you argued that earlier, saying it did not meet the definition of "spontaneous spellcasting".

It doesn't meet it. Because the rules are very clear on what it means to be a spontaneous spellcaster: "you don't prepare spells." If you only have levels in a class that prepares spells, then you are not a spontaneous spellcaster. You are a prepared spellcaster. In any reasonable discussion this is not something that's up for debate. The RC is very explicit.

Taking the position that a feat technically turns a class into something it isn't when you ignore the context of the rules text is not reading the Rules As Written. It's rules-lawyering.

In the spirit of rules-lawyering, assuming that you could technically qualify for a spontaneous spellcasting feat through the use of another feat, that feat does not actually do anything for you. Because to a spontaneous spellcaster "knowing a spell" means referencing the items on your Spells Known list. To a wizard, specifically and explicitly, it means their spellbook. This is a feature that is completely different than a Spells Known list. Their class does not have this feature. They have something else that functions in a similar way but for rules (lawyering) considerations is different.

Silvercrys

2019-10-09, 10:38 PM

It seems that Doctor Awkward is proposing that, since the feat is intended to be taken by spontaneous spellcasters, you must have levels in a spontaneous spellcasting class to qualify for it, and that that also means that when it refers to "a spell you know" it is referring specifically to "Spells Known, as a spontaneous spellcaster".

Problem is the actual feat doesn't say that. I don't know of any other way to rephrase; the feat itself makes no mention of being a spontaneous spellcaster, it only refers to whether you can spontaneously cast spells without reference to the source of this ability. The words "spontaneous spellcaster" do not appear anywhere in the text of Versatile Spellcaster, nor is there any RAW basis for the assumption that you must have spells known as a spontaneous spellcaster rather than it merely referring to spells known regardless of the granting class. You have to add extra words to the feat to get to this interpretation, which makes it not a literal interpretation of the RAW. Is it RAI? Maybe. Probably? But it isn't RAW.

By the RAW, a Sorcerer 1/Wizard 5 could cast 3rd level spells with Versatile Spellcaster by expending two 2nd level Wizard spell slots to cast any Wizard spell they know (that is, that is in their spellbook). Is that intended? Maybe not. It's definitely RAW though, regardless of your definition of "ability to spontaneously cast spells" because even if you somehow think you must be a member of a spontaneous casting class to meet the prerequisite, the feat itself doesn't restrict what spell slots or classes it functions on.

Elves

2019-10-09, 10:54 PM

That's part of it. He also seems to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong Doc) that since RC says a spontaneous caster can cast "any" spell they know without preparation, a multiclass prepared/spontaneous caster would still be unable to count as spontaneous since some of their spells are prepared.

Silvercrys

2019-10-09, 11:00 PM

I think (not trying to put words in your mouth, Doc, correct me if I'm wrong) that he thinks you could do that but the feat only works for your Sorcerer spells because your Wizard spells are not "spells you know (as a spontaneous caster)".

Maybe his super strict literal interpretation of the RAW is that, though. I'm actually having a bit of trouble following the conversation, heh.

Elves

2019-10-09, 11:34 PM

Seems I misread or misremembered statements like this:

If a class is one type then it cannot be the other type under any circumstances.

So yes that was an error, I recant my last post, and the discussion becomes simpler, with only two questions.

The first -- whether a "known" spell as mentioned in VS can apply to a wizard's known spells -- has been answered. The glossary entry settles that wizards do know spells, though them knowing a spell means something different than a sorcerer knowing a spell. It's the condition of the term, not the term itself, that is different. There is no asterisk after the word "known" in the feat with the footnote "by the definition of known for a spontaneous spellcaster". If there is an issue -- if there is an RAI violation, even -- it has to do with qualifying for the feat, not with the word "known".

So yeah, the only real question is the one you're speaking of. The argument that AC does not provide spontaneous spellcasting in the first place I don't think holds much ground because the feat summary that describes it as spontaneous doesn't conflict with the feat text, so precedence doesn't take effect. The issue then is Doctor Awkward's reading of "Ability to spontaneously cast spells" as "Must be a spontaneous spellcaster". It's not an RAW argument; it's an RAI argument. And it's a reasonable table ruling. But it's not what's written.

And as an RAI argument, here's my response to it: I think it's fallacious and limiting to conflate "unanticipated mechanical interaction" with "violation of RAI".

RedMage125

2019-10-10, 06:39 AM

*Will Smith genie face*

The whole... issue... is the issue at hand!"
:smallconfused:

The glossary yet again spells out my entire argument explicitly:
Spells known = X for Wizard
Spells known = Y for Sorcerer

Spontaneous spellcaster has a Spells Known list. Wizard does not. A wizard has a list of "spells that they know." This is a functionally similar but distinct feature than a Spells Known list.

Your position is rooted entirely in taking the specific words of the rules text of a feat and ignoring the context in which they appear.

You.... you are aware that is the Munchkin Fallacy, right?
You...you are aware that that Alacritous Cogitation and Versatile Spellcaster say "spell that you know", right? So...same wording is used. They don't say "a spell from your Spells Known list".

This is not "Munchkin Fallacy". Munchkin Fallacy is "the rules don't say I can't, therefore I can".

"Taking the specific words of the rules text" is exactly what is meant by "RAW-legal" when talking about things that clearly fly in the face of Rules As Intended. Like "drown healing". You know what that is, right?

The RAW say that when you are underwater, once you cease to be able to hold your breath, your hit points immediately become -1, and then one round later, you die. So let's say a group had a party member who was at -7 hit points, but stable, but only 1 potion of cure light wounds left, and no healing spells. Since resting for 8 hours with negative hit points only sets his hp to 1 after the whole 8 hours, the party wants to ensure he is over 0 before they rest for the night. If they drown him for only one round in the nearby river, his hit points are set to -1 (thus "healing" 6 points of damage). Then they feed him the potion, and his hps are in the positive again before they rest, and he can regain hp normally.
Does this grossly violate the intent of the rules? Yes.
Does it fly in the face of all common sense? Yes.
Is it technically legal, according to the text of the RAW? Yes.

Please, feel free to peruse those rules in the PHB and DMG yourself if you don't believe me. Remember, you are not trying to get some kind of "common sense" here, you are just reading the text and determining what that text says.

So again, it is not "Munchkin Fallacy". This is "Doctor Awkward has become so convinced that he's right that he stopped actually looking at the text of the RAW, and just assumes RedMage125 and Elves have to be wrong so he makes baseless claims with no text support".

This? No this is utter bewilderment and confusion at how I somehow missed the fact that you already agreed with my position while still somehow arguing that "no your points actually support my position instead."

...Gaslighting? I guess is the word?
For what you are doing right now? Yes, gaslighting is the word.

Scroll up and look at Post #77. I used quotes to pull from my own earlier posts to demonstrate that I have been saying the same thing the entire time. I also cited YOUR earlier post, #57 where you made the following claim:

Regardless, "spells known" does have meaning to wizards. It refers to read magic, which is (normally) the only spell that they can ever prepare from memory.

It also has meaning if they have the Spell Mastery feat, which allows them to add a number of additional spells from their spellbook to that list that normally only includes read magic.

We've straight-up quoted the PHB quote that explicitly says you are wrong. Not only have you not had the grace to acknowledge that you made a simple mistake, you have the gall to act like "what you are saying now" was your stance the whole time.

That's absolutely gaslighting. As is continuing to insist that your previous Straw Man was somehow valid. I've proven that it was not in those older posts of mine. YOUR position has actually changed, and you did not explicitly acknowledge so to us. So we don't "already agree with 'your position'"; you changed your position when we presented you with facts, and rather than admit that, you acted like we were saying something different.

And it's absurd for you to attempt to gaslight me, because anyone can scroll up and see it for themselves. Again, my post (#77) shows all this.

It doesn't meet it. Because the rules are very clear on what it means to be a spontaneous spellcaster: "you don't prepare spells." If you only have levels in a class that prepares spells, then you are not a spontaneous spellcaster. You are a prepared spellcaster. In any reasonable discussion this is not something that's up for debate. The RC is very explicit.

Taking the position that a feat technically turns a class into something it isn't when you ignore the context of the rules text is not reading the Rules As Written. It's rules-lawyering.
You didn't actually read the text of the RAW, did you?
Here it is again:

Versatile Spellcaster
You can use two lower-level spell slots to cast a spell one level higher.

Prerequisite
Ability to spontaneously cast spells,

Benefit
You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.
Like has been said to you three times now. The Prerequisite is not "be a spontaneous spellcaster". Only that you have the ability to spontaneously cast spells. Do you understand the difference? It also means that A Wiz1/Sor1 may also take this feat.

Remember how we said that we were being nitpicking and pedantic about what the RAW say?

No one said "this turns the class into something it isn't" That's a Straw Man, and at this point, intellectually dishonest.

Some characters can cast spells, but they don’t need
spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast
any spell they know using a daily allotment of spell slots.
These characters are called spontaneous spellcasters.
Now, as I have said before and just said again, this is the definition for spontaneous spellcaster, not spontaneous spellcasting, but we can extract the definition from it.

Alacritous Cogitation does in fact, allow a wizard a daily allotment of spell slots (one per day) that she can cast a spell that she knows, without needing her spellbook, nor preparing it beforehand.

That is, as I said, both the RAW and RAI of Alacritous Cogitation. The wizard may not be "a spontaneous spellcasting class", but neither Elves, Silvercrys, nor myself have been claiming that it was. But AC allows a wizard to spontaneously cast one spell per day, using the very definition you claimed it didn't meet. That is an ability to spontaneously cast that the wizard did not possess before taking AC.

And the prerequisite for VS is "ability to spontaneously cast spells", and NOT "levels in a spontaneously casting class". That's four times now that that exact distinction has been pointed out to you.

Since that distinction is important, a wizard with Alacritous Cogitation may take Versatile Spellcaster.

In the spirit of rules-lawyering, assuming that you could technically qualify for a spontaneous spellcasting feat through the use of another feat, that feat does not actually do anything for you. Because to a spontaneous spellcaster "knowing a spell" means referencing the items on your Spells Known list. To a wizard, specifically and explicitly, it means their spellbook. This is a feature that is completely different than a Spells Known list. Their class does not have this feature. They have something else that functions in a similar way but for rules (lawyering) considerations is different.

Except that even Versatile Spellcaster does not say "one of your spells known", or "a spell from your Spells Known list", it says "a spell that you know", using the exact same language that is also used to reference the spells in a wizard's spellbook.

Thing is, the EXACT TEXT of the feat was spelled out for you in the post you responded to (with citation), and yet you STILL claim the RAW says something different than what it does.

To get full "lawyering", one must simply ask, for Versatile Spellcaster: 1)Do wizards have spell slots to spend? 2)Do wizards have "spells that [they] know"?

The answer to both is yes. Ergo, wizards can use it.

Please, I've been providing RAW quotes and everything. If you're going to claim I'm incorrect, have a citation to back it up. Or have the good grace to admit you just made a mistake. Most of your posts I've seen on the forums have been very on-point, but you're just flat-out wrong here.

It's not an RAW argument; it's an RAI argument. And it's a reasonable table ruling. But it's not what's written.

And as an RAI argument, here's my response to it: I think it's fallacious and limiting to conflate "unanticipated interaction" with "violation of RAI".

Elves, you are absolutely right. And I even said in my last post that this is probably a violation of RAI. It's using something that is only RAW-legal on technicalities to eke out a significant advantage that violates the intent of Versatile Spellcaster.

But, he's digging in his heels at this point. And now he's only looking for bias confirmation, not reading the RAW anymore with an open mind.

Elves

2019-10-13, 11:59 PM

RedMage125

2019-10-14, 09:40 AM

Faustian pacts (FC2 p23) let you gain a spell slot of "any level". Could this bypass the -- entry in your class level chart? If so, then if we're defining the minimum level for a class to cast a spell by its chart entries, that could work directly.

I would say you could gain a LX spell slot, but can't cast a LX spell.

PHB, page 7: "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)"

There's no wiggle room there.

Elves

2019-10-14, 10:18 AM

RedMage125

2019-10-14, 11:33 AM

One interpretation of the minimum level, however, is based on the notation on their class chart. This was Blue Jay's reading in the other thread I believe -- that the minimum level mentioned in that quote and in the Mialee fireball passage is descriptive, not prescriptive.

How do you figure?

If you are a wizard, for example, you can not cast L9 spells until you have 17 class levels of wizard (or equivalent with Prestige Class levels that add to your spelcasting "as if you had gained a level [of wizard]".

I'm not that familiar with Faustian Pacts, but taking what you posted at face value, I would say it only does what the RAW says it does and no more. You could get a L9 "spell slot", but that does not override the PHB page 7 quote I just showed you. You could use this high level slot for metamagic, but you could not cast a L9 spell.

Make sense?

Elves

2019-10-14, 01:27 PM

In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)

can’t cast fireball with a caster level lower than 5th (the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball)

I don't think the first quote is saying anything of mechanical primacy, since it is a) referring only to the character's ability to cast certain spells and not actually setting terms for that and b) is explicitly subsidiary to the class descriptions in chapter 3, in which no such restriction is given other than the daily spell allotment on the class table. This is evidence that that allotment, and not some other general rule, is what the quote on page 7 is referring to. Hence, if the allotment is changed such that a wizard has slots of a given level, that means they have a high enough class level to cast spells of that level.

This is why the question becomes whether the Faustian pact is actually modifying that allotment directly.

As for the second quote, it means that using that 9th level slot at 1st level probably does require extreme and perhaps impossible caster level boosting.

But there's a controversial argument you could make to the effect that if minimum level is descriptive and not prescriptive, then since you're 1st level and actually have the slot, your minimum level to cast the spell is 1st. But this does assume the slot from the Faustian pact is equivalent to one granted through your class, which is probably wrong.

RedMage125

2019-10-14, 08:02 PM

I don't think the first quote is saying anything of mechanical primacy, since it is a) referring only to the character's ability to cast certain spells and not actually setting terms for that and b) is explicitly subsidiary to the class descriptions in chapter 3, in which no such restriction is given other than the daily spell allotment on the class table. This is evidence that that allotment, and not some other general rule, is what the quote on page 7 is referring to. Hence, if the allotment is changed such that a wizard has slots of a given level, that means they have a high enough class level to cast spells of that level.

This is why the question becomes whether the Faustian pact is actually modifying that allotment directly.

As for the second quote, it means that using that 9th level slot at 1st level probably does require extreme and perhaps impossible caster level boosting.

But there's a controversial argument you could make to the effect that if minimum level is descriptive and not prescriptive, then since you're 1st level and actually have the slot, your minimum level to cast the spell is 1st. But this does assume the slot from the Faustian pact is equivalent to one granted through your class, which is probably wrong.

It is wrong. First of all, the information on the table is still rules, and they show at which class level a wizard (or whatever class) gets spells of spell level X. You bolded "to be able to", seemingly de-emphasizing the qualifier, which was "high enough class level".

Gaining a higher level spell slot through an alternate means does not grant permission to violate that rule on page 7. As proof, I cite the verbage of the one thing that does grant permission to violate that rule, as a Specific Rule.

Your master has shown you the basics of a spell beyond the normal limits of your experience and training.

Prerequisite
arcane caster level 1st, Spellcasting ability (Int or Cha) 15,

Benefit
Choose one 2nd-level spell from a school of magic you have access to. You gain an extra 2nd-level spell slot that must be used initially to cast only the chosen spell. Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully cast this spell; if you fail, the spell is miscast to no effect. Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances. When you become able to cast 2nd-level spells, you lose the benefit described above but retain the extra 2nd-level spell slot, which you can use to prepare or spontaneously cast a spell of 2nd level or lower as you normally would. Finally, you gain a +2 bonus on all Spellcraft checks.

Special
You can take this feat only as a 1st-level character.
I bolded the significant part. When the RAW grant permission to cast a spell of a level higher than that which the character's class would normally allow, it says so specifically. And even that only grants an exception for one specific spell*. I looked at FC2, and this language is not present.

The gain of a spell slot of a level higher than the highest spell you can cast does not grant the ability to cast a spell of that level. Remember that part of the pedantry of a RAW discussion is determining what the RAW do allow by their text, not trying to weasel something in due to absence of text. That, as was discussed before, is Munchkin Fallacy.

Just like the example I gave earlier about "drown healing". The RAW explicitly say that someone's hp is set to -1 when drowning. So that is true. As opposed to claiming that "an extra spell slot of any level" is, by itself enough to allow spells of that level to be cast.

*An interesting note we determined from the previous thread 3 years ago. An Elven Generalist who has Precocious Apprentice prepares their extra spell from EGW in a 2nd level spell slot. Now, as per PA, that can only be the same spell they chose for PA. So even assuming that a DM has allowed EGW + Domain Wizard (something you know I maintain the RAW does not support)...by the RAW, that character knows her L2 Domain spell (i.e. it is in their spellbook). But because PA only grants her the ability to specifically cast that one specific spell chosen with PA, she may not cast their L2 Domain spell. But she may, as per the RAW of Domain Wizard, prepare her L1 Domain Spell in that L2 slot. So she'd actually have 3 L2 spell slots, one which could only be filled with a second iteration of her L1 domain spell, one for her Precocious Apprentice spell, and her extra EGW prepared spell, which could either be her PA spell a second time, or any of her L1 spells. But even if such a character also had Alacritous Cogitation, she could not leave one of the L2 spell slots empty to cast the L2 Domain Spell, because neither Domain Wizard nor Alacritous Cogitation grant the specific exception that Precocious Apprentice does.

EDIT: I don't think Doctor Awkward is coming back. Do you suppose that means he realizes he was incorrect?

Elves

2019-10-14, 08:47 PM

The quote is convincing. Per my last post it still seems to me that CL boosting, if possible, would work. I might look into the earliest level at which you could do that.

The AC>VS thing went as far as it could. I bumped this thread only because I saw FCII pacts mentioned in another thread.

RedMage125

2019-10-15, 09:39 AM

The quote is convincing. Per my last post it still seems to me that CL boosting, if possible, would work. I might look into the earliest level at which you could do that.
I'm afraid I'm confused at to what you mean?

You are convinced that CL boosting does or does not allow casting of higher level spells than one's class levels allow?

The AC>VS thing went as far as it could. I bumped this thread only because I saw FCII pacts mentioned in another thread.

The case is pretty ironclad. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I would not allow it at my table. I think it's a clear violation of RAI. Same with "drown healing". But that doersn't mean that the RAW don't still technically allow it. The fact that the opposing argument broke down to him accusing us of " taking the specific words of the rules text of a feat", while ignoring the "context" (by which he means the intent of that feat) was...kind of funny, actually.

It's like...yeah...we've been saying that to you for pages now. The text of the feat says "X", therefore "X" is RAW-legal.

Elves

2019-10-15, 12:18 PM

RedMage125

2019-10-16, 11:06 AM

The caster level text on PHB 171 is clearly talking about caster level, not class level. The quote you provided:

"Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances"

seems to be a callback to that text, similarly using "level" as a shorthand for "caster level" in the subsidiary clause.

In this reading of the word "level" on PHB 171, while the fact that the Faustian pact slot isn't coming from wizard means that its minimum CL requirement isn't changed, you could still cast the spell if you achieved CL 17.
Complete Arcane should have specifically said "caster level" instead of just "level" where you bolded. I agree that such would be even more concise.
You are, unfortunately, completely abrogating one thing.

That text in the quote is explicitly the text from a feat. A feat which only allows that exception to apply to one spell, chosen at the time the feat is chosen. Without that feat, the general rules in the PHB pages 7 and 171 apply, and even with the feat, the Specific exception is only for the one spell.

While I agree that the word "level" gets used in too many connotations*, the direct text from the PHB (which is our General Rules) makes clear distinctions between caster level, class level, and spell level. You suggestion fails to create a specific exception for the following:

In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.(See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)
Bold added for emphasis.

Caster level is equated into that from the following quotes:

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell.
*snip*
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.
As you can see, "caster level" is usually equal to "class level" except in cases where it is specified otherwise (paladins and rangers come to mind).

Precocious Apprentice explicitly grants a Specific exception to the General Rules laid down here, and it does so by answering to all factors therin.
1) It is a feat that can only be taken at 1st level of wizard or sorcerer, limiting it's availability and being very clear that these things DO apply to 1st level characters (otherwise only capable of casting L0 and L1 spells).
2) A single L2 spell is permitted to be cast. It is explicitly in a "spell slot" and not some kind of 1/day special ability. There's even redundant qualifying language "until your level is high enough to allow you to cast level 2 spells..." (level in that instance means class level) This covers our exception to page 7 of the PHB.
3) Caster level is covered next. The character with PA may use their own caster level, "even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances". So now we are covering our Specific exception to the General Rules on page 171 of the PHB.
4) Next describes the benefit of continuing to have this feat once L2 spells are available normally, according to the individual's class level ("When you become able to cast 2nd-level spells...").
5) Finally a small, general benefit 9+2 to Spellcraft checks) is detailed.

The existence of a feat that allows for a Specific > General exception to the rules does not mean that said General Rule is somehow "voided" for all other purposes. Indeed, one must have the feat to have that exception, and even then, it only applies to one specific spell that must be a 2nd level spell, and must be chosen when the feat is selected.

Now, CL boosters:

In the event that a class feature, domain granted power, or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt) but also to your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance (see Spell Resistance, page 177) and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).
Remember Munchkin Fallacy? How you cannot claim "absence of rules saying 'no' means the RAW support 'yes'"?

The PHB is quite explicit that if your CL is boosted in some way, those boosts ONLY apply to the effects stated on page 171. It does NOT say that boosting CL allows you to cast spells of a spell level above which your class level normally allows.

So even if you HAD Precocious Apprentice and took a Faustian Pact at first level (gaining a L9 spell slot), AND were able to boost your CL up to 17 somehow, you would remain unable to cast a L9 spell. Although your L1 spells (and that PA L2 spell) would be much more powerful.

*You will note that in order to be concise when I type, I usually use CL for "caster level", and refer to "spell level X" as "LX spell". I try not to use the word "level" by itself, unless it is accompanied by context that makes it clear "level 1 wizard" or "level 3 Ur-Priest".

Drown healing is a violation of RAI because it doesn't make sense. There are a lot of nonsensical crazy magic things in the game but the way water works is supposed to be the same as IRL.

By contrast, there are no such expectations about how magic works, so I don't think AC>VS is on the same level. The ruling re that combo is more about what the DM thinks is balanced, not about keeping the basic logic of the gameworld coherent.

(Personally, I prefer to use bans only for things that interfere with gameplay, rather than out of a general sense of balance, so I might allow it. It's powerful but it doesn't destroy gameplay the way loops or Craft Contingent Spell do.)
The point is that drown healing, while absolutely a violation of RAI (and common sense), is still technically RAW-factual. No matter how absurd, a literal reading of the RAW makes it true.

And I agree that AC>VS shares that literal reading. It is only my belief that it violates RAI in a manner which makes a class that is already Tier 1 even more versatile. Think about it. Wizards can have every "Sor/Wiz" spell in their spellbooks, but must prepare them in advance. The ability to sacrifice two lower-level prepared spells to cast any spell in your spellbook on the fly, spontaneously, is a HUGE power boost. And if there's one PHB class that doesn't need a boost, it's Wizard. But that's all my personal preference, and I have qualified it as such. I try to be careful when I am expressing that by saying things like "my belief" or "what I would do at my table", things like that.

HOWEVER, the contention of being able to cast L9 spells without first achieving the appropriate class level, as per the PHB page 7 -even if you manage to boost your CL up to 17- does not share the same kind of support from the RAW like "drown healing" or "AC>VS" do.

Elves

2019-10-16, 08:28 PM

RedMage125

2019-10-17, 06:33 AM

The RC 133/PHB 171 quote on caster level is, as I said, clearly talking about caster level not class level, and the phrase "the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question" if anything supports CL being the main requirement.

(and the PHB phrase "the minimum level a wizard must be to cast fireball" was removed from RC for whatever that's worth).
It removed ALL examples, if you'll note. Otherwise it is literally the same text as PHB 171.

Parsed grammatically, the quote on PHB page 7 is

This is either a tautology:

"To be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level"

or is missing the information about what a high enough class level is, so as instructed we go to the class descriptions in Chapter 3 to find that out. When we go to Chapter 3 we find no general rule about what is a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given level. All we have is the spells per day chart and the rules for spells known.
Whoah. There's no tautology until YOU added one. You literally copied the exact text of the first clause of the sentence and pasted it to the end, which is not in the RAW, and declared it a tautology? I call BS.

And the last part of your sentence is an attempt to be intentionally obtuse and myopic to claim the does not have a General Rule when it does.

The quote from page 7 IS the General Rule, and you know full well that the class descriptions in Chapter 3 show that different classes get access to spells of whichever spell level at different class levels. Let's take the always popular L3 spells. Wizards get at class level 5, sorcerers at class level 6, bards at class level 7, paladins at class level 11.

Claiming "there's no general rule in chapter 3" is intellectually dishonest. Because the general rule is on page 7, and chapter 3 has the details of what that class level is for each class.

So there are two interpretations that can be drawn from this.

The first is that "able to cast spells" in the page 7 quote is simply referring to the rules that are present, and that we're referred to, in chapter 3 -- that able in this case means having the spell known and having the spell slot [and having, as we learn elsewhere, a high enough caster level].

The second relies on a jump of implicit logic to impute that the page 7 quote is saying something it doesn't literally sum to, creating an extra rule:

"to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level [to receive spells per day (or whatever) of that level]."

Reading literally, I can't help but see that as the construction of a phantom rule. Do you see what I'm saying?

Again, what you are saying requires intentionally-imposed blinders. The general rule directs one to each class' class description, which includes the table for the class. When you look at the rules on page 7 and 171 combined (or use the RC 133 instead of PHB 171, since it's literally the exact same words without any examples), that IS the "General Rule", and it includes being directed to the individual class descriptions in Chapter 3, because many classes determine the relationship between class levels and new spell levels differently. There are also classes which determine the relationship between class level and caster level differently. The general rule is just that...GENERAL.

It has to be that vague and rely on individual class descriptions, because of those differences between classes. And be general enough that the "minimum caster level" for any given spell can be shown to be dependent on which class is casting it.

Elves

2019-10-17, 06:56 AM

There's no tautology until YOU added one. You literally copied the exact text of the first clause of the sentence and pasted it to the end, which is not in the RAW, and declared it a tautology? I call BS.

I didn't say it ended up being a tautology, I was being thorough and dismissing that the clause could operate mechanically absent reference to Ch3 (which is exactly where we're then instructed to go).

And the last part of your sentence is an attempt to be intentionally obtuse and myopic to claim the does not have a General Rule when it does.

"General" in the sense of a rule in addition to what is stated in ch3.

The quote from page 7 IS the General Rule, and you know full well that the class descriptions in Chapter 3 show that different classes get access to spells of whichever spell level at different class levels. Let's take the always popular L3 spells. Wizards get at class level 5, sorcerers at class level 6, bards at class level 7, paladins at class level 11.
You're missing the logical leap you're making -- you're implicitly adding the bracketed clause from my post above.

I don't really know how to be clearer than in my last post. I'll post in the recent minimum CL thread and see if anyone else wants to pitch in.

RedMage125

2019-10-17, 08:17 AM

I didn't say it ended up being a tautology, I was being thorough and dismissing that the clause could operate mechanically absent reference to Ch3 (which is exactly where we're then instructed to go).

"General" in the sense of a rule in addition to what is stated in ch3.

You're missing the logical leap you're making -- you're implicitly adding the bracketed clause from my post above.

I don't really know how to be clearer than in my last post. I'll post in the recent minimum CL thread and see if anyone else wants to pitch in.

...

Of course it can't operate mechanically absent of referencing Chp. 3. In order to do that, all classes would have to have the same spell progression. Like, if all spellcasting classes had the Wiz/Clr/Drd progression, the general rule would be "2x(spell level) -1" as the minimum caster level. The very nature of the varied class progressions makes a "General Rule" like you're asking for impossible.

Imagine that...when you don't look at all the rules in their totality there are holes in the rules.

Seriously. Your entire claim is predicated on the "lack of rule" because it references other rules (Chp 3), and you would rather only perceive a General Rule that does not require one to reference the specific cases of each individual class.

Elves

2019-10-17, 09:45 AM

Of course it can't operate mechanically absent of referencing Chp. 3.

Right...when you look at something thoroughly, you go through and dismiss the possibilities that don't work. But under the imperative reading it's not a mechanically complete statement even with the reference to chapter 3.

The very nature of the varied class progressions makes a "General Rule" like you're asking for impossible.

You can delete the word "general" from that post if you like. It doesn't change the meaning. I'm not saying that all classes must have the same progression. A rule can be general without saying that, anyway.

RedMage125

2019-10-17, 10:27 AM

Right...when you look at something thoroughly, you go through and dismiss the possibilities that don't work. But under the imperative reading it's not a mechanically complete statement even with the reference to chapter 3.

You can delete the word "general" from that post if you like. It doesn't change the meaning. I'm not saying that all classes must have the same progression. A rule can be general without saying that, anyway.

...

The rule IS General like that. It tells you that before you can cast spells of higher spell levels, you must have a high enough class level in your relevant class.

That's what page 7 says. How is that "incomplete"?

Elves

2019-10-17, 10:42 AM

When we go to Chapter 3 we find no general rule about what is a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given level. All we have is the spells per day chart and the rules for spells known.

So there are two interpretations that can be drawn from this.

The first is that "able to cast spells" in the page 7 quote is simply referring to the rules that are present, and that we're referred to, in chapter 3 -- that able in this case means having the spell known and having the spell slot [and having, as we learn elsewhere, a high enough caster level].

A better word than "general" is probably "separate". We find no rule about minimum necessary class level that is separate from the rules for spells per day and the rules for spells known. And the quote on page 7 is grammatically insufficient to establish a separate rule for that. Hence, you can either insert bracketed text to alter the page 7 quote to be sufficient to establish a separate rule, or you can simply read it as a descriptive statement that is not trying to establish a separate rule.

Rijan_Sai

2019-10-17, 12:18 PM

I'm going to copy/paste this, as it's relevant to both threads:

Elves, I gotta admit, I really don't understand where you are coming from on this... (diagraming sentences was the bane of my schooling, so forgive me but) I don't understand why it's more "grammatically accurate" to reverse the clauses

In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)
Relevant section bolded (nobody is arguing that you can cast without a high enough ability score.)

Looking at Chapter 3: Classes we can see that first of all, some classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue specifically) do not have any casting at all, so we dismiss those for this discussion.
Next, looking at the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard, we see this section under Class Features:
Spells

(I apologize in advance for what I am about to do... I will put it in a spoiler block to save space)

Spells: A bard casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to sorcerers and wizards), which are drawn from the bard spell (page 181) list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or cleric must (see below). Every bard spell has a verbal component (singing, reciting, or music).

To learn or cast a spell, a bard must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Cha 10 for 0-level spells, Cha 11 for 1stlevel spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a bard’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the bard’s Charisma modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a bard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is
given on Table 3–4: The Bard. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Charisma score (see Table 1–1: Ability
Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8). When Table 3–4 indicates that the bard gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level (for instance, 1stlevel
spells for a 2nd-level bard), he gains only the bonus spells he would be entitled to based on his Charisma score for that spell level.

The bard’s selection of spells is extremely limited. A bard begins play knowing four 0-level spells (also called cantrips) of your choice.
At most new bard levels, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table 3–5: Bard Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day,
the number of spells a bard knows is not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table 3–5 are fixed.)

A cleric casts divine spells (the same type of spells available to the druid, paladin, and ranger), which are drawn from the
cleric spell list (page 183). However, his alignment may restrict him from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs;
see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below. A cleric must choose and prepare his spells in advance (see below).

To prepare or cast a spell, a cleric must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Wis 10 for 0-level spells, Wis 11 for
1st-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a cleric’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the cleric’s Wisdom
modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a cleric can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is
given on Table 3–7: The Cleric. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Wisdom score (see Table 1–1: Ability
Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8). A cleric also gets one domain spell of each spell level he can cast, starting at 1st level. When a
cleric prepares a spell in a domain spell slot, it must come from one of his two domains (see Deities, Domains, and Domain Spells, below).

A druid casts divine spells (the same type of spells available to the cleric, paladin, and ranger), which are drawn from
the druid spell list (page 189). Her alignment may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below. A druid must choose and prepare her spells in advance (see below).

To prepare or cast a spell, the druid must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Wis 10 for 0-level spells, Wis 11
for 1st-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a druid’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the druid’s Wisdom modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a druid can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table 3–8: The Druid. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Wisdom score (see Table 1–1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page8). She does not have access to any domain spells or granted powers, as a cleric does.

Spells: Beginning at 4th level, a paladin gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells (the same type of spells available to the cleric, druid, and ranger), which are drawn from the paladin spell list (page 191). A paladin must choose and prepare her spells in advance.

To prepare or cast a spell, a paladin must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Wis 11 for 1st-level spells, Wis
12 for 2nd-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a paladin’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the paladin’s Wisdom modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a paladin can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is
given on Table 3–12: The Paladin. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Wisdom score (see Table 1–1: Ability
Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8). When Table 3–12 indicates that the paladin gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level (for instance,
1st-level spells for a 4th-level paladin), she gains only the bonus spells she would be entitled to based on her Wisdom score for that
spell level The paladin does not have access to any domain spells or granted powers, as a cleric does.

A paladin prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does, though she cannot lose a prepared spell to spontaneously cast a cure spell in its place. A paladin may prepare and cast any spell on the paladin spell list (page 191), provided that she can cast spells of that level, but she must choose which spells to prepare during her daily meditation.

Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level.

Spells: Beginning at 4th level, a ranger gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells (the same type of spells available to the cleric, druid, and paladin), which are drawn from the ranger spell list (page 191). A ranger must choose and prepare his spells in advance (see below).

To prepare or cast a spell, a ranger must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Wis 11 for 1st-level spells, Wis 12 for 2nd-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a ranger’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the ranger’s Wisdom modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a ranger can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table 3–13: The Ranger. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Wisdom score (see Table 1–1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8). When Table 3–13 indicates that the ranger gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level (for instance, 1st-level spells for a 4th-level ranger), he gains only the bonus spells he would be entitled to based on his Wisdom score for that spell level. The ranger does not have access to any domain spells or granted powers, as a cleric does.

A ranger prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does, though he cannot lose a prepared spell to cast a cure spell in its place. A ranger
may prepare and cast any spell on the ranger spell list, provided that he can cast spells of that level, but he must choose which spells to prepare during his daily meditation.

Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is one-half his ranger level.

Spells: A sorcerer casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to bards and wizards), which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192). He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below).

To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Cha 10 for 0-level spells, Cha 11
for 1st-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a sorcerer’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the sorcerer’s Charisma modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a sorcerer can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is
given on Table 3–16: The Sorcerer. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Charisma score (see Table 1–1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8).

A sorcerer’s selection of spells is extremely limited. A sorcerer begins play knowing four 0-level spells (also called cantrips) and two 1st-level spells of your choice. At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table 3–17: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table 3–17 are fixed.)

Spells: A wizard casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to sorcerers and bards), which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list (page 192). A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).

To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Int 10 for 0-level spells, Int 11 for 1st-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a wizard’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the wizard’s Intelligence modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table 3–18: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score (see Table 1–1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8).

Good Nugget! that was a lot of repetition...

So, we were referred to the classes from page 7; every class with "Spells" follows the same basic format:
•[Class] casts [Arcane/Divine] spells; must prepare in advance/does not need to prepare in advance
•To learn/prepare/cast, [Class] needs a high enough [CHA/WIS/INT]; save DC calculation
•Limited spells per day (reference to class table)*
•Additional, class-specific details (some were left in for reference, like the Paladin/Ranger clause about not having a caster-level until (class) level 4, then Caster Level = (Class Level)/2; or the points about Bard/Sorcerer being limited in spells known.)

*This is the relevant point to my post...
Page 7 (which states that you must have a "high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level" refers us to Chapter 3: Classes. C3, in the individual class descriptions, refers us to the class-specific tables. These tables, in turn, show us exactly when [Class] is able to have access to spells of different levels.
Keep in mind that in D&D 3.5, a mark of "--" in any category (see: Level Adjustment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#levelAdjustment); Non-Ability Scores (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities)) is an indication of non-existence: Any class level that shows "--" for a spell slot does not have the ability to cast from that slot; it doesn't exist. Higher level spells only are available when the class table indicate a "0" or higher number for that slot.

...Okay, ^that took a long time with several distractions, so I kinda lost anywhere else I might have been going with it...
The point is: taken together, the rules on page 7 and 171, as well as reading the class descriptions and class tables, show us that you need to have both a high enough class level as well as a high enough caster level to cast spells. 7 and 171 are the general rules; class descriptions are the specific rules. (And 171 does refer to "class", as I have seen people state otherwise:

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most (Added: See Paladin/Ranger) spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell.

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.

WRT gaining higher level spell slots than your class would normally allow (leaving aside Dead Horse #2: Precocious Apprentice, Faustian Pacts were mentioned in either this topic or the other one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?599964-Minimum-Caster-Levels-Myth-or-Dysfunction) as being able to get a low-level caster a 9th level spell slot. If this is true, then that's fine; you could use that slot to cast/prepare additional available level spells, or (possibly... I'd probably allow it) (non-Heighten) metamagic a lower level spell to the 9's. But you still would not have a class level able to cast 9th level spells.

RedMage125

2019-10-17, 02:12 PM

A better word than "general" is probably "separate". We find no rule about minimum necessary class level that is separate from the rules for spells per day and the rules for spells known. And the quote on page 7 is grammatically insufficient to establish a separate rule for that. Hence, you can either insert bracketed text to alter the page 7 quote to be sufficient to establish a separate rule, or you can simply read it as a descriptive statement that is not trying to establish a separate rule.
Why on earth do you think there should be a "rule about minimum necessary class level that is separate from the rules for spells per day and the rules for spells known"? These things are directly connected. It's not specific and distinct because each class gains access to spell levels at different class levels, even for classes which use the same spell list.

I feel like you're insisting that the general rules are not as specific as the specific rules, and that such is somehow a "failing".

*all kinds of great stuff*
Rijan_Sai, I could kiss you. I honestly do not have the patience or energy to do all of that, you wonderful person, you.

The point is: taken together, the rules on page 7 and 171, as well as reading the class descriptions and class tables, show us that you need to have both a high enough class level as well as a high enough caster level to cast spells. 7 and 171 are the general rules; class descriptions are the specific rules. (And 171 does refer to "class", as I have seen people state otherwise
Also, you beat me to this point, lol.

WRT gaining higher level spell slots than your class would normally allow (leaving aside Dead Horse #2: Precocious Apprentice, Faustian Pacts were mentioned in either this topic or the other one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?599964-Minimum-Caster-Levels-Myth-or-Dysfunction) as being able to get a low-level caster a 9th level spell slot. If this is true, then that's fine; you could use that slot to cast/prepare additional available level spells, or (possibly... I'd probably allow it) (non-Heighten) metamagic a lower level spell to the 9's. But you still would not have a class level able to cast 9th level spells.

You can always prepare a spell in a higher level slot than needed, metamagic or no. If you are a wizard and you find yourself needing just one more casting per day of one of your L2 spells, you can prepare it in a L3+ spell slot.

So yes, you are correct. You could use this Faustian Pact L9 spell slot to prepare any lower level spell, metamagicked or not.

Elves

2019-10-17, 02:25 PM

I don't understand why it's more "grammatically accurate" to reverse the clauses

It's just easier to understand because it puts the clauses in operative order.

It's useful in this case because the sentence has a slurry structure that tempts you into reading more than is there.

*This is the relevant point to my post...
Page 7 (which states that you must have a "high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level" refers us to Chapter 3: Classes. C3, in the individual class descriptions, refers us to the class-specific tables. These tables, in turn, show us exactly when [Class] is able to have access to spells of different levels.

Exactly. The question is about whether the quote on page 7 is able to constitute a separate general rule about minimum class level, or whether it's simply a description of what chapter 3 says. For the prescriptive reading, the question is

"To be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level" [for what to be true?]

Under that reading it isn't a complete statement, so people substitute inference. The leap they make is reasonable, but also not necessary -- that statement functions just fine as a descriptive introductory statement.

The point is: taken together, the rules on page 7 and 171, as well as reading the class descriptions and class tables, show us that you need to have both a high enough class level as well as a high enough caster level to cast spells. 7 and 171 are the general rules; class descriptions are the specific rules. (And 171 does refer to "class", as I have seen people state otherwise:
Just btw, we should be referring to RC 133, since it supersedes PHB 171. Re the quote, how is the fact that caster level is "for most spellcasting characters equal to [their] class level in the class [they're] using to cast the spell" connected to what we're discussing?

Rijan_Sai

2019-10-17, 04:00 PM

It's just easier to understand because it puts the clauses in operative order.

It's useful in this case because the sentence has a slurry structure that tempts you into reading more than is there.
I'm not following... (see below) I really am trying to understand it from your POV...

Exactly. The question is about whether the quote on page 7 is able to constitute a separate general rule about minimum class level, or whether it's simply a description of what chapter 3 says. For the prescriptive reading, the question is

"To be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level" [for what to be true?]

Under that reading it isn't a complete statement, so people substitute inference. The leap they make is reasonable, but also not necessary -- that statement functions just fine as a descriptive introductory statement.
You're right: written like that, it is an incomplete statement. However, written as in the book " ...a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." is a complete thought and tells us exactly what it means. I promise, I am not reading any more into it than what is printed on the paper. It then tells us to see Chapter 3: Classes to find out exactly what class level is high enough to cast a given spell level.
Edit: Let me try and rephrase it a little: Why do you believe that it is "easier to understand," when doing so (apparently) breaks the sentence structure enough that it no longer makes sense?

Just btw, we should be referring to RC 133, since it supersedes PHB 171. Re the quote, how is the fact that caster level is "for most spellcasting characters equal to [their] class level in the class [they're] using to cast the spell" connected to what we're discussing?
"which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level" (PHB) vs. "which is usually equal to your class level" (RC) is so significantly undifferent as to be negligible...
Also, I originally posted this in the Minimum Caster Level topic, where that line had more relevance... this was literally just a "copy/paste," minus your quoted post from that thread.

Elves

2019-10-17, 05:35 PM

You're right: written like that, it is an incomplete statement. However, written as in the book " ...a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." is a complete thought and tells us exactly what it means.
[...]
Edit: Let me try and rephrase it a little: Why do you believe that it is "easier to understand," when doing so (apparently) breaks the sentence structure enough that it no longer makes sense?

The reordering of the clauses there doesn't affect what the sentence says.

Here's an example with different words:

a cat must be green enough to be able to sweep that corner.
to be able to sweep that corner, a cat must be green enough.

The question is the same for both: how green?

The argument I'm outlining is simple: that it's more straightforward to take the statement as a description of the rules it refers us to than as the establishment of a separate additional rule that is never explicitly formulated.

Also, I originally posted this in the Minimum Caster Level topic, where that line had more relevance... this was literally just a "copy/paste," minus your quoted post from that thread.
I agree that there's a minimum caster level.

Rijan_Sai

2019-10-17, 09:21 PM

The reordering of the clauses there doesn't affect what the sentence says.

Here's an example with different words:

a cat must be green enough to be able to sweep that corner.
to be able to sweep that corner, a cat must be green enough.

The question is the same for both: how green?

The argument I'm outlining is simple: that it's more straightforward to take the statement as a description of the rules it refers us to than as the establishment of a separate additional rule that is never explicitly formulated.
Simple: green “enough” to sweep that corner! :smallbiggrin: One would presume that there would be an additional description of how green somewhere, though left as is there is not enough information to know...

The difference is that in the PHB we are told exactly where to find this additional information: in the class descriptions in chapter 3!

Elves

2019-10-17, 10:21 PM

RedMage125

2019-10-18, 06:32 AM

I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

"...a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."

If you're trying to read this as the establishment of its own rule separate from the referred rules in ch3, then depending on how the sentence is grammatically parsed, the remaining question is either [to do what?] or [what is a high enough class level?].

The step where you interpret it to mean "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be [high enough class level to receive slots of that level from their class] is a step of imputation.

The response from someone who favors that reading is likely that it's obvious RAI. But it's only obvious RAI if you're already assuming it functions a specific way. By RAI the statement functions just as well as a descriptive reference as the establishment of its own rule.

I don't know how THIS can be any clearer.

The answer to the question you claim is being "begged" is in Chapter 3.

And that's getting into Specific Rules. Because the answer is different for each class. Which is exactly why I said what I did earlier about how what you're claiming is "necessary" would only make sense if everyone followed the same spell progression.

"What is a high enough class level?" is not a "remaining question", because that, itself is begging questions. "what class are you?" "what level spell are you trying to cast?". All of that. Which is why a statement that says "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)" IS a complete General Rule. Because anything after that is "it depends". It depends on so many variables that what is posted here is as far as one can go with a statement that is going to always be true in all cases for all possible iterations of class and spell levels. Which is why it is a GENERAL rule. Because there isn't one, single, absolute answer to the question.

Bards must be level 7 to cast L3 spells. Did I have to "infer" something from the text to learn this? No. I followed the instructions. Page 7 says that I must be "of a high enough class level" and refers me to Chapter 3. So I look in Chapter 3. At this point, I am looking for specific rules, because the General one has been made clear. The Bard class description (which includes the table) says I must be level 7. Since I am not an ignorant cretin and have reading comprehension, I can say that for a Bard, in reference to L3 spells, the way that PHB pg 7 applies is "7 class levels of Bard". If I were to do the same thing over again for Paladins, the answer would be 11.

Just as DA was arguing RAI and claiming it was RAW, you are arguing for a General Rule to be Specific. Because the RAW couldn't even say something like "this is usually [(2x spell level)-1]", because that would be nonsensical, because there are 4 classes in the PHB that such is NOT true for (Sorc, Brd, Pal, Rgr) and only 3 that it IS true for (Clr, Drd, Wiz). So it's not even true in a majority of cases.

Golly, if only this General Rule somehow included a clause that let us know that the answer is dependent on so many other independent variables. Like perhaps referring us to a different section of the book where the distinction between those variables could be found, and thus telling us more clearly how the rule on page 7 could applied in any given situation.

Elves

2019-10-18, 11:29 AM

I'll ask you to re-read my last few posts with fresh eyes, because you still seem to think I'm making an argument that I'm not.

Because the RAW couldn't even say something like "this is usually [(2x spell level)-1]", because that would be nonsensical,

[To be granted a spell slot of that level] would be perfectly fine. Remember that I'm not saying "hurr durr this rule is phrased wrong so ignore it", I'm questioning your assumption that the purpose of the phrase is to establish its own rule that is in addition to the rules it refers us to.

RedMage125

2019-10-18, 01:23 PM

I'll ask you to re-read my last few posts with fresh eyes, because you still seem to think I'm making an argument that I'm not.

[To be granted a spell slot of that level] would be perfectly fine. Remember that I'm not saying "hurr durr this rule is phrased wrong so ignore it", I'm questioning your assumption that the purpose of the phrase is to establish its own rule that is in addition to the rules it refers us to.

I apologize if I had inadvertently created a Straw Man, then. Mea Culpa. But given that such was pursuant to your earlier assertion that the Faustian Pact granted L9 spell slot "could" allow a level 1 wizard to cast a L9 spell somehow (assuming CL boosters were abl to be acquired and boost CL to 17), you may understand why I thought such.

Ok, so it's not an "assumption" that this is rules text. It spells out, in no uncertain terms, that there exists a limit on the ability to cast spells of higher spell levels that is correlative to class level. It is also the only place that says this explicitly. It's not so much "in addition" to the rules it refers us to; rather, it is the umbrella under which those more specific rules fall. At least with regards to the connection between class level and ability to cast spells of a given spell level.

Which is what Rijan_Sai and I have been saying to you. The PHB page 7 line is giving us a General Rule, and referring us to chapter 3 for the Specifics of how that rule applies, since it is by class how the distinction of how to apply that General Rule is made.

Because your distinction? The "granted a spell slot of that level"? It leaves Level 4 Paladins and Rangers in the cold. "0" is more than "--", because it allows for bonus spell slots due to high ability scores, but "0" is still not "a spell slot" granted by one's class.

Elves

2019-10-19, 11:58 AM

But given that such was pursuant to your earlier assertion that the Faustian Pact granted L9 spell slot "could" allow a level 1 wizard to cast a L9 spell somehow (assuming CL boosters were abl to be acquired and boost CL to 17), you may understand why I thought such.
There's no strawman -- that's still what I'm suggesting.

The apparent misunderstanding is that you think I think it fails because it doesn't give a formula, when I think it fails because it doesn't form a complete statement -- and in fact I don't think the statement fails at all, only a specific reading of it. I'm not simply saying you should ignore it.

It spells out, in no uncertain terms, that there exists a limit on the ability to cast spells of higher spell levels that is correlative to class level. It is also the only place that says this explicitly. [....] The PHB page 7 line is giving us a General Rule, and referring us to chapter 3 for the Specifics of how that rule applies, since it is by class how the distinction of how to apply that General Rule is made.

And I agree with you on all of this: it's laying out a general principle and referring us to chapter 3 for the class-dependent specifics of how that rule applies.

Because your distinction? The "granted a spell slot of that level"? It leaves Level 4 Paladins and Rangers in the cold.
Technically 0's still a quantity, but I get it. "Have an entry" then, or something similar -- inability to phrase something is rarely a fundamental problem. And if this were an actual rule, there might be a section defining it in more than passing language.

RedMage125

2019-10-19, 01:04 PM

There's no strawman -- that's still what I'm suggesting.

The apparent misunderstanding is that you think I think it fails because it doesn't give a formula, when I think it fails because it doesn't form a complete statement -- and in fact I don't think the statement fails at all, only a specific reading of it. I'm not simply saying you should ignore it.

And I agree with you on all of this: it's laying out a general principle and referring us to chapter 3 for the class-dependent specifics of how that rule applies.

If you agree on this, then how in God's name can you think the Faustian Pact thing is valid?

It absolutely is a complete statement.

to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)

Very clear and complete. in order to cast spells of Spell Level X, you must have Y number of Class Levels in that Spellcasting Class Z. Since the specifics of that vary from class to class, Z is the independent variable, and X and Y are both dependent variables. that's parsing it as a forumla, I know, but it works grammatically, too. Independent and dependent clauses.

Your suggestion of a Faustian Pact to give a level 1 wizard a L9 spell slot -even with CL boosts up to 17- allowing that wizard to cast a L9 spell still fails to meet the restriction imposed by page 7. Even if you think it's "not a complete statement", it's still a rule, and it's one you would have to ignore completely for your proposal to be true.

Furthermore, page 171 spells out exactly which factors are affected by CL boosting effects. Permission to cast spells of a higher spell level than your class levels allow is expressly not one of them, ergo, your suggestion also fails by Munchkin Fallacy.

Elves

2019-10-19, 01:27 PM

If you agree on this, then how in God's name can you think the Faustian Pact thing is valid?

Because I think it's establishing a general rule that a sufficient ability score is not the only requirement to cast a spell of a given level; there is also a dependence on class level. It refers us to chapter 3 for details, where we find out exactly what that dependence is: it operates through spell slots and spells known. Hence we conclude that these two things are what "able" was referring to in the general rule.

This discussion has pretty much bottomed out for now...I don't think your interpretation is bad for the game or all that much of a stretch, but I don't find it's RAW-established in the way you claim.

RedMage125

2019-10-20, 09:35 AM

Because I think it's establishing a general rule that a sufficient ability score is not the only requirement to cast a spell of a given level; there is also a dependence on class level. It refers us to chapter 3 for details, where we find out exactly what that dependence is: it operates through spell slots and spells known. Hence we conclude that these two things are what "able" was referring to in the general rule.
This is nonsensical. If you acknowledge that there is a dependence on class level, then your "Level 1 Wiz, Faustian Pact, CL 17" hypothetical cannot cast L9 spells.

It doesn't matter if you want to infer that "able" means "spell slots", you're ignoring the text. It says "must be of high enough class level". Straight up, no matter what else you say, your hypothetical is ignoring this rules text.

When a Specific Rule allows a character to violate this, it looks like the text in Precocious Apprentice. Since we know what a Specific>General rule that DOES grant this exception looks like, we know anything without that kind of text is not supported by RAW

This discussion has pretty much bottomed out for now...I don't think your interpretation is bad for the game or all that much of a stretch, but I don't find it's RAW-established in the way you claim.

Mine is rooted only in RAW, yours is rooted in your preferred inference that makes you think you can safely circumnavigate the RAW.

Furthermore, to bring things full circle, if you were correct (you're not), then you're lending an air of legitimacy to the "Leapfrog" BS. Remember all the reasons you came to understand why it doesn't work? Your claim is no different that the people who think that a wizard with AC+VS can suddenly cast spells beyond their class level limitation, and are then entitled to bonus slot after bonus slot, due to the illegal combo of ACFs they're using.

Elves

2019-10-20, 10:23 AM

Furthermore, to bring things full circle, if you were correct (you're not), then you're lending an air of legitimacy to the "Leapfrog" BS.

Under this interpretation, the "leapfrog" combo still wouldn't work because EGW+DW don't give you the necessary spell slots (and there's still the CL issue). Under this interpretation, you could use EGW to double the slot gained through the Faustian pact.

Precocious Apprentice's line "Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells..." works just as naturally to mean having a class level that lets you cast 2nd level spells. In line with which, later on in the feat it uses the wording "when you become able to cast 2nd-level spells".

Cases like Faustian pact are extremely rare and you have to remember that 3.5 relies on exemption phrasing. (The person who wrote Faustian pact probably didn't think through the full applications of that spell slot line anyway).

RedMage125

2019-10-20, 11:14 AM

Under this interpretation, the "leapfrog" combo still wouldn't work because EGW+DW don't give you the necessary spell slots (and there's still the CL issue). Under this interpretation, you could use EGW to double the slot gained through the Faustian pact.

Precocious Apprentice's line "Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells..." works just as naturally to mean having a class level that lets you cast 2nd level spells. In line with which, later on in the feat it uses the wording "when you become able to cast 2nd-level spells".

Cases like Faustian pact are extremely rare and you have to remember that 3.5 relies on exemption phrasing. (The person who wrote Faustian pact probably didn't think through the full applications of that spell slot line anyway).

And the Faustian Pact does not have the exemption phrasing. Thank you for acknowledging why your hypothesis is incorrect.

Choose one 2nd-level spell from a school of magic
you have access to. You gain an extra 2nd-level spell slot that
must be used initially to cast only the chosen spell. Until your
level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you
must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully
cast this spell; if you fail, the spell is miscast to no effect. Your
caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level,
even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal
circumstances.
Precocious Apprentice explicitly makes note that it is providing a single-case exception (that of one specific spell); this is the underlined part. The part I bolded is the specific granting of exception to the caster level. Both class level limitation AND caster level limitation needed to be addressed for PA to work.

Your hypothesis possesses none of the exception phrasing. You are arguing that because it does not explicitly reinforce the general rule, that it should work. But that is Munchkin Fallacy. General Rules always apply unless a specific exception explicitly says otherwise.

And again, PHB pg 171 tells you what effects CL boosts apply to. You don't get to add additional side effects and benefits beyond that, such is also Munchkin Fallacy.

Elves

2019-10-22, 11:29 AM

Both class level limitation AND caster level limitation needed to be addressed for PA to work.

This is what the second paragraph of my last post is addressing.

And again, PHB pg 171 tells you what effects CL boosts apply to. You don't get to add additional side effects and benefits beyond that, such is also Munchkin Fallacy.

Why would it mention it when it's implied by the other rules (and when there's no scenario in Core where it's relevant)? The pertinent issue, minimum CL, is indeed addressed in that section.

I say "exemption" in that due to the way it's worded, Faustian pact lets you do something that's not normally possible -- get a spell slot you can't normally use. The rules aren't designed with that kind of exemption in mind, so we follow the rules that exist, which provide a minimum CL specification but only a by-proxy class level restriction.

RedMage125

2019-10-22, 11:41 PM

This is what the second paragraph of my last post is addressing.
And yet you are completely disregarding "class level".

You have said "class level = spell slots, therefore, if I get spell slots another way, I can bypass class level", but that's not how RAW works.

Why would it mention it when it's implied by the other rules (and when there's no scenario in Core where it's relevant)? The pertinent issue, minimum CL, is indeed addressed in that section.
Not under "caster level increasing effects" it isn't. That's after minimum caster level.

I say "exemption" in that due to the way it's worded, Faustian pact lets you do something that's not normally possible -- get a spell slot you can't normally use. The rules aren't designed with that kind of exemption in mind, so we follow the rules that exist, which provide a minimum CL specification but only a by-proxy class level restriction.
No, you have inferred a by-proxy class level restriction. The RAW quite clearly say "class level" not "have a spell slot".

Nothing in the case you are making refutes this point.

Elves

2019-10-23, 02:48 AM

And yet you are completely disregarding "class level".

If this is in reference to PHB 7, I've explained at length why you are making a grammatical leap to confirm your preconception here. You continue to claim RAW without addressing that.

If it's in reference to Precocious Apprentice, having your level be high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells can mean...having a class level that enables you to cast 2nd level spells. Otherwise, if anything, under the absolutist interpretation that line would hint at a universal minimum level requirement rather than a minimum class level requirement.

Alternately, since the prereqs have already established "arcane caster level" and "level" is used as a byword for "arcane caster level" later on, "level" here might simply mean caster level and not class level.

Not under "caster level increasing effects" it isn't. That's after minimum caster level.
So there you go, even less reason why that would be addressed in that section instead of the section that deals with caster level and spellcasting. And as I said, there would be no reason for them to include such a clause when there was no situation in Core or in the splatbooks published at that time where it would be relevant, making it a case of interpretation based on the rules that do exist. You want to say munchkin fallacy, I say anti-munchkin fallacy -- absence of prior mention doesn't mean exclusion when it does appear.

RedMage125

2019-10-23, 07:51 AM

If this is in reference to PHB 7, I've explained at length why you are making a grammatical leap to confirm your preconception here. You continue to claim RAW without addressing that.
Backwards. Because it it YOU who is making leaps. Your entire point hinges on "class level = have spell slots, so if I get spell slots another way, I can bypass 'class level'".

Page 7 is quite clear. "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level. "

Your level 1 Faustian Pact wizard with CL boosters to 17 is not of high enough class level.

You got to this false conclusion of yours by a logic leap that makes you think "see chapter 3 for details" supercedes "must be of high enough class level". As opposed to what it says, which is that chapter 3 contains the specific details of which class level is required.

If it's in reference to Precocious Apprentice, having your level be high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells can mean...having a class level that enables you to cast 2nd level spells. Otherwise, if anything, under the absolutist interpretation that line would hint at a universal minimum level requirement rather than a minimum class level requirement.
Precocious Apprentice is explicitly available to only 2 classes, wizard and sorcerer. Those have different minimum class level for respective spell levels, so your insistence that some "universal minimum level requirement" is nonsensical.

Furthermore, Precocious Apprentice is a Specific Rule that overrides the General rules on page 7 and 171. There are specific clauses in that feat that say so.

Faustian Pact spell slot does not possess this exemption phrasing.

Alternately, since the prereqs have already established "arcane caster level" and "level" is used as a byword for "arcane caster level" later on, "level" here might simply mean caster level and not class level.
Another leap by you. The RAW always say "caster level" when they mean caster level.

While I agree that "level" is used in so many connotations (class, caster, spell) that it can be confusing to talk about, the actual text does not ever use "level" as shorthand for "caster level".

So...no.

So there you go, even less reason why that would be addressed in that section instead of the section that deals with caster level and spellcasting. And as I said, there would be no reason for them to include such a clause when there was no situation in Core or in the splatbooks published at that time where it would be relevant, making it a case of interpretation based on the rules that do exist. You want to say munchkin fallacy, I say anti-munchkin fallacy -- absence of prior mention doesn't mean exclusion when it does appear.

PHB pg 171: "In the event that a class feature, domain granted power, or other
special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that
adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as
range, duration, and damage dealt) but also to your caster level
check to overcome your target’s spell resistance (see Spell Resistance,
page 177) and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both
the dispel check and the DC of the check)."

That is a distinct list of what things CL adjustments apply to.

There is no exemption clause like Precocious Apprentice that allows casting of higher level spells.

Dude, I know you think you've stumbled onto some kind of amazing thing, but you haven't found the new "drown healing". Your hypothesis is not as in keeping with RAW as you claim, because of how many times you need to make assumptions. Assumptions which result in you then flat-out ignoring the very clause in the text you used as a base to make those assumptions.

General Rules always apply unless exemption clauses create a specific exception. Faustian Pact doesn't NEED to re-iterate how it affects PHB pg 7 and 171 unless it was allowing a violation of those rules. Since no exemption clause exists, no exception exists.

Elves

2019-10-23, 10:37 AM

You got to this false conclusion of yours by a logic leap that makes you think "see chapter 3 for details" supercedes "must be of high enough class level".

I've pointed out multiple times that this is not what I'm saying. I don't think there's any supersession, I think there is a general principle stated and then we learn how that principle operates. The other reading rests on a clause that's absent from the text.

Another leap by you. The RAW always say "caster level" when they mean caster level.
Later in that very same paragraph "level" is used to mean "caster level":
"Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level,
even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal
circumstances." It relies on first establishing caster level, and similarly the prereq clause "arcane caster level 1st" could be the primer for the earlier sentence.

But as said in my post that's not my primary reading or the one I'm arguing for.

Dude, I know you think you've stumbled onto some kind of amazing thing, but you haven't found the new "drown healing".
I'm just trying to follow the logic to the end. It remains doubtful whether there even is a way to reach the required minimum CL which severely limits this as a practical optimization trick.

(It's not like this is a new argument either.)

Faustian Pact doesn't NEED to re-iterate how it affects PHB pg 7 and 171 unless it was allowing a violation of those rules.
PHB 7 and RC 133 lay out the rules. Then Faustian pact comes out, so we fit it into the matrix of rules that have been established. That's how rules work. I'm in agreement that it's still subject to minimum CL, so it comes back to how the PH page 7 quote is interpreted. I've detailed my interpretation of it.

I appreciate that you've been willing to keep discussing this. At this point I've basically said what I have to say about it. Clearly you aren't convinced. I think what I've said makes sense. Maybe other people will read this and make up their minds.

RedMage125

2019-10-23, 03:27 PM

I've pointed out multiple times that this is not what I'm saying. I don't think there's any supersession, I think there is a general principle stated and then we learn how that principle operates. The other reading rests on a clause that's absent from the text.
Except that the clause you claim to be "missing" is dependent on a number of independent variables, such as which class you are talking about and which spell level you would like to cast. Ergo, all of that is covered under "see chapter 3 for details".

So for what you are saying to be valid, you would have to be either flat-out ignoring the text saying "must be of high enough class level", or claiming that what you have inferred from chapter 3 permits you to circumvent that restriction based solely on the idea that your inference of the specifics supercedes the general rule.

That's why I keep harping on it.

Later in that very same paragraph "level" is used to mean "caster level":
"Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level,
even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal
circumstances." It relies on first establishing caster level, and similarly the prereq clause "arcane caster level 1st" could be the primer for the earlier sentence.
"This" is a singular demonstrative pronoun. Earlier in the same sentence, "caster level" was specified, and no other form of the word "level" (such as class or spell) has been used.

Grammatically, it is unnecessary to re-iterate in the same sentence "caster level". It is redundant. After saying it once, and following with "this level", having no break of a period to indicate a separate sentence, it is actually quite clear that only "caster level" is indicated.

That's just how grammar works, and if you're going to claim things about the RAW, understanding of grammar and syntax helps. Much like how I previously had to point out that people could not dismiss one clause of Domain Wizard's text as "fluff" when it was a second clause connected to another (which is also rules text), and separated by a semicolon. 2 independent clauses separated by a semicolon indicates that both are of equal weight and importance.

Likewise, understanding that the word "this" is a singluar demonstrative pronoun means that it can only mean the indicated "level" mentioned earlier in the sentence, which is only "caster level".

Sometimes I forget that not everyone remembers all this stuff about syntax from grade school.

But as said in my post that's not my primary reading or the one I'm arguing for.
I'm starting to have trouble discerning what, in fact, you are arguing for. Because you will say that you acknolwedge that one must have sufficient class levels in order to cast spells of a given spell level, but then claim your Faustian Pact idea has RAW support. These are mutually exclusive statements.

I'm just trying to follow the logic to the end. It remains doubtful whether there even is a way to reach the required minimum CL which severely limits this as a practical optimization trick.

(It's not like this is a new argument either.)
Even if you made the Faustian Pact for a L2 spell, and used magic items (well outside the WBL for a level 1 wizard) to boost your CL to 3, you still would not be able to cast a L2 spell.

Unless you also had Precocious Apprentice. Then you would be able to prepare that PA spell again, following the same restirctions as imposed by PA, meaning a DC 8 Spellcraft check must be made. If you were also an EGW, you'd be able to prepare it 3 times.

And the "Leapfrog Wizard" isn't new, either. Sometimes, people who come up with these "optimization tricks" are wrong. They missed a detail somewhere in the RAW that prevents the trick from working. I say this, looking at RAW through the same lens that says "drown healing" is a true thing.

PHB 7 and RC 133 lay out the rules. Then Faustian pact comes out, so we fit it into the matrix of rules that have been established. That's how rules work. I'm in agreement that it's still subject to minimum CL, so it comes back to how the PH page 7 quote is interpreted. I've detailed my interpretation of it.
The problem is that your interpretation of PHB page 7 manages to fly directly in the face of the only thing that sentence even says.

Look, if your interpretation was true by RAW, you could answer this question.

How is "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)" a true statement in your interpretation? Your level 1 wizard with CL boosts to get his CL up to 17. If what you said is at all in accordance with RAW, you will have a way to explain how it is still true in your interpretation. Which you have not done, by any means.

That means no switching clauses around. No twisting words to say "having high enough class level actually means just have a spell slot, so only the spell slot is important", because that means you're disregarding the words in the text itself.

So please. How is the text still true in your interpretation?

I appreciate that you've been willing to keep discussing this. At this point I've basically said what I have to say about it. Clearly you aren't convinced. I think what I've said makes sense. Maybe other people will read this and make up their minds.

I always love a good debate. Especially when I can cite sources and prove what I'm arguing for empirically. :smallbiggrin: But seriously, I too, appreciate that you have not stormed off in a silent huff (like another poster), nor has this degenerated into personal attacks or baseless claims of such (you know, when people act like a victim for no reason). I've seen too much of that, and I always appreciate a bracing debate that does not feature such.

I am not convinced because your whole point claims to be "true by RAW", but hinges on claiming the RAW is "incomplete", when the very clause you suggest is missing is, in fact, just begging a question. Begging several, actually, because there are 2 independent variables of such an answer ("which class?" and "which level of spell?"). Then the conclusion you come to is mutually exclusive with the words of the very text you say "needs to say more". Just because you think it could be more clear does not mean you can derive a conclusion that runs directly contrary to what the RAW do say.

Elves

2019-10-24, 10:21 AM

Look, if your interpretation was true by RAW, you could answer this question.

How is "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)" a true statement in your interpretation? Your level 1 wizard with CL boosts to get his CL up to 17. If what you said is at all in accordance with RAW, you will have a way to explain how it is still true in your interpretation.

It's true in that, as I've been saying, it functions as a descriptive or referential statement and not actually as a rules-primary imperative. What has to be true is the rules it refers us to. In this scenario, those referred rules remain true.

(And as an aside, notice that the contextual function of this sentence, which is in the section "Abilities and Spellcasters", is simply to establish that a sufficient ability score isn't the only requirement for casting spells of a given level -- not to lay down comprehensive rules for levels and spellcasting, which is why it refers us to them.)

That means no switching clauses around.
Kind of odd that you would make grammatical arguments and then act as if clause switching that sentence changes its meaning.

RedMage125

2019-10-24, 12:09 PM

It's true in that, as I've been saying, it functions as a descriptive or referential statement and not actually as a rules-primary imperative. What has to be true is the rules it refers us to. In this scenario, those referred rules remain true.

(And as an aside, notice that the contextual function of this sentence, which is in the section "Abilities and Spellcasters", is simply to establish that a sufficient ability score isn't the only requirement for casting spells of a given level -- not to lay down comprehensive rules for levels and spellcasting, which is why it refers us to them.)
You have no authority to declare that text "not a rule". In this, your argument is no stronger than the claim I mentioned previously about how some people would dismiss rules text as "fluff, not rules" so that they could violate the RAW.

That sentence very clearly says the word "must", ergo it is a rules-primary imperative. "Must" means that it is a requirement. Furthermore, we are referred to Chapter 3, not for the actual rules, but for "details". That is, to say, the specifics of what this statement is saying. Because this statement about posessing class levels is, itself, a rule. The details of which vary depending on which class and which spell level one is discussing. What do you know? The text says exactly that Chapter 3 is where we will find the details.

I find it funny that in your last post, you denied the claim that "must be of a high enough class level" was superceded by your extrapolation and interpretation of what is Chapter 3, but in this post, you straight-up cop to it. You are literally saying that "chapter 3 is the rules" and that the sentence on page 7 is just a "referential statement". Which, again, is a claim about the text that you have no authority to declare. And is thus not true. A grammatical and syntaxical assessment of the paragraph does not yield the result you claim. You are dismissing the words of rules text because they prevent a conclusion you would like to be true.

Furthermore, your hypothesis still fails to meet the requirement of this statement, even if you want to dismiss it as "descriptive", because your hypothesized scenario does not have sufficient class levels to cast a L9 spell.

And on top of all of that, an analysis of Chapter 3 doesn't even yield the result which you claim. Saying that "class level equals spell slots so therefore only spell slots are relevant and actual class level is not" is not even a coherent reading of Chapter 3. It's a rather large leap of logic, well away from what the RAW actually say, and it takes Munchkin Fallacy to a whole new level. Nothing in the text, not in the PHB, not in the RC, and not in the FC2 where Faustian pacts are found, says that "having a spell slot of spell level X" equals "able to cast spells of spell level X". You are making inferences and assumptions not supported by the text.

Your reading of the text is incorrect. No coherent reading can interpret a use of the word "must" as anything other than a requirement.

Your hypothesis about a level 1 wizard with a Faustian Pact for a L9 slot being able to cast a L9 spell is incorrect.

Kind of odd that you would make grammatical arguments and then act as if clause switching that sentence changes its meaning.

It doesn't, but your earlier statement seemed to imply that YOU thought it had an impact.

HouseRules

2019-10-24, 12:30 PM

The context is Versatile Spellcasting and Wizard Spell Known.

It kind of does.

Versatile Spellcasters requires you to use two slots of the same level to "cast a spell you know that is one level higher."

Wizards do not have spells that they know, because they are not spontaneous spellcasters.

The rules draw a very specific distinction between prepared and spontaneous casters in this way. You can note that the wizard class table lacks the spells known section as is found in sorcerer and bard and all other spontaneous casting classes.

You can also see this distinction in other places, such as prestige classes that advance spellcasting:

Additionally, a cleric and druid's ability to give up a prepared spell in place of a cure or summon nature's ally is also not spontaneous casting. It's spontaneous conversion. The same applies to a wizard who takes the Spontaneous Divination alternate class feature.

Wizard do have spell known. It's just that they have to spend a feat to convert a spell in their spellbook to become a spell known.

Spell Mastery

[Special]

You are so intimately familiar with certain spells that you don't need a spellbook to prepare them anymore.
Prerequisite

Wizard level 1,
Required for

Familiar Spell (Und) , Uncanny Forethought (EE) ,
Benefit

Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.
Normal

Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to prepare all your spells, except read magic.

Since wizards always have read magic as a spell known, they could versatile spellcaster a metamagic version of that.
Also, read magic is required to copy scrolls into your spellbook; otherwise, you will cast the scroll.
Read magic is also needed to prepare spells from spellbooks that your character have not written in.

Elves

2019-10-24, 01:02 PM

You have no authority to declare that text "not a rule". In this, your argument is no stronger than the claim I mentioned previously about how some people would dismiss rules text as "fluff, not rules" so that they could violate the RAW.

I used the word "function" for a reason -- it *functions* as a descriptive/referential statement, because it isn't able to function, grammatically, in any other way.

You want it to mean something to the effect of "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level that their class has a numerical slot entry for spells of that level", in which case, and only in which case, the "details" we're instructed to find would simply be those table entries.

But that interpretation contains added imputation by you that is not part of the rules text.

If the text didn't make sense otherwise, that inference or imputation would be justified.

But in fact the text functions just fine the way it is -- as a descriptive or referential statement.

I find it funny that in your last post, you denied the claim that "must be of a high enough class level" was superceded by your extrapolation and interpretation of what is Chapter 3, but in this post, you straight-up cop to it. You are literally saying that "chapter 3 is the rules" and that the sentence on page 7 is just a "referential statement".
It's not superseded because it doesn't specify anything coherent in the first place. It's a broad statement that is then detailed.

It's also accurate in all but very rare edge cases, and is true throughout Core, so it seems like a reasonable sentence to print. But call it supersession if you like; doesn't change what I said in the paragraph above.

Nothing in the text, not in the PHB, not in the RC, and not in the FC2 where Faustian pacts are found, says that "having a spell slot of spell level X" equals "able to cast spells of spell level X". You are making inferences and assumptions not supported by the text.

In this case, you're the one making the assumption that there must be an additional restriction. As it happens there is an additional restriction: minimum CL.

RedMage125

2019-10-24, 03:40 PM

Wizard do have spell known. It's just that they have to spend a feat to convert a spell in their spellbook to become a spell known.

Since wizards always have read magic as a spell known, they could versatile spellcaster a metamagic version of that.
Also, read magic is required to copy scrolls into your spellbook; otherwise, you will cast the scroll.
Read magic is also needed to prepare spells from spellbooks that your character have not written in.
*sigh*
I suggest you read the rest of the thread. This matter has been closed, and you are incorrect.

Look in the PHB page 310, in the glossary. "Spells known" for a wizard means the spells in their spellbook. ALL of the spells in their spellbook, not just Read Magic. Hell you even quoted the text for the Spell Mastery feat. Did you notice that it says "choose a number of spells...that you already know"? That point, also, wasa brought up before.

I used the word "function" for a reason -- it *functions* as a descriptive/referential statement, because it isn't able to function, grammatically, in any other way.

You want it to mean something to the effect of "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level that their class has a numerical slot entry for spells of that level", in which case, and only in which case, the "details" we're instructed to find would simply be those table entries.

But that interpretation contains added imputation by you that is not part of the rules text.

If the text didn't make sense otherwise, that inference or imputation would be justified.

But in fact the text functions just fine the way it is -- as a descriptive or referential statement.
This is a spurious claim. One you have no authority to make.

There's nothing "missing" from the line on page 7.

"In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." is sufficient as a general rule. When you follow to the SPECIFICS of that rule, you can see that " their class has a numerical slot entry for spells of that level" ends up being what that sentence means, but that does not mean that lacking those words somehow makes it "not a rule".

You have no authority to declare it "not a rule", and one must accept that it it is "not a rule" for your hypothesis to be true.

Ergo, your hypothesis fails to be true by RAW.

It's not superseded because it doesn't specify anything coherent in the first place. It's a broad statement that is then detailed.

It's also accurate in all but very rare edge cases, and is true throughout Core, so it seems like a reasonable sentence to print. But call it supersession if you like; doesn't change what I said in the paragraph above.
"A broad statement that is then detailed" that you follow to a conclusion that ends up COMPLETELY IGNORING the "broad statement" means that you believe your extended inference and interpretation is more significant and rules-weighted than the actual text of the book.

So...yes. Superceded.

In this case, you're the one making the assumption that there must be an additional restriction. As it happens there is an additional restriction: minimum CL.
I didn't think it was necessary to re-iterate that, since your hypothesis also hinged on "somehow get CL boosts to get up to 17". Obviously caster level is also a restriction.

But once again, I contest that even if you could get CL-boosters to get up to 17 you would not be "able to cast L9 spells", because PHB page 171 is quite clear and distinct on what things that CL-adjusting effects apply to. And allowing the casting of spells of a higher level than one has access to was not one of them.

Because if that was true, then a level 6 cleric with the Evil domain who took a Faustian Pact for a L4 spell slot would be able to cast a L4 spell with the [Evil] descriptor 9because his CL would be 7). They cannot. The RAW do not support this.

Everything about your hypothesis hinges on your claim that "the rules don't explictly forbid this"*, which is Munchkin Fallacy. The rules must explicitly say that you can.

*And again, I am telling you that they do, you just ignore it and say "it's not rules, it's a descriptive statement".

BTW, I note you had no response to the fact that I pointed out that the PHB page 7 explicitly using the word "must" shows that it is a rules-imperative statement. Did you think that by glossing over it, I would forget that the point existed? I'll copy/paste it for you:

That sentence very clearly says the word "must", ergo it is a rules-primary imperative. "Must" means that it is a requirement. Furthermore, we are referred to Chapter 3, not for the actual rules, but for "details". That is, to say, the specifics of what this statement is saying. Because this statement about posessing class levels is, itself, a rule. The details of which vary depending on which class and which spell level one is discussing.

You disregard "must be of high enough class level" because it doesn't suit your purposes. Even in your (unauthorized) attempt to denigrate it as "a decriptive statement", it does not acurrately describe your hypothesized "Level 1 wizard with a faustian-Pact L9 spell slot and CL boosters to get CL 17", because that character is not of high enough class level.

Your hypothesis is not true by RAW.

HouseRules

2019-10-24, 04:52 PM

Strong Cheese
Wizard 1/Sorcerer 19

Since Wizard and Sorcerer spell list are the same, Sorcerer only need to dip one level in Wizard to get the advantage of a spellbook. Then, they are no longer bounded by their limited spell known.

The context is Versatile Spellcasting and Wizard Spell Known, but then that context was ignored when I said that Wizard does not have any spell known other than read magic.

RedMage125

2019-10-24, 05:51 PM

Strong Cheese
Wizard 1/Sorcerer 19

Since Wizard and Sorcerer spell list are the same, Sorcerer only need to dip one level in Wizard to get the advantage of a spellbook. Then, they are no longer bounded by their limited spell known.

Multiclassed characters track each of their spellcasting progressions separately. This is well known. This kind of comment is just trolling the thread, please stop.

EDIT:

The context is Versatile Spellcasting and Wizard Spell Known, but then that context was ignored when I said that Wizard does not have any spell known other than read magic.

It doesn't matter, because you were grossly incorrect, which you would know if you read the thread as I suggested. Read Magic is not a "Spell Known", it is a spell wizards can prepare without a spellbook. Same goes for any spells they take with Spell Mastery.

Here's the quote, since you won't do it yourself:
"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." -PHB, page 310 (Glossary)

So no matter what, your "wizard spells known" are all the spells in your spellbook. Which you would know if you read the rest of the thread, instead of repeating DA's claim that was thoroughly disproven.

And I'm AFB right now, but I am reasonably sure a wizard can only scribe a spell they are capable of casting into their spellbook. So your Wiz1/Sor19 using VS is only able to cast L1 spells from the spellbook that way.

Elves

2019-10-25, 09:55 PM

*sigh*"In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." is sufficient as a general rule. When you follow to the SPECIFICS of that rule, you can see that " their class has a numerical slot entry for spells of that level" ends up being what that sentence means...

So you're calling your inference RAW. I still fail to see why you think it's more straightforward to read something demanding inference as its own additional rule when there's so little attestation elsewhere that that rule exists.

For whatever it's worth, I looked through RC and couldn't find any reference to a level req. The closest thing was "provided you’re capable of casting spells of that level", which is certainly referencing minimum CL and need not be referencing anything else.

"A broad statement that is then detailed" that you follow to a conclusion that ends up COMPLETELY IGNORING the "broad statement" means that you believe your extended inference and interpretation is more significant and rules-weighted than the actual text of the book.
[...]
BTW, I note you had no response to the fact that I pointed out that the PHB page 7 explicitly using the word "must" shows that it is a rules-imperative statement. Did you think that by glossing over it, I would forget that the point existed? I'll copy/paste it for you:

That sentence very clearly says the word "must", ergo it is a rules-primary imperative. "Must" means that it is a requirement. Furthermore, we are referred to Chapter 3, not for the actual rules, but for "details".
Given that this equivalence is broken only in bizarre tangential edge cases that weren't in publication at the time, it's a perfectly solid and reasonable way to phrase it, especially in a game that runs on specific over general.

That is, to say, the specifics of what this statement is saying.
Right, agreed.

RedMage125

2019-10-26, 06:15 AM

So you're calling your inference RAW. I still fail to see why you think it's more straightforward to read something demanding inference as its own additional rule when there's so little attestation elsewhere that that rule exists.
What "inference"?

Saying "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." is a rule is not infering anything. I was simply agreeing that your words of " their class has a numerical slot entry for spells of that level" is a useful shorthand to sum up what that rules means as far as it applies to the specific details found in chapter 3. That doesn't make it "my inference". However, what you cut out, which was the most significant clause of that paragraph, is that the lack of your suggestion does not make that sentence "not a rule". And also that you have no authority to declare it "not a rule".

See, you are the one who made an inference that is not in the text. It is you claiming that when the text says "see chapter 3 for details" means that "high enough level = has spell slots of that level", which is understanding, so that's not the problem. The problem is that you up and decided for yourself, with no backing from the text, no rules whatsoever, that "if I can get a spell slot of that level from another source, that's the only thing that matters, and I can cast L9 spells as long as I boost my CL". Which means, you are now violating the words of the very text you used as a pretext to justify this inference to begin with.

And it's something that you have no proof to claim.

Likewise, you have no rule citation to support the idea that CL adjustments allow you to bypass that, either. The PHB and RC both provide a distinct list of what CL adjustments apply to. Your suggested use is not on that list. So...Munchkin Fallacy.

For whatever it's worth, I looked through RC and couldn't find any reference to a level req. The closest thing was "provided you’re capable of casting spells of that level", which is certainly referencing minimum CL and need not be referencing anything else.
"Lack of rule saying no" =/= "rules saying yes". Munchkin Fallacy.

Also, the existence of the RC doesn't mean that "there are no rules found only in the PHB".

Given that this equivalence is broken only in bizarre tangential edge cases that weren't in publication at the time, it's a perfectly solid and reasonable way to phrase it, especially in a game that runs on specific over general.
And yet your hypothesis completely and utterly lacks specific rules to override the general ones. That's why I keep citing Precocious Apprentice, because when a Specific Rule overrides a General one, it uses language that says so explicitly. Your hypothesis lacks such text.

Furthermore, the fact that later publications said something that provides additional options later doesn't suddenly make "must be of high enough class level" suddenly "no longer a rule".

Face it, any grammatical analysis of the text in the PHB says that page 7 is a rule that lays down a hard statement making the casting of higher spell levels restricted to individuals with high enough class levels.

Right, agreed.

How are you "agreeing"? You're claim requires me to think that the details found in chapter 3 (and the inference you drew from that) makes the general statement "not a rule at all".

tstewt1921

2019-10-26, 07:36 PM

Elves get 4 bonus feats, humans only get one. And an elf should never be ashamed about exercising that option, because WOTC made it abundantly clear that they're alone in the world.

Can you please explain how???? Cause I will be playing an elf from here on out if this is actually possible?

Doctor Awkward

2019-10-27, 05:46 PM

Can you please explain how???? Cause I will be playing an elf from here on out if this is actually possible?

I think he's talking about the Martial Weapon proficiency that all elves get: rapier, longsword, longbow, shortbow.

tstewt1921

2019-10-28, 10:09 AM

I think he's talking about the Martial Weapon proficiency that all elves get: rapier, longsword, longbow, shortbow.

Ahh...well that's.....underwhelming

Elves

2019-10-28, 01:05 PM

tstewt1921

2019-10-28, 03:28 PM

You use two spells from Fiendish Codex to swap those out for any feats you want. Look up "dark chaos shuffle".

Unfortunately it's not a low level option, since you need to locate a 15th level cleric or wizard, and it costs about 5k for each feat you swap.

(You probably will also need to pay the costs for the wizard learning the two spells. Cleric is easier, but make sure not to ask a lawful cleric since the spells are chaotic. Note however that the spells are not evil.)

Once you can access a high enough level caster, 20k for any four feats is an incredible deal. So join the chaos elf train.

I myself as a DM wouldn't count them as "feats" for my game and I'm sure our other DM wouldn't count them as "feats" that can be traded due to it coming with the race. Normally myself or our other DM wouldn't allow those spells as we don't play highly optimized builds with our groups. But I definitely get where it can be used for builds.

Doctor Awkward

2019-10-28, 04:36 PM

I myself as a DM wouldn't count them as "feats" for my game and I'm sure our other DM wouldn't count them as "feats" that can be traded due to it coming with the race. Normally myself or our other DM wouldn't allow those spells as we don't play highly optimized builds with our groups. But I definitely get where it can be used for builds.

This is one of those theoretical fuzzy areas that usually doesn't fly at tables.

By the Rules As Written. There is nothing wrong with this.

The spells have no limitations on which feats the character may give up in exchange for Abyssal heritor feats. Feats provided by you race are functionally identical in all respects to ordinary feats, and for all rules purposes are treated as such unless they explicitly say otherwise.

The intention of the feats is in no way clear. It's entirely possibly (and very likely) that the designers never even considered racial feats when they wrote those spells. And it is "gaming the system" in every sense of the term, both in the sense of abstract character statistics and tinkering with the forces of chaos and evil for personal gain.

But this trick is explicitly permitted by the Rules As Written, and the Fiendish Codex is hardly an obscure resource. I personally allow the spells when I run games, but make certain the players are aware of the consequences of their actions and that evil outsiders take note when either of these spells are cast.

tstewt1921

2019-10-28, 05:29 PM

But this trick is explicitly permitted by the Rules As Written, and the Fiendish Codex is hardly an obscure resource. I personally allow the spells when I run games, but make certain the players are aware of the consequences of their actions and that evil outsiders take note when either of these spells are cast.

Ooo I like that, I'm sure when I'm a player if I pulled it I would have to end up dealing with some kind of demon or something to that extent, would make an interesting character arch that's for sure.

Elves

2019-10-28, 05:33 PM

My original "they need to take every advantage they can get" comment was more of a joke. Would I try this in a real game? No, because a live RPG is a social experience where there's nothing to really win by ultra-optimizing.

As DM I'd be open to it — as always it's just about whether it can be done in a way where no one feels one person's being favored.

I do like situations like this or rainbow warsnake where an accident creates fun opportunities.

There's a similar case where the Feat chapter in the PHB alleges certain classes get certain armor proficiency feats, but I doubt that holds up RAW since it's not primary source for those classes.

Ooo I like that, I'm sure when I'm a player if I pulled it I would have to end up dealing with some kind of demon or something to that extent, would make an interesting character arch that's for sure.
In a 3.5 dedicated setting I would totally use elf chaos shuffle as the basis for a history of elves using Abyssal and demonic energies to empower themselves.

RedMage125

2019-10-29, 07:32 AM

RedMage125

2019-10-31, 10:38 AM

So, I was looking at the thread to see if anything new was posted, and something occurred to me...

Under this interpretation, the "leapfrog" combo still wouldn't work because EGW+DW don't give you the necessary spell slots (and there's still the CL issue). Under this interpretation, you could use EGW to double the slot gained through the Faustian pact.

Absolutely not, and you are only thinking that because, like many people, you are thinking that EGW says something like "you get an extra spell slot equal to your highest level spell slot". But it doesn't say that.

Generalist Wizardry: A 1st-level elf wizard begins play
with one extra 1st-level spell in her spellbook. At each new
wizard level, she gains one extra spell of any spell level that
she can cast. This represents the additional elven insight and
experience with arcane magic.
The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of
her highest spell level each day. Unlike the specialist wizard
ability, this spell may be of any school.
This substitution feature replaces the standard wizard’s
ability to specialize in a school of magic.
Much like how the italicized portion came up with regards to the EGW "slot" not "floating", the bolded portion means that until you know and can cast a L9 spell, your extra spell prepared in the morning cannot be a L9 spell.

Again, a level 1 EGW with Precocious Apprentice prepares an extra L2 spell (which must be a second iteration of the spell chosen with the feat). That's the only way to get the EGW bonus higher than L1 at 1st level.

This is one of those theoretical fuzzy areas that usually doesn't fly at tables.

By the Rules As Written. There is nothing wrong with this.

The spells have no limitations on which feats the character may give up in exchange for Abyssal heritor feats. Feats provided by you race are functionally identical in all respects to ordinary feats, and for all rules purposes are treated as such unless they explicitly say otherwise.

The intention of the feats is in no way clear. It's entirely possibly (and very likely) that the designers never even considered racial feats when they wrote those spells. And it is "gaming the system" in every sense of the term, both in the sense of abstract character statistics and tinkering with the forces of chaos and evil for personal gain.

But this trick is explicitly permitted by the Rules As Written, and the Fiendish Codex is hardly an obscure resource. I personally allow the spells when I run games, but make certain the players are aware of the consequences of their actions and that evil outsiders take note when either of these spells are cast.

I'm actually baffled by your acceptance of this, given your opposition to Elves and myself earlier. Unless you have realized you made a mistake before and now recognize that were are correct about Alacritous Cogitation and Versatile Spellcaster . Because it's the same kind of lens that one looks through to see this trick.

Both are perfectly acceptable, given a literal reading of the RAW, but are almost certainly a violation of the RAI, at least it seems that way.

Because that means that AC gives a wizard the prerequisite "ability to spontaneously cast spells" for VS*. And VS does not hinge on language like "one of your spells known" or "spell from your Spells Known List". It says "a spell that you know", using the same text that AC (which is explicitly a wizard feat) uses. So, for example, a Level 6 wizard who has AC and VS may expend 2 L2 spell slots to cast any L3 or lower spell that is in her spellbook.

Is that overpowered? I would say yes. And at my table, I would probably not allow it. But I acknowledge that such is an exercise of my right as a DM to prohibit things at my table.

*And remember, even using the RC quote that you provided, spontaneous spellcasting does not say "must not be able to prepare spells" but rather "has a daily allotment of spells that can be cast without preparation". And Alacritous Cogitation gives a wizard such a daily allotment -of one spell.

Now, if you have recognized that you were mistaken, please say so. I would be happy to drop the matter.

Elves

2019-10-31, 11:29 AM

So, I was looking at the thread to see if anything new was posted, and something occurred to me...

Absolutely not, and you are only thinking that because, like many people, you are thinking that EGW says something like "you get an extra spell slot equal to your highest level spell slot". But it doesn't say that.

The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of
her highest spell level each day. Unlike the specialist wizard
ability, this spell may be of any school.

Much like how the italicized portion came up with regards to the EGW "slot" not "floating", the bolded portion means that until you know and can cast a L9 spell, your extra spell prepared in the morning cannot be a L9 spell.

Notice that the comment is "under [the no absolute minimum level rule] interpretation..."

"Highest spell level" is certainly talking about from your wizard casting. It's poorly worded, as is the line from Faustian pact, but since the pact provides an "additional" spell slot, that slot is probably part of your casting in the class you add it to (which is one of the ways it's different from Precocious Apprentice).

And "know" isn't a problem since the only req for scribing a spell into your spellbook is a trivial Spellcraft check (PHB 179).

RedMage125

2019-10-31, 05:15 PM

Notice that the comment is "under [the no absolute minimum level rule] interpretation..."
Which you also have yet to respond about (post #138). You still have no authority to declare it "not a rule". Especially when the inference that you draw from "(see Chapter 3 for details)" gives you a conclusion that completely disregards the sentence that preceded it, which is what you were looking to Chapter 3 for details about.

You interpretation completely abrogates "must be of high enough class level" as if it were not even rules text. Remember, the worst "must" means it's a requirement. And therefore a rule, just as much as "must have high enough ability score" for casting spells of whichever spell level. Because by your hypothesis, that sentence is not even "true as 'descriptive text'", as you claimed it was earlier.

So the sentence on pg 7 being true is mutually exclusive with your hypothesis being true, no matter how you twist it. And since that's RAW, your hypothesis is therefore false.

"Highest spell level" is certainly talking about from your wizard casting. It's poorly worded, as is the line from Faustian pact, but since the pact provides an "additional" spell slot, that slot is probably part of your casting in the class you add it to (which is one of the ways it's different from Precocious Apprentice).
Are you really saying "granted by a Faustian pact" = "granted by class"? Because that would be ridiculous.

The text is different from Precocious Apprentice. But PA explicitly contains text which provides Specific exemption to the rules, covering exemption from both "class level" and "caster level" rules. Since the text you claim for support is different and that difference is the lack of exemption text, the RAW does not support your hypothesis that this is an exemption to the rule.

That was easy.

And "know" isn't a problem since the only req for scribing a spell into your spellbook is a trivial Spellcraft check (PHB 179).

Right. I wasn't sure earlier, but there's no minimum level for scribing a spell into your spellbook. Still, for a L9 spell, that would be a DC24 check, and even with a 20 INT that's only a 30% chance of success (15 or higher on the die) at level 1 (4 ranks + 5 INT =+9 modifier). And if you fail, you can't try again until you level up.

Doesn't matter even if you make the check and learn the spell anyway, though, because even if you have the WBL-breaking resources to get CL boosters to get yourself to CL 17 (and again, that assumes your DM is kind enough to ignore the Munchkin Fallacy Goodness that allows CL-adjustments to matter in this instance), you still do not have "high enough class level" to cast it.

Jay R

2019-10-31, 08:42 PM

It breaks the game. Any competent DM would merely say, "No."

There are several ways to say it, and several ways to interpret it, as shown in this thread.

But the crucial fact is this: Any competent DM would merely say, "No."

Elves

2019-11-01, 01:18 PM

Which you also have yet to respond about (post #138). You still have no authority to declare it "not a rule". [...] You interpretation completely abrogates "must be of high enough class level" as if it were not even rules text. Remember, the worst "must" means it's a requirement. And therefore a rule, just as much as "must have high enough ability score" for casting spells of whichever spell level. Because by your hypothesis, that sentence is not even "true as 'descriptive text'", as you claimed it was earlier.
I feel like we're going in circles at this point so I wasn't going to continue further. I already responded to your emphasis on "must": since the text functions descriptively, that doesn't matter, and "must" is a very reasonable way to phrase it when it's generally, and at that time was universally, true.

As for Faustian pact not having the same exemption wording and mechanic as PrApp: PrApp has that phrasing, but that doesn't mean every exemption has to.

Do you know of situations besides PrApp and Faustian pact where you get a higher level spell slot than normal? Would be useful to see.

Are you really saying "granted by a Faustian pact" = "granted by class"? Because that would be ridiculous.
No, I'm saying it's applied to your spellcasting from a specific class. This isn't relevant to our wider discussion since it wouldn't change either reading of PHB 7.

One example where the difference is relevant: since Precocious Apprentice isn't bound to class, you can qualify for mystic theurge by taking P.A. for a spell that is 2nd level for both your arcane and divine side. (Which saves you a feat you'd otherwise have to spend on Southern Magician/Alternate Source Spell.)

Right. I wasn't sure earlier, but there's no minimum level for scribing a spell into your spellbook. Still, for a L9 spell, that would be a DC24 check, and even with a 20 INT that's only a 30% chance of success (15 or higher on the die) at level 1 (4 ranks + 5 INT =+9 modifier).
I mean, in this scenario there's already so many resources invested that he's probably like Subject X in some ultra funded magic lab, and can benefit from Aid Another as well as possible psychic reformation for Skill Focus when it's time to scribe. Precocious Apprentice also grants +2.

RedMage125

2019-11-01, 02:50 PM

I feel like we're going in circles at this point so I wasn't going to continue further. I already responded to your emphasis on "must": since the text functions descriptively, that doesn't matter, and "must" is a very reasonable way to phrase it when it's generally, and at that time was universally, true.
So do you think that a wizard needing an INT score of (10+level of spell) to cast a spell of a particular level is also "not a rule"? Because the sentence we are talking about on page 7 of the PHB starts with "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." So, if high enough ability scores being a requirement is a rule, then so is high enough class level.

Again, your interpretation fails on every level of actually reading the text.

As for Faustian pact not having the same exemption wording and mechanic as PrApp: PrApp has that phrasing, but that doesn't mean every exemption has to.
Actually, yes it does, that's how specific exemptions work. Specific>General. Your hypothesis completely lacks any specific text. You have only your inference, and the "next step" jump that you made from that inference, that leads to "only spell slots matter, and class level does not". Because that isn't in the text. Specific>General still requires specific text.

Do you know of situations besides PrApp and Faustian pact where you get a higher level spell slot than normal? Would be useful to see.
No, PrApp is the only one I know of.

No, I'm saying it's applied to your spellcasting from a specific class. This isn't relevant to our wider discussion since it wouldn't change either reading of PHB 7.
PHB pg 7 explicitly says "must be of high enough class level". Your interpretation makes that sentence not true.

One example where the difference is relevant: since Precocious Apprentice isn't bound to class, you can qualify for mystic theurge by taking P.A. for a spell that is 2nd level for both your arcane and divine side. (Which saves you a feat you'd otherwise have to spend on Southern Magician/Alternate Source Spell.)
...I'm not trying to make a fool of you, but PrApp explicitly says that it is only for wizards or sorcerers, and it's a 1st-level-only feat. So yes, it IS bound to class, and can only be one or the other, because at the time chosen, a character would only have one class.

I'm not arguing that PrApp can't be used to enter theurge as Wiz1/Clr3, it totally can. But claiming that "it's not bound to class" means you haven't looked at the feat in long enough. Which is silly, since it's been re-posted in this thread.

I mean, in this scenario there's already so many resources invested that he's probably like Subject X in some ultra funded magic lab, and can benefit from Aid Another as well as possible psychic reformation for Skill Focus when it's time to scribe. Precocious Apprentice also grants +2.
Do you know what "moving the goalposts" means? If this hypothetical character is somehow able to use high-level psionics to alter his feat selection at will, you're now being intellectually dishonest and trying to shift the founding assumptions we're working with to try and be "right". Please stop.

Your claim was that a wizard at level 1 who made a Faustian Pact and had (WBL-breaking) items and effects to get CL 17 could cast L9 spells. You recently tried to claim that if he was also an EGW, he would get 2 L9 spells. And your claim that that the DC to scribe a L9 spell was "trivial". I was only pointing out that even with an INT of 20, a DC 24 is not "trivial" for a level 1 wizard. Now you're saying he's got PrApp, too? Cool, 40% chance of success. That's a little better, but hardly "trivial".

Elves

2019-11-01, 04:07 PM

...I'm not trying to make a fool of you, but PrApp explicitly says that it is only for wizards or sorcerers, and it's a 1st-level-only feat. So yes, it IS bound to class, and can only be one or the other, because at the time chosen, a character would only have one class.

Actually, the feat contains no such text. It requires arcane caster level but has no prohibition on your use of the slot.

Prerequisite: Spellcasting ability (Int or Cha) 15, arcane caster level 1st.

Benefit: Choose one 2nd-level spell from a school of magic you have access to. You gain an extra 2nd-level spell slot that must be used initially to cast only the chosen spell. Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully cast this spell; if you fail, the spell is miscast to no effect. Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances.

When you become able to cast 2nd-level spells, you lose the benefit described above but retain the extra 2nd-level spell slot, which you can use to prepare or spontaneously cast a spell of 2nd level or lower as you normally would.

Finally, you gain a +2 bonus on all Spellcraft checks.

Special: You can take this feat only as a 1st level character.

For an arcane 2/divine 1 or arcane 1/divine 1 (with skill cheesing), it should work just fine to enter MT.

Do you know what "moving the goalposts" means? If this hypothetical character is somehow able to use high-level psionics to alter his feat selection at will, you're now being intellectually dishonest and trying to shift the founding assumptions we're working with to try and be "right". Please stop.

Your claim was that a wizard at level 1 who made a Faustian Pact and had (WBL-breaking) items and effects to get CL 17 could cast L9 spells.
I'm exactly lightheartedly conceding that reaching the sufficient CL, if possible, would already go way past WBL unless we involve Pazuzu, which was the basis of my comment. My "founding assumption" is what's theoretically possible for a 1st level character.

RedMage125

2019-11-01, 04:55 PM

Actually, the feat contains no such text. It requires arcane caster level but has no prohibition on your use of the slot.

For an arcane 2/divine 1 or arcane 1/divine 1 (with skill cheesing), it should work just fine to enter MT.
Given that it requires ARCANE casting, and must be 1st level character, you can't use it to cast L2 divine spells, since it only grants the one spell chosen at the time the feat is selected, which as a level 1 character, is only an arcane one.

So...no, again.

I'm exactly lightheartedly conceding that reaching the sufficient CL, if possible, would already go way past WBL unless we involve Pazuzu, which was the basis of my comment. My "founding assumption" is what's theoretically possible for a 1st level character.
I haven't been shooting it down on that basis. I have said, repeatedly, that even if you boost your CL to 17, it still doesn't work, for all the reasons you're failing to address and respond to.

So I'll just repeat myself:
1)
So do you think that a wizard needing an INT score of (10+level of spell) to cast a spell of a particular level is also "not a rule"? Because the sentence we are talking about on page 7 of the PHB starts with "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." So, if high enough ability scores being a requirement is a rule, then so is high enough class level.

Again, your interpretation fails on every level of actually reading the text.

2)
Actually, yes it does [require that phrasing], that's how specific exemptions work. Specific>General. Your hypothesis completely lacks any specific text. You have only your inference, and the "next step" jump that you made from that inference, that leads to "only spell slots matter, and class level does not". Because that isn't in the text. Specific>General still requires specific text.

3)
The effects which CL-boosting abilities are applied to is listed on PHB 171, and in the RC. Those are the only things that boosted CL applies to. To claim otherwise is Munchkin Fallacy. Ergo, even if you get a 1st level wizard to boost their CL to 17, those enhancements do not permit casting of spells higher than their class level allows, even if you have your Faustian Pact spell slot, and have made the DC 24 Spellcraft check to add a L9 spell to your spellbook.

Note that this point is distinct and in addition to the fact that there is a class level requirement in order to cast spells of a given level at all. So, EVEN IF one accepts your blatantly false premise that "must be of high enough class level" is "not a rule", it STILL fails. Because the list of things that "effects that grant an adjustment to caster level" applies to does not include "permits casting of spells of a higher spell level than your class level allows, provided your adjusted caster level is equal to or greater than the minimum required caster level for a spell of that spell level". Which is what the RAW would have to say for your hyopthesis to be correct.

EDIT: Which means even if your theoretical level 1 wizard has the Faustian Pact L9 spell slot, and has somehow boosted his CL to 17, and has made the DC 24 Spellcraft check to add a L9 spell to their spellbook, and has taken Alacritous Cogitation for his feat (which allows him to leave the L9 spell slot empty and use a full-round action to cast "any spell that [he] know[s]"), he still cannot cast that L9 spell. This is because the list of what CL-adjusting effects apply to does not include anything like the text I included in the above paragraph.

Elves

2019-11-01, 05:36 PM

Given that it requires ARCANE casting, and must be 1st level character, you can't use it to cast L2 divine spells, since it only grants the one spell chosen at the time the feat is selected, which as a level 1 character, is only an arcane one.
So you choose, say, Summon Monster II. Then you take a cleric level. You can use the 2nd level slot to cast the spell as either a cleric or a wizard. So you qualify for MT.

I have said, repeatedly, that even if you boost your CL to 17, it still doesn't work, for all the reasons you're failing to address and respond to.
I've responded to everything you've said. In some cases I haven't kept repeating it.

So do you think that a wizard needing an INT score of (10+level of spell) to cast a spell of a particular level is also "not a rule"?
Odd that you keep putting that phrase in quote marks, as if I ever said it. It's rules text. The distinction I've made from the start is between descriptive and general vs primary and specific.

Because the sentence we are talking about on page 7 of the PHB starts with "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."
We go to chapter 3 for details, where we find this text: "To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Cha 10 for 0-level spells, Cha 11 for 1st-level spells, and so forth)." Just as, in that chapter, we find the details for how spellcasting operates -- through spell slots.

Actually, yes it does [require that phrasing], that's how specific exemptions work. Specific>General. Your hypothesis completely lacks any specific text. You have only your inference,
The Faustian pact thing has a single line of table text. The most straightforward way to interpret it is at face value. The question is about whether a minimum class level rule exists in the first place, not how Faustian pact is read.

and the "next step" jump that you made from that inference, that leads to "only spell slots matter, and class level does not".
Bluntly incorrect. The interpretation of PHB 7 I've suggested in no way follows from or depends on a certain interpretation of Faustian pact.

The effects which CL-boosting abilities are applied to is listed on PHB 171, and in the RC. Those are the only things that boosted CL applies to.
I've repeatedly responded to this illogical claim. If the minimum level rule doesn't exist in the first place, such a thing wouldn't be written there, because it's covered in the section about minimum CL.

RedMage125

2019-11-01, 07:43 PM

So you choose, say, Summon Monster II. Then you take a cleric level. You can use the 2nd level slot to cast the spell as either a cleric or a wizard. So you qualify for MT.
Absurd.

It's a L2 arcane spell slot. Period.

Claiming this is Munchkin Fallacy

I've responded to everything you've said. In some cases I haven't kept repeating it.
No, you've been flat-out ignoring it, or responding with dodging.

Like, for example, your claim that the line on page 7 is "descriptive text and not an actual rule itself". You have no authority to make such a dismissal. And furthermore, any coherent reading of the text says it is a rule, because it presents a requirement.

All that you keep saying in response is "under my interpretation", "my interpretation says...", "when you interpret it this way..."

And what I am trying to get through to you is that "your interpretation" is explicitly wrong.

Odd that you keep putting that phrase in quote marks, as if I ever said it. It's rules text. The distinction I've made from the start is between descriptive and general vs primary and specific.
No, you've made an utterly unauthorized assumption that it's "descriptive text". With no rules support whatsoever you have made the extrapolation that amounts to "only spell slots matter, so if I get spell slots from somewhere else, I can bypass this line of the RAW". And before you even attempt to claim otherwise, your hypothesized scenario doesn't even fit "be of high enough class level" as a description, so you're either not aware that you're contradicting yourself, or you keep thinking I'm to stupid to catch the contradiction.

We go to chapter 3 for details, where we find this text: "To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Cha 10 for 0-level spells, Cha 11 for 1st-level spells, and so forth)." Just as, in that chapter, we find the details for how spellcasting operates -- through spell slots.
DETAILS. You go to Chapter 3 for details. Details of what? Oh, that's right, details of "what class level constitutes high enough class level"?

Does that end up meaning "high enough class level to get spell slots of that spell level"? Yes, yes it does.

But you go completely off the rails after that, because you assume that "spell slots" are the only thing that matters. Instead of, you know, paying attention to the words of the text, and realizing that the class level is still required, because that's what the text on page 7 said.
Bottom Line:
Class level is a requirement.
Class level grants spell slots.

You have made the unauthorized assumption that:
Spell slot is the requirement and satisfies that line on page 7.

Which leads you to believe (incorrectly) that if you find a way to get a spell slot through a non-class-level-related means, that you are not bound by class level.

This is Munchkin Fallacy.

THAT is "your interpretation". Why do you think I keep harping on the text itself? The use of "must", and how it follows "in addition to having a high ability score...". That tells us that class level, is an additional requirement to casting spells, just as high ability score is.

I am telling you, unequivocally, that when I look through the same lens that says "drown healing is true by RAW", I do not see any text support for 'your interpretation". In fact, I see explicit text that prohibits your hypothesis. You have not arrived at a conclusion where someone could look at the text, take all of into account and say "that's a valid way to read these words". Because your hypothesis makes words of the text that are quite clearly RULES not true, and since RAW is the authority and NOT you, your hypothesis is wrong.

The Faustian pact thing has a single line of table text. The most straightforward way to interpret it is at face value. The question is about whether a minimum class level rule exists in the first place, not how Faustian pact is read.
PrApp is also only one feat. But it manages to have specific exemption text.

"Lack of text saying it doesn't work" =/= "text saying it works"

Honestly, the fact that Faustian Pact is only a single line of a table of text hurts your argument more than it helps you. You even said it yourself earlier "3.5 relies on exemption phrasing" (post #122, from you). There isn't any exemption phrasing in Faustian Pact, ergo, it is not an exemption.

Can you get a L9 spell slot? Sure, the text of Faustian Pact says so. But since you cannot cast L9 spells, you could take Quicken Spell, and be using it with all of your L1-L5 spells as you level up.

Bluntly incorrect. The interpretation of PHB 7 I've suggested in no way follows from or depends on a certain interpretation of Faustian pact.
You missed my point. According to "your interpretation", it doesn't matter where the spell slot comes from. I'm fully aware that you made this Munchkin-tastic leap into fallacy using just the PHB. You're still wrong.

Let me break it down (I'l stick to using Wizards):
Intelligence is the score that governs your spellcasting. With me so far? Good.
The RAW say that you must have an INT score of (10+level of the spell) to cast a spell of that spell level. You do recognize THAT as a rule, right?
Is there or is there not a complete sentence, ending in a period that says "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."? What do you know? There is.
Any analysis of text and language will tell you that it means BOTH of those things are rules. "(See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)" Is an entirely separate sentence. Much like pointing out what "singular demonstrative pronouns" mean, and "the importance of a semicolon connecting 2 independent clauses" for the Domain Wizard, we can see that "high enough ability score" and "high enough class level" are both rules.
Chapter 3 gives us the details of "high ability score" and "high enough class level".
"High enough class level" grants us spell slots, yes. But "High enough class level" is still the rule.
Your "interpretation" that it isn't a rule is not supported by any logical and coherent reading of the words of text. In fact, it causes you to ignore them because it doesn't let you do what you want to do.

Conclusion: "Your interpretation" of page 7 is incorrect, which is only one of two reasons your hypothesis fails.

I've repeatedly responded to this illogical claim. If the minimum level rule doesn't exist in the first place, such a thing wouldn't be written there, because it's covered in the section about minimum CL.

It's not an "illogical claim". The rules say what you CAN do. That's it.

The rules say what "effects that provide an adjustment to caster level" apply to. That is:
effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt)
your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance
the caster level used in dispel checks

Assuming that CL-adjustments apply to anything more than those things is Munchkin Fallacy.

And that is the second of the two reasons your hypothesis fails to be true.

Elves

2019-11-01, 08:29 PM

Re "must":

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.

So does this mean that if you used a Faustian pact to gain a spell slot for which your class grants you 0 spells of that level, and your casting stat is sufficient to cast spells of that level but too low to receive bonus slots, you can't cast spells of that level despite having the slot?

Of course not. Specific over general.

It's a L2 arcane spell slot. Period.
It doesn't say so.

DETAILS. You go to Chapter 3 for details. Details of what? Oh, that's right, details of "what class level constitutes high enough class level"?

To what I've already said, I'll add: "See for details" is very often used in nonfiction writing to direct from a glib or simplified summary to the info on how something actually operates.

That's relevant because your inferential leap is only necessary if the text is dysfunctional.

It's not an "illogical claim". The rules say what you CAN do. That's it.

The rules say what "effects that provide an adjustment to caster level" apply to. That is:
effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt)
your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance
the caster level used in dispel checks

Assuming that CL-adjustments apply to anything more than those things is Munchkin Fallacy.
In the case that there is no class level rule there would be no need for such a clause, since the rule that does exist in that case (minimum CL) is covered elsewhere.

RedMage125

2019-11-02, 06:49 AM

Re "must":

So does this mean that if you used a Faustian pact to gain a spell slot for which your class grants you 0 spells of that level, and your casting stat is sufficient to cast spells of that level but too low to receive bonus slots, you can't cast spells of that level despite having the slot?

Of course not. Specific over general.
This question is only "problematic" under "your interpretation". Because, since class level is a factor, and your class level granted you the "0" as opposed to "--", of course you can then cast spells of that level if you managed to get a positive integer from your Faustian Pact.

For the record, this is what I meant about you refusing to address things. I rather neatly dissected "your interpretation", using text from the RAW, pointing out what it says, in what context, and what that means, using English Language syntax and sentence structure...you respond with an unrelated tangent about one thing. So I'm just going to repeat what I said until you address it:

Let me break it down (I'l stick to using Wizards):
Intelligence is the score that governs your spellcasting. With me so far? Good.
The RAW say that you must have an INT score of (10+level of the spell) to cast a spell of that spell level. You do recognize THAT as a rule, right?
Is there or is there not a complete sentence, ending in a period, that says "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."? What do you know? There is.
Any analysis of text and language will tell you that it means BOTH of those things are rules. "(See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)" Is an entirely separate sentence. Much like pointing out what "singular demonstrative pronouns" mean, and "the importance of a semicolon connecting 2 independent clauses" for the Domain Wizard, we can see that "high enough ability score" and "high enough class level" are both rules.
Chapter 3 gives us the details of "high ability score" and "high enough class level".
"High enough class level" grants us spell slots, yes. But "High enough class level" is still the rule.
Your "interpretation" that it isn't a rule is not supported by any logical and coherent reading of the words of text. In fact, it causes you to ignore them because it doesn't let you do what you want to do.

Conclusion: "Your interpretation" of page 7 is incorrect, which is only one of two reasons your hypothesis fails.

To wit:
If X=something you recognize and accept is a RULE, a requirement for spellcasting.
You then have a complete sentence that says: "In addition to [X], a spellcaster must [Y] to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."

If [X] is a requirement, then so is [Y]. You have "in addition to" something that is a requirement, followed by "must". So if one is a requirement, they both are. If one is not, then neither are.

In order for "your interpretation" to be true, you would also have to claim that "high ability score is not a requirement to cast spells of a given spell level". Are you going to claim that, Yes or No?

It doesn't say so.
If you are a wizard with PrApp, it is a wizard slot, if you are a sorcerer with PrApp, then it is a sorcerer slot, etc. Because you only HAVE one class at the time you took the feat because it's only available at 1st level, and you had an arcane caster class. Spell slots are tracked separately for multiclass characters.

Regarding your Munchkin-y example, you do not have sufficient Cleric class levels to cast Summon Monster II as a Cleric. To be clear, I am addressing your "wiz1/clr1" example. Once you hit 3rd level and take Southern Magician, you have sufficient exemption rules to cast your L2 PrApp spell as arcane or divine.

EDIT: I realized that I've been focusing on your previous examples, implying that this is an EGW wizard with PrApp, and no mention of flaws was made. But if you had flaws, or were human, you could arguably* take PrApp and then Southern Magician at 1st level. Of course, you'd have to be level 2 to use Southern Magician, because it says "once per day per two spellcaster levels", and does not add "minimum once per day". But I suppose you could be a Wiz 1/any-other-spellcaster 1 with both feats and have the ability to "cast 2nd level arcane and divine spells"*.

*Unless, of course, we focus on the fact that "spells" (in both the prerequisite for theurge and the prereq for Southern Magician) is plural. Because in this example, you may cast "a 2nd level spell", not "2nd level spells". This is distinct from Alacritous Cogitation allowing a wizard to meet the prereq for Versatile Spellcaster, because multiple different spells could be cast with AlCog, as opposed one, specific spell with PrApp.

To what I've already said, I'll add: "See for details" is very often used in nonfiction writing to direct from a glib or simplified summary to the info on how something actually operates.

That's relevant because your inferential leap is only necessary if the text is dysfunctional.
YOU are the one making "inferential leaps". I am reading the text "must be of high enough class level" as a statement that is still true.

It's not "dysfunctional", it's "general". Again, because the specifics vary from class to class, even for spells of the same spell level.

To repeat myself, if the "given spell level" we are discussing is L3, the minimum class level for wizards is 5, for sorcerers is 6, for bards is 7, and for paladins is 11. Those are the specifics, the details we must get from individual class descriptions. The statement on page 7 of the PHB is general, but still applies, as I broke down for you, above.

In the case that there is no class level rule there would be no need for such a clause, since the rule that does exist in that case (minimum CL) is covered elsewhere.
If wishes were ponies, then beggars would ride.

I could say anything with a ridiculous qualifier like that. "In the case that there is no Arcane Spell Failure rule, wizards could wear full plate all the time, and just not cast spells requiring attack rolls". See how ridiculous that is?

Your entire statement here is non-sequitur, and if nothing else, is further circumstantial evidence that "your interpretation" is incorrect. Because there is a class level rule. You just want to ignore it to get your way.

Your statement is also nonsensical, because since "effects that adjust caster level" are a thing, we actually need a list of what things those adjustments to apply to.

You just don't like it because, like I said, it's one of two things that makes your hypothesized "level 1 wizard with Faustian pact L9 slot and CL of 17" not work, completely independent of "your interpretation" of page 7. And you don't have a counter to this point, so you want to claim that "this shouldn't be necessary". Well too bad. It's in the RAW, a concise list of what CL-adjusting effects apply to. So your hypothesis enters Munchkin Fallacy territory because you're trying to apply CL-adjusting effects to something off that list.

Face it. Your hypothesis is not valid by RAW. It's been an interesting debate, but you didn't factor in everything, and it is debunked.

Elves

2019-11-02, 10:06 AM

This question is only "problematic" under "your interpretation". Because, since class level is a factor, and your class level granted you the "0" as opposed to "--", of course you can then cast spells of that level if you managed to get a positive integer from your Faustian Pact.

You're assuming there that [your interpretation of] the PHB 7 quote overrides the bit I quoted, which there is no indication of.

For the record, this is what I meant about you refusing to address things. ...you respond with an unrelated tangent about one thing.
It's far from unrelated. It's a response to your claims about the importance of the word "must". Broad wording like this is used all the time. That's the reason there's a specific over general rule -- edge cases like this.

Your claim that something could only be an exemption if it's worded just like Precocious Apprentice is wrong. It's an exemption by virtue of what it says it does.

So I'm just going to repeat what I said until you address it:
I did address this yesterday. Minimum ability score is spelled out in an explicit way that minimum class level, in the way you want it to exist, isn't:

"We go to chapter 3 for details, where we find this text: "To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Cha 10 for 0-level spells, Cha 11 for 1st-level spells, and so forth)." Just as, in that chapter, we find the details for how spellcasting operates -- through spell slots."

If you are a wizard with PrApp, it is a wizard slot, if you are a sorcerer with PrApp, then it is a sorcerer slot, etc. Because you only HAVE one class at the time you took the feat because it's only available at 1st level, and you had an arcane caster class. Spell slots are tracked separately for multiclass characters.

This could be true, though Precocious Apprentice doesn't say so. Is there something in the rules on spell slots that would clarify this?

YOU are the one making "inferential leaps". I am reading the text "must be of high enough class level" as a statement that is still true".

You're making two inferences:
- that the sentence on page 7 constitutes its own rule separate from the referred text.
- you add implicit text to the effect that a high enough class level means the level at which your class grants you 0 or more spell slots of that spell level.

Meanwhile, I'm assuming that the referral to the rules on minimum class level works just the same as the referral to the rules on minimum ability scores: we go to chapter 3 and read how the rules work. Since "must be of high enough class level" is broken only in two situations in the game -- a feat, and a poorly worded throwaway line of table text in Fiendish Codex -- there is no strong argument that the "must" phrasing isn't valid even if there is no direct minimum level rule.

If wishes were ponies, then beggars would ride.

I could say anything with a ridiculous qualifier like that. "In the case that there is no Arcane Spell Failure rule, wizards could wear full plate all the time, and just not cast spells requiring attack rolls". See how ridiculous that is?

You're being nonsensical at this point. The point is that you can't present, as positive evidence against someone's hypothesis, the absence of evidence that wouldn't have any need to be there if the hypothesis were true.

(Yes, this can present a hazard in the case of things that make their operational premise blind faith, but those are specific adversarial examples. And probably in some technical cases I'm wrong, but this isn't a technical context.)

RedMage125

2019-11-02, 11:17 AM

You're assuming there that [your interpretation of] the PHB 7 quote overrides the bit I quoted, which there is no indication of.
I'm assuming nothing, and I quite clearly spelled out a way in which the only valid reading of PHB page 7 still resonates with what you quoted about having "0" (as opposed to "--") spells of a given level works. Class level is still a factor there.

It's far from unrelated. It's a response to your claims about the importance of the word "must". Broad wording like this is used all the time. That's the reason there's a specific over general rule -- edge cases like this.

Your claim that something could only be an exemption if it's worded just like Precocious Apprentice is wrong. It's an exemption by virtue of what it says it does.
No, you said it yourself, earlier: Faustian pact has only one line, and it must be read in the simplest way possible. That is, that you do, in fact, get an extra spell slot (this is the only "exception" provided). It requires additional inference that this allows you to cast a spell of that spell level if you cannot already. Inference which requires you to ignore rules text.

This is how I perceive what you are claiming:

I think I have stumbled on a way for a level 1 wizard to cast a L9 spell if he makes a faustian pact and boosts his caster level somehow.

But the line on page 7 says that I have to have high enough class level, which is problematic for my hypothesis to be true.

Wait, I know! I can just ignore the context, language, and syntax of that sentence so it doesn't present as a restriction! Even though it's in the same sentence as something that I do recognize as a restriction, and says "in addition to" that restriction, followed by "must". I'll just pretend context and syntax are irrelevant to rules. RedMage says that the text of the words lays down the rules. He doesn't understand that me wishing really hard trumps that.

Then I just focus on how Chapter 3 tells me that having spell slots are what creates the actual restriction. Which, of course, I bypass by getting the spell slot with the faustian pact. Now I can claim that the line on page 7 that I don't like is "descriptive text". I'll just ignore that even as a "description" it still doesn't accurately describe the situation in my hypothesis.

RedMage also points out, as a completely separate point, that "effects that provide adjustment to caster level" has a distinct list in the RAW of what those adjustments are applied to. I want effects that provide adjustment to caster level to also allow me to cast spells of a higher spell level, as long as I meet the minimum caster level spelled out in the paragraph right above that.

But wait! The power of me wishing really hard made that line on page 7 just "descriptive text". Since I accept that as true, I'll just say that "there is no need for such a clause", even though these things are completely unrelated. Since I believe really hard that there isn't a need for the clause, I can ignore it and still claim my hypothesis is valid by RAW.

I did address this yesterday. Minimum ability score is spelled out in an explicit way that minimum class level, in the way you want it to exist, isn't:

"We go to chapter 3 for details, where we find this text: "To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Cha 10 for 0-level spells, Cha 11 for 1st-level spells, and so forth)." Just as, in that chapter, we find the details for how spellcasting operates -- through spell slots."
That's where you're wrong. Chapter 3 is where we find out how class level gives us the ability to cast spells of a given spell level -- through spell slots. That doesn't invalidate class level as a factor.

Once again:
If X=something you recognize and accept is a RULE, a requirement for spellcasting.
You then have a complete sentence that says: "In addition to [X], a spellcaster must [Y] to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."

If [X] is a requirement, then so is [Y]. You have "in addition to" something that is a requirement, followed by "must". So if one is a requirement, they both are. If one is not, then neither are.

In order for "your interpretation" to be true, you would also have to claim that "high ability score is not a requirement to cast spells of a given spell level". Are you going to claim that, Yes or No?

This could be true, though Precocious Apprentice doesn't say so. Is there something in the rules on spell slots that would clarify this?
Umm...the fact that you have only one class when you take the feat, and that spell slots, caster level, and all other factors are tracked separately for multiclass characters?

You're making two inferences:
- that the sentence on page 7 constitutes its own rule separate from the referred text.
- you add implicit text to the effect that a high enough class level means the level at which your class grants you 0 or more spell slots of that spell level.
That's not an inference, that how language works. If "high ability score" is a restriction, then so is "high enough class level". It's in the same sentence. One builds on the authority of the other, using "in addition to" and reinforces the necessity by use of "must". Chapter 3 has the details of both of these things, but the things on page 7 are still both true. Yes, having "0 or more spell slots of that level" is an accurate way to sum up the detailed specifics of that rule. But only as a specific factor of the general statement "high enough class level".

I am adding no implicit text. I simply understand that, due to how it is parsed in the text, that "be of high enough class level" is the same kind of rule (a restriction to casting higher level spells) as "high ability score", because it says "in addition to" and "must". I also continued reading the paragraph to page 8 where it gives an example of what this rule is, and specifies how Mialee's class level in wizard needs to be 3 to cast L2 spells, because 3 is the level at which she gains the ability to cast L2 spells. Does Chapter 3 show me, in the table, how this trend can be observed, and that the minimum class level can be determined by finding the level at which my class grants "0 or more slots f that spell level"? Yes.

But that doesn't make "of high enough class level" somehow "not a restriction" itself. And you have no authority to declare it such, nor have you answered anything in regards to it's context with "high ability score" being in the same sentence.

Which I can only assume is because you can't bypass that obstacle, but still want to be right.

Meanwhile, I'm assuming that the referral to the rules on minimum class level works just the same as the referral to the rules on minimum ability scores: we go to chapter 3 and read how the rules work. Since "must be of high enough class level" is broken only in two situations in the game -- a feat, and a poorly worded throwaway line of table text in Fiendish Codex -- there is no strong argument that the "must" phrasing isn't valid even if there is no direct minimum level rule.
The feat actually explicitly provided exemption text that says, in no uncertain terms, that it allows the bypassing of both class level and caster level requirements. So it's not problematic, it's a clear-cut case of "Specific Overrides General".

And again, the fact that it's "a throwaway line of table text" hurts your argument more than it helps you. We may only determine that it does exactly what it says it does. Which is give the character a spell slot. Spell slots are frequently able to be used to prepare and cast spells of a lower spell level than the level of the slot. Being able to actually cast a spell of that level requires additional leaps of inference and myopically ignoring rules text.

Funny thing is, if we didn't have PrApp, you'd have a stronger case for your hypothesis. Because we would not have another solid, grounded, RAW-supported example of a character casting a spell higher than their class level allows. If there were no PrApp, we might be able to argue that Faustian pact created a special exception, and we would have no reason to expect that specific exemption text were necessary. Alas! We do have a valid example of this rule being broken, which comes complete with text covering the ways in which it provides special exemption to the general rules. Faustian pact does not even try to grant itself this exemption, ergo, it does not.

You're being nonsensical at this point. The point is that you can't present, as positive evidence against someone's hypothesis, the absence of evidence that wouldn't have any need to be there if the hypothesis were true.

(Yes, this can present a hazard in the case of things that make their operational premise blind faith, but those are specific adversarial examples. And probably in some technical cases I'm wrong, but this isn't a technical context.)
Actually, as the one presenting a hypothesis, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence that your hypothesis IS true, so you have that backwards. You have claimed a "different interpretation" of the text on page 7. I have debunked that, showing that your "interpretation" cannot be true because of how the sentence on page 7 is structured. I have repeatedly cited the text itself, and used the context of it, the grammar used, and the syntax to support what I have been saying. As the RAW are originally written in English, citing English language rules are valid support. You have, to date, failed to adequately address these points. One would literally have to not understand how these thing interconnect to begin to believe that "your interpretation" was accurate.

Furthermore, what I was saying about the list of things that "effects that provide adjustment to caster level" is actually completely independent of "your interpretation" of page 7. You tried to claim "there was no need for such a clause", citing "in the case there is no class level rule" as "proof". Which is entirely tautological, and also non-sequitur. Even if I lost enough English Language Comprehension to accept "your interpretation" of page 7 as true, your hypothesized "Level 1 Wizard with Faustian pact and CL boosters" still fails to be capable of casting L9 spells because effects that provide adjustment to caster level apply to:
effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt)
your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance
the caster level used in dispel checks

And that's it. That's what the RAW say. Your hypothesis would require those CL adjustments to also apply to "ability to cast spells of a higher spell level than class level normally grants access to, as long as minimum caster level requirement is met". And the RAW does not say that, so it is Munchkin Fallacy. Which means even if you HAD adjustments to bring yourself up to CL 17, for the purposes of casting spells of a given level, your caster level is 1.*

This is a wholly separate point from your page 7 point.

To wit: If you were correct, then it would mean that a level 4 cleric with the Healing Domain who made a faustian pact for a L3 spell slot would be able to prepare and cast Cure Serious Wounds. Because he has a L3 spell slot and a caster level of 5.

*An inference I can make from this is that your caster level isn't actually adjusted or improved until you start actually casting the spell. Look at the list of things the adjustments apply to: range, duration, damage, overpowering SR, resistance to dispelling...all of them require the spell to already be cast. Which means that i can infer that a level 16 wizard with that Ioun Stone that gives +1 caster level spends most of her day walking around being considered caster level 16. But when she casts the spell, she may use CL 17 for the things listed. See? That's how you draw an inference that still meets all the wickets of what the text says. Is it "completely true by RAW" that she walks around being considered CL 16? No. But for all intents and purposes it doesn't matter, nothing about that inference creates dissonance with the text of the RAW anywhere, because I am still applying her "caster level adjustments" to the things the RAW say I do.

Elves

2019-11-02, 11:48 AM

That's not an inference, that how language works. If "high ability score" is a restriction, then so is "high enough class level".
Again, the difference is that the specific rules for minimum ability score are laid out in chapter 3 in exactly the way you argue, while the rules for minimum class level aren't.

To wit: If you were correct, then it would mean that a level 4 cleric with the Healing Domain who made a faustian pact for a L3 spell slot would be able to prepare and cast Cure Serious Wounds. Because he has a L3 spell slot and a caster level of 5.
Yes, this is what I'd argue, barring more evidence. Faustian pact is pretty niche so it's hard to see this as especially disruptive to the game.

This is how I perceive what you are claiming:

I think I have stumbled on a way for a level 1 wizard to cast a L9 spell if he makes a faustian pact and boosts his caster level somehow.

But the line on page 7 says that I have to have high enough class level, which is problematic for my hypothesis to be true.

Wait, I know! I can just ignore the context, language, and syntax of that sentence so it doesn't present as a restriction! Even though it's in the same sentence as something that I do recognize as a restriction, and says "in addition to" that restriction, followed by "must". I'll just pretend context and syntax are irrelevant to rules. RedMage says that the text of the words lays down the rules. He doesn't understand that me wishing really hard trumps that.

Then I just focus on how Chapter 3 tells me that having spell slots are what creates the actual restriction. Which, of course, I bypass by getting the spell slot with the faustian pact. Now I can claim that the line on page 7 that I don't like is "descriptive text". I'll just ignore that even as a "description" it still doesn't accurately describe the situation in my hypothesis.

RedMage also points out, as a completely separate point, that "effects that provide adjustment to caster level" has a distinct list in the RAW of what those adjustments are applied to. I want effects that provide adjustment to caster level to also allow me to cast spells of a higher spell level, as long as I meet the minimum caster level spelled out in the paragraph right above that.

But wait! The power of me wishing really hard made that line on page 7 just "descriptive text". Since I accept that as true, I'll just say that "there is no need for such a clause", even though these things are completely unrelated. Since I believe really hard that there isn't a need for the clause, I can ignore it and still claim my hypothesis is valid by RAW.
If this is really your only takeaway from the 20+ posts I've made explaining my actual position, clearly the time spent explaining it has been wasted. We're done here.

RedMage125

2019-11-02, 12:11 PM

Again, the difference is that the specific rules for minimum ability score are laid out in chapter 3 in exactly the way you argue, while the rules for minimum class level aren't.
You clearly understand the specifics as outlined in Chapter 3, as does everyone else who plays this game. Your "interpretation" amounts to "because 'minimum class level' isn't spelled out in a manner to my satisfaction, it must not be an actual restriction". But it is a restriction, and just as much of one as "high ability score". They are in the same sentence, and say "in addition to" and "must".

You have STILL failed to respond to those factors. Which leads me to believe you can't find a way to, but still want to be right, so you ignore it and pretend I didn't say it...again.

Yes, this is what I'd argue, barring more evidence. Faustian pact is pretty niche so it's hard to see this as especially disruptive to the game.
Then just like your hypothesis about the wizard with faustian pact, this fails for 2 completely unrelated reasons:
1) Class level is a restriction to casting spells of a given spell level
2) Abilities which provide an adjustment of caster level have a distinct list of what those adjustments apply to. This is not one of them.

If this is really your only takeaway from the 20+ posts I've made explaining my actual position, clearly the time spent explaining it has been wasted. We're done here.

How is your "actual position" any different than that? You have provided ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence or citation, or anything at all to back up the claim that "be of high enough class level", a clause which follows "in addition to [acknowledged restriction on casting spells of a given spell level], a spellcaster must..." is somehow..."descriptive text". Context, grammar, and syntax of that sentence say that these things are both restrictions, and you blithely ignore that. You actually have not responded to that point even once.

How else am I to perceive your claims? The only way you can claim your "interpretation" is true without refuting the point of context, grammar, and syntax is if you were claiming that "high ability score" was also "not a restriction". Which you know is an indefensible stance. You have cited the RAW of that yourself.

So here's the crux. There are 2 possibilities for you to consider:
1) That your "interpretation" is correct. This makes the full sentence on page 7 problematic. Because it gives "of high enough class level" equal weight as a restriction as "high ability score".
2) That your interpretation is incorrect. Now there is harmony, no dissonance between what the RAW say and how it applies. But your hypothesized wizard is not supported by RAW.

Which seems the more likely possibility?

Your suggestion of the "level 1 wizard with faustian pact L9 slot and CL-boosted to 17 casting L9 spells" was just a hypothesis anyway. Not all hypotheses are proven true.

You have also not addressed the Munchkin Fallacy issues with regards to things that "provide an adjustment to caster level".

The rules say what "effects that provide an adjustment to caster level" apply to. That is:
effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt)
your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance
the caster level used in dispel checks

Claiming that CL-boosting effects apply to your caster level for any other purpose other than what is stated here is Munchkin Fallacy. So even if "your interpretation" of page 7 were correct, the hypothesized wizard still fails to be valid by RAW, even through the same lens that allows for "drown healing".

Elves

2019-11-02, 12:54 PM

So here's the crux. There are 2 possibilities for you to consider:
1) That your "interpretation" is correct. This makes the full sentence on page 7 problematic. Because it gives "of high enough class level" equal weight as a restriction as "high ability score".
2) That your interpretation is incorrect. Now there is harmony, no dissonance between what the RAW say and how it applies. But your hypothesized wizard is not supported by RAW.

It's strange to me that you believe it makes the sentence on page 7 problematic when the only violation of that sentence even under my interpretation is in two niche situations, one of which was vague and poorly considered.

It's like saying someone's directions for how to get somewhere are "problematic" if they don't include instructions for what to do if the car gets hit by a meteor.

RedMage125

2019-11-02, 01:47 PM

It's strange to me that you believe it makes the sentence on page 7 problematic when the only violation of that sentence even under my interpretation is in two niche situations, one of which was vague and poorly considered.

It's like saying someone's directions for how to get somewhere are "problematic" if they don't include instructions for what to do if the car gets hit by a meteor.

No, because your "interpretation" applies in general, thus denouncing class level as a restriction at all. Not just for PrApp and Faustian Pacts. Which means if your "interpretation" had any validity at all (SPOILER: it doesn't), it would mean that any wizard with Alacritous Cogitation and Versatile Spellcaster, who also had CL boosters for only 1 or 2 caster levels would be able to burn their 2 highest-level spell slots to cast a spell of a spell level one level even higher, so long as they made the DC for the Spellcraft check to write it in their books.

Your "interpretation" is problematic because you claim -in a general way- that the sentence states: "In addition to [acknowledged restriction on casting spells of a given spell level], a spellcaster must [descriptive generality, not an actual restriction] to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.". This is not coherent with any understanding of the context, grammar, or syntax of that sentence. Which is problematic.

And again, Precocious Apprentice is not "problematic". That feat explicitly makes itself a specific exception to both class level and caster level restrictions. That's "Specific > General", and doesn't make the general rule "problematic". And Faustain-Pact-granted-slot isn't itself "problematic", as long as you understand it is only a spell slot, like it says. One you can use metamagic feats to raise your lower-level spells, should you have any metamagic feats. You are the one who claims the Faustian Pact spell slot allows itself to be anything more than the text says.

So...which is it?
1) Your "interpretation" is correct, but now we have a sentence lending weight to something as a restriction, but somehow "isn't a restriction" just because you say so.
or
2) Your "interpretation" is incorrect. There is no dissonance with the text. But your hypothesized wizard is not valid by RAW.

You've not addressed how the sentence structure builds on the weight of the "high ability score" restriction, says "in addition to" and then "must". Which is why I posted what I did in the spoiler block earlier. Your refusal to even acknowledge these points leads me to perceive your stance as "because I wish it really hard" as your "proof". If your claim were actually valid, you'd be able to cite something to back it up.

And again, until it is answered
You have also not addressed the Munchkin Fallacy issues with regards to things that "provide an adjustment to caster level".

The rules say what "effects that provide an adjustment to caster level" apply to. That is:
effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt)
your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance
the caster level used in dispel checks

Claiming that CL-boosting effects apply to your caster level for any other purpose other than what is stated here is Munchkin Fallacy. So even if "your interpretation" of page 7 were correct, the hypothesized wizard still fails to be valid by RAW, even through the same lens that allows for "drown healing".

Again, please do not refer to your (incorrect) "there is no class level rule" thing, because this is completely unrelated. You only apply the adjustments to what the RAW says you do.

Elves

2019-11-02, 04:00 PM

it would mean that any wizard with Alacritous Cogitation and Versatile Spellcaster, who also had CL boosters for only 1 or 2 caster levels would be able to burn their 2 highest-level spell slots to cast a spell of a spell level one level even higher, so long as they made the DC for the Spellcraft check to write it in their books.

For whatever it's worth, FAQ thinks this is legal.

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.

Which isn't that unbalanced since sponts are a level behind anyway. Of course, wizards getting VS was never intended, and this definitely pushes it into crazytown territory. Another argument for not allowing the combo in a real game.

Your "interpretation" is problematic because you claim -in a general way- that the sentence states: "In addition to [acknowledged restriction on casting spells of a given spell level], a spellcaster must [descriptive generality, not an actual restriction] to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.".
Again you seem to not realize that my interpretations of these clauses are based on the referred text.

And again, until it is answered
I've literally answered this repeatedly. Under my interpretation there would be no need for such a clause since it's covered under minimum CL. You might as well ask why the minimum CL rules are not included in the list as-is -- to which I guess your answer would be your interpretation that CL boosters don't apply until a spell is actually cast, which is an unconventional reading.

So no more claiming I haven't replied to you.

RedMage125

2019-11-02, 04:23 PM

For whatever it's worth, FAQ thinks this is legal.

Utterly non-sequitur. We're talking about spells of a higher spell level, not spells modified by metamagic, which is what that FAQ quote is about. Or did you forget that Shield is a L1 spell?

I've never discounted that a wizard could use the AC+VS combo to burn 2 L1 slots for a metamagicked L1 spell in a L2 slot. That's not problematic at all.

Again you seem to not realize that my interpretations of these clauses are based on the referred text.
Again, you seem to not understand how context, grammar, and syntax work.

It's very simple. If "high ability score" is a restriction on casting spells of a given spell level, then "must be of high enough class level" is a restriction as well.

That's it. Period. You keep trying to cite your tautological "I think my interpretation is right because my interpretation says it's right" BS, and you have nothing to show for it. Chapter 3 gives us details of which class level is "high enough", but the class level itself is still a restriction. And your "interpretation" completely abrogates that, so it cannot be right.

So again...your interpretation is wrong. You can't use the referred text to reach a conclusion that invalidates the text that referred you to it in the first place and claim that your interpretation is "valid".

I've literally answered this repeatedly. Under my interpretation there would be no need for such a clause since it's covered under minimum CL. You might as well ask why the minimum CL rules are not included in the list as-is -- to which I guess your answer would be your interpretation that CL boosters don't apply until a spell is actually cast, which is an unconventional reading.

So no more claiming I haven't replied to you.
You still haven't.

It's not about "no need for a clause". It's also not about "your interpretation" of page 7. It's not connected to that at all. Stop trying to think this is about something else and listen to just this, okay?

Clear your mind and focus only on this. This is in a vacuum from the other thing, all right?

Munchkin Fallacy is the claim that you can do something because "the rules don't specifically say no to it". You understand that, right?

The rules say what "effects that provide an adjustment to caster level" apply to. That is:
effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt)
your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance
the caster level used in dispel checks

That means that for literally everything else that refers to your caster level you do not apply those adjustments, or you are guilty of Munchkin Fallacy.

It isn't "covered under minimum caster level", because your actual caster level is 1, in the case of your hypothetical wizard. Things that provide adjustments are handled under a wholly separate paragraph, with a specific and limited list of what those adjustments do apply to. That is it. You have a separate paragraph detailing the effects of "things that provide adjustments to caster level" just AFTER the rules for " minimum caster level". By what authority do you declare the one to apply to the other? Without text in writing, no less?

Oh, no authority whatsoever? You seriously wonder why I said it came across as "just because you wished it hard enough"?

EDIT:
In case you need additional convincing, this is also what allows effects like Wild Mage and Unseen Seer to not suddenly prohibit the character from casting their spells. Because modifications to caster level only affect those items on the list, and are NOT a factor in determining whether or not a character can cast a spell of a given spell level.

Jay R

2019-11-03, 04:23 PM

This is just a meaningless word game, not a discussion about any real D&D table, right?

I mean, does anybody know a DM that would actually allow this?

pabelfly

2019-11-03, 05:26 PM

This is just a meaningless word game, not a discussion about any real D&D table, right?

I mean, does anybody know a DM that would actually allow this?

This is more of a Theoretical Optimization thread, seeing how powerful a character you can make while still adhering to the rules.

Elves

2019-11-03, 05:43 PM

It's a rules discussion thread. Although it could make for a fun Faust-like game with a solo player, especially if you made the pact raise their effective character level for xp purposes.

Jay R

2019-11-03, 08:17 PM

It's a rules discussion thread.

But a meaningless one, right? Nobody really expects a DM to accept this interpretation of the rules, do they?

RedMage125

2019-11-04, 11:04 AM

But a meaningless one, right? Nobody really expects a DM to accept this interpretation of the rules, do they?

Doubtful, as even from a TO lens, it's not valid by RAW. The "interpretation" of page 7 posited by Elves is completely unsupported by any text. Only Elves' "interpretation" supports the "interpretation", which makes it tautological. Any actual reading of the text shows that "class level" is as much of a restriction on casting spells of a given spell level as "high ability score" is. Chapter 3 contains the details of what ability score and what class level, respectively, are necessary to meet said restriction. Elves wants their "interpretation" to be true so that the hypothesized wizard could be valid by RAW. But it isn't, and it's only one factor of why that hypothesis is not valid.

The other factor, which is that the list what "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" can apply to, is simple Munchkin Fallacy on Elves' part. See, because that's also the only coherent reading that allows Unseen Seer, Wild Mage, and/or Mage Slayer to interact with the rules for minimum caster level. Example: A Wizard 15 with the Mage Slayer feat (-4 caster level) can still cast her L8 spells, because her actual caster level is 15. But when she casts it, the spell effects based on caster level (range, duration, and damage dealt), the caster level she would use to overcome SR, and the caster level used for a dispel check against her spell would all be 11. Because "adjustments to caster level" only apply to those things, and do not affect minimum caster level to cast spells. Likewise, boosting your CL artificially does not grant the ability to cast spells of a higher spell level.

That's RAW. To assume that those "adjustments" apply to anything but what is listed is not RAW.

Elves

2019-11-04, 12:55 PM

But a meaningless one, right? Nobody really expects a DM to accept this interpretation of the rules, do they?

I exclusively DM and I'm the one who suggested it.

That doesn't mean I'd use it in a game, though remember: it's reliant on a devil actually being willing to ink the deal, which while RAW suggests they would be, they have no need to be if they don't like the terms. And if the pact is (if it can even be) extracted under duress via eg Planar Binding, you're certain to get serious and rapid lashback from Hell since you're at that point, as they say, ----ing with their money.

Moreover, since in a real game it would be impossible to get all the 50k+ worth of obscure magic items required to reach a high CL at 1st level, you're more likely to see this manifest in a less dramatic way (although a 9th level slot at level 11 is still pretty crazy).

In a real game, I probably wouldn't use FC2's Faustian pact mechanic for a diabolical pact in the first place, but if a player came to me wanting to make such a pact I'd say yes, since it is in the book, and try to do it in a controlled way.

The "interpretation" of page 7 posited by Elves is completely unsupported by any text. Only Elves' "interpretation" supports the "interpretation", which makes it tautological.
You've in no way proven that, and it's dishonest to claim that it's only my interpretation, invented in this thread, when the issue goes back many years. Maybe you can bring in more textual evidence. Based on the sections we've been discussing, RAW does not support a minimum level rule.

Elves wants their "interpretation" to be true so that the hypothesized wizard could be valid by RAW.
The ad hominems aren't doing you any favors Redmage.

Example: A Wizard 15 with the Mage Slayer feat (-4 caster level) can still cast her L8 spells, because her actual caster level is 15. But when she casts it, the spell effects based on caster level (range, duration, and damage dealt), the caster level she would use to overcome SR, and the caster level used for a dispel check against her spell would all be 11.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this reading, but it's not the one that's typically used AFAIK.

RedMage125

2019-11-04, 01:33 PM

You've in no way proven that, and it's dishonest to claim that it's only my interpretation, invented in this thread, when the issue goes back many years. Maybe you can bring in more textual evidence. Based on the sections we've been discussing, RAW does not support a minimum level rule.
I've cited English Language rules of context, grammar and syntax of that sentence. What have you cited? Oh, just your "interpretation".

I have been telling you that your interpretation is not cohesive with reading the text in English. And every time I do, you essentially respond with "well my interpretation says it's right". Saying it's "based on the referred text"

The ad hominems aren't doing you any favors Redmage.
I'd take it kindly if you take that accusation back. I have not, at any point, engaged in a personal attack on you. I have repeatedly addressed your argument on its own merits (and lack thereof). You have still yet to address, in any matter remotely resembling a supported argument, what I have been saying about how context, grammar and syntax of the sentence on page 7 mean. It is a complete sentence, ending in a period.

"In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."

"Having a high ability score" is a restriction on casting spells of a given spell level, yes?
In addition to that, one must "be of high enough class level". That means "be of high enough class level" is an additional restriction on casting spells of a given spell level, that a spellcaster must adhere to.
Chapter 3 contains the details of what ability score and what class level, respectively, are necessary to meet said restrictions.

Your "interpretation" requires you to completely abrogate half of that sentence as a restriction. And with what authority? What do you cite as an authority that makes that sentence "not a restriction"? Your say-so. Based solely on the claim you make that "'See for details' is very often used in nonfiction writing to direct from a glib or simplified summary to the info on how something actually operates" (from you, post #158). That's it. Just your claim on what is "very often used". Nothing concrete. No citation from the text. Certainly nothing that contradicts how the English Language works.

The closest I have come to an "ad hominem", is when I presented how I am perceiving you. Which was and is an invitation to address those issues. I absolutely parsed it as "it sounds like this to me", or "it came across like this". I have been trying to tell you how you are coming across, in the hope that you will reassess and stop behaving in that manner.

Please, PLEASE prove that perception wrong and try and support your claim with something more concrete. As it is, you've been saying that "your interpretation must be right because if your interpretation is right, then it proves itself". Which I know you think you aren't saying that, but when you keep using your claims about "the details in Chapter 3", you use that to completely abrogate the very words that preceded "See...Chapter 3 for details". The very words you were referred to find details about, you now claim are "descriptive text", but do not denounce "high ability score" as equally. Even though the sentence itself says they are both requirements.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this reading, but it's not the one that's typically used AFAIK.

You have been opposed to this reading, it's what I've been saying for several posts now. Are you changing your mind?

It means that even if your "interpretation" of page 7 were correct, the hypothetical wizard still fails. Because the "adjustments to caster level" have no effect on minimum caster level for spells, it means even if you could afford things that boosted a level 1 wizards CL to 17, and he had a L9 spell slot from a Faustian Pact, and he made the Spellcraft check to scribe a L9 spell into his book, he would still be unable to cast the L9 spell, because the adjustments to caster level only affect what the RAW says they affect. So for purposes of casting spells of a given level, his CL is still 1. Because the adjustments only apply to what the RAW says they do. Nothing else.

Elves

2019-11-04, 02:07 PM

I've cited English Language rules of context, grammar and syntax of that sentence. What have you cited? Oh, just your "interpretation".

I have been telling you that your interpretation is not cohesive with reading the text in English. And every time I do, you essentially respond with "well my interpretation says it's right". Saying it's "based on the referred text"

You have still yet to address, in any matter remotely resembling a supported argument, what I have been saying about how context, grammar and syntax of the sentence on page 7 mean. It is a complete sentence, ending in a period.
I've responded to this ten times now. At this point I know responding again won't make you stop saying this, so go back and read.

I'd take it kindly if you take that accusation back. I have not, at any point, engaged in a personal attack on you. I have repeatedly addressed your argument on its own merits (and lack thereof).
Come on, you've made a lot of hot remarks like that over the last couple pages.

You have been opposed to this reading, it's what I've been saying for several posts now. Are you changing your mind?
I'm saying "if x then y, if z then a".

RedMage125

2019-11-04, 02:25 PM

I've responded to this ten times now. At this point I know responding again won't make you stop saying this, so go back and read.
Saying "I'm using the referred text as justification for claiming that this is just 'descriptive text'" doesn't address at all what I've been trying to get across to you.

The sentence quite clearly gives "must be of high enough class level" the same weight and authority as a restriction as "high ability score".

I cite the context, grammar, and syntax of the text itself as proof.

You keep trying to circumvent that. You have yet to respond on a level that acknowledges how the structure of that sentence plays out.

You claim that "'must' functions descriptively", but you don't back that up with anything. Does this make sense now? I am telling you that it is not just "descriptive text", on that basis that the text itself gives it equal weight and authority as a restriction as "high ability score". 1) You do not have the authority to dismiss something as "descriptive text", not when it's in the same sentence as an actual restriction, paired with "in addition to..."; 2) Claiming it's "descriptive text" even from your point of view, is dishonest, because that text does not describe the hypothetical wizard, making that a flat-out lie; 3) The only benefit you glean from interpreting it this way is to make your hypothetical wizard work. You made no such claim about this text until after your hypothesized wizard. Once you posited it, however...suddenly it's "not a restriction" according to you, and you have been unable to adequately back this claim up with support of any kind, other than your own claim of what is "often" used elsewhere in nonfiction. That's not how citing proof of anything works.

Come on, you've made a lot of hot remarks like that over the last couple pages.
I've made remarks about how your argument sounds to me, and asked you to elucidate in a way that does not sound like that.

I'm saying "if x then y, if z then a".

I don't follow. Are you finally acknowledging that "[things] that provide adjustment to caster level" do not affect the minimum caster level for spells?

RedMage125

2019-11-04, 07:01 PM

Okay, so I did the legwork and went back a few weeks to your post #95

In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)

can’t cast fireball with a caster level lower than 5th (the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball)
I don't think the first quote is saying anything of mechanical primacy, since it is a) referring only to the character's ability to cast certain spells and not actually setting terms for that and b) is explicitly subsidiary to the class descriptions in chapter 3, in which no such restriction is given other than the daily spell allotment on the class table. This is evidence that that allotment, and not some other general rule, is what the quote on page 7 is referring to. Hence, if the allotment is changed such that a wizard has slots of a given level, that means they have a high enough class level to cast spells of that level.

This is why the question becomes whether the Faustian pact is actually modifying that allotment directly.

As for the second quote, it means that using that 9th level slot at 1st level probably does require extreme and perhaps impossible caster level boosting.

But there's a controversial argument you could make to the effect that if minimum level is descriptive and not prescriptive, then since you're 1st level and actually have the slot, your minimum level to cast the spell is 1st. But this does assume the slot from the Faustian pact is equivalent to one granted through your class, which is probably wrong.

That's one of the posts almost immediately after you suggested this hypothesis about faustian pacts. And what I have been trying to tell you this whole time that you were incorrect in this statement.

You said "[you] don't think [PHB page 7] is saying anything of mechanical primacy". But it is, and that's what I have been proving and citing over and over. The language used means it has just as much primacy as "high ability score". ANY time you have a complete sentence that says "In addition to [requirement], you must [X]", [X] is also a requirement. In no world is one a requirement when the other is not. That's how the language works. You cannot denigrate the mechanical primacy of "be of high enough class level" without also denigrating "high ability score". They are equal in weight.

You claimed it was "explicitly subsidiary to the class descriptions in chapter 3", but provided no proof for that. I've been telling you that this statement was wrong as well. Chapter 3 is where you find the details about "high ability score" and "high enough class level", but those things are still rules. And what do you know? The text on page 7 says that Chapter 3 is where you find details, not "the primary rules that page 7 is just a description of".

You suggested that "that [spell slot] allotment, and not some other general rule, is what the quote on page 7 is referring to". But you have no proof to back that up. Page 7 says "class level". And yes Class Levels grant spell slots, but since "class level" shares weight with "high ability score", it means only those spell slots granted by class levels are what gives "ability", since that's the only way "class level" relates to "spells of a given spell level".

And then your conclusion that "if the allotment is changed such that a wizard has slots of a given level, that means they have a high enough class level to cast spells of that level.". Which, put another way is "only spell slots matter, so if I get spell slots from another source, I bypass 'class level' as a requirement". Which you have been denying was your stance, and yet, there it is. Problem is, you neglect to have the class level grant you those slots, so they don't grant the ability to cast spells of that level. Because despite dismissing it as "descriptive", you've crafted a scenario where it isn't even true as a description, using other rules that do not specify that they are exemptions.

And I immediately told you that you were wrong on the one thing you admitted was "probably wrong", which was whether or not "the slot from the Faustian pact is equivalent to one granted through your class". But every single post you have made since has operated under the assumption that it was correct, and you acted as if you had somehow "already proved it", which you did not.

I understand that this is a hypothesis of yours, but somewhere along the line, you lost sight that everything was based off your statements of "I think", "if x", and "probably", without ever remembering to go back and back THOSE claims up with facts, and you continued to cite your own "interpretation" as the "proof" of the interpretation you were trying to find support for. This is tautological.

And I've been saying the same thing to you this whole time, and you haven't backed it up. My very next post after your quoted one (post#96) mentioned how you placed emphasis on the wrong part of the text, claiming "be able to" was more important than the qualifier "must be of high enough level". You didn't even respond to any of that, which was the start of your trend of pretending that I haven't been dissecting your "interpretation" until you inevitably re-iterated the same guano, acting as if you already cited some kind of "proof".

I get that I may have a little more practice with nuances of language than most. I'm kind of a grammar nazi. Which is why I try to share my knowledge of these nuances. I get that not everyone gets how distinct a singular demonstrative pronoun is, or the importance of a semicolon connecting two independent clauses. But just because not everyone remembers all these syntax things as well as I do, doesn't mean you get to ignore them in the text and claim your idea is "valid by RAW", when the text itself says that it is not.

What has really galled me is you claiming that I am the one making "inferential leaps". I am literally only looking at the words of text on page 7, in context with syntax. You are the one who made the leap of "'class level' must only mean 'spell slots', and therefore 'spell slots that don't come from class levels' are the same as ones that do". You also made a leap in claiming "page 7 is subsidiary to chapter 3", but could not back that up. You actually have no authority to make that claim, and furthermore, what I have been pointing out about context, grammar, and syntax, means that this claim is explicitly incorrect.

Elves

2019-11-04, 08:11 PM

I'll state again my reading of PHB 7:

must have "a high enough ability score" -> we page to chapter 3 where we find text that says "To learn or cast a spell, a wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Int 10 for 0-level spells, Int 11 for 1st-level spells, and so forth)." There we go, that's what we were looking for.

"must be of high enough class level" -> we page to the same place. The only thing mentioned is "Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table 3–18: The Wizard." There is nothing about class level, only spell allotment, ie spell slots.

So to read otherwise means making two codependent inferences: that the PHB 7 clause is its own rule independent from the referred text, and that high enough class level, which is never explicitly specified in the way a high enough ability score is, means the level at which your class gains spell slots of that level.

Let's address the second one first. It would be a totally reasonable inference if the text didn't work otherwise, making inference actually necessary. But in fact the text works fine just the way it is. You say that without a minimum class level rule, "must be of high enough class level" is untrue. But that's only in two specific niche situations throughout the entire game. In other words, no, by any reasonable standard that sentence is not proven untrue by those two fringe exceptions.

Similarly, see the phrase "A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below)." This is not proven untrue by the exceptions to this that exist throughout the game.

That brings us to the second inference. "See below for details" is standard terminology in nonfiction that usually implies exactly a descriptive or informative, rather than technical, nature to the preceding clause. So there's little reason to think the PHB 7 quote even constitutes its own rule, especially in light of its incompleteness re: the supposed minimum level clause if that were the case.

RedMage125

2019-11-05, 08:07 AM

Elves, you seem to think that I don't already understand what your reading says. I know you think that you've uncovered some "greater truth" of the RAW here, and "clearly RedMage just doesn't get it, because anyone who understands what I'm saying will see what I see".

Let me disabuse you of that notion right now. I have understood your "interpretation" from the beginning. I have been trying to tell you, quite emphatically, that you are mistaken.

I'll state again my reading of PHB 7:

must have "a high enough ability score" -> we page to chapter 3 where we find text that says "To learn or cast a spell, a wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Int 10 for 0-level spells, Int 11 for 1st-level spells, and so forth)." There we go, that's what we were looking for.
Yes, that's the details of "high ability score" as requirement.

This is not a case of "Specific Overrides General", because this does not, in any way "break" the general rule. This is the details of how that General rule is applied.

"must be of high enough class level" -> we page to the same place. The only thing mentioned is "Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table 3–18: The Wizard." There is nothing about class level, only spell allotment, ie spell slots.
Are you under the impression that the Table is somehow "not part" of the class description? Because it is.

And are you able to determine, from the table, the correlation between class level and spell slots? It's entirely disingenuous to claim "no". If you can, then you have correctly sussed out the details of how "class level" affects ability to cast spells of a given spell level, using only what page 7 referred you to, no less.

So to read otherwise means making two codependent inferences: that the PHB 7 clause is its own rule independent from the referred text, and that high enough class level, which is never explicitly specified in the way a high enough ability score is, means the level at which your class gains spell slots of that level.
Again, it's not an "inference", because the text parses it as a requirement. The text gives it equal weight and primacy as "high ability score". Just because it doesn't have a clause explicitly claiming what you claim is "missing from the text" doesn't make it "not a rule".

One more time, you have no authority to declare it less significant. And for your "interpretation" to be true, it must be. So the entirety of your "interpretation" hinges on a claim about the text of the RAW that you have no authority to make.

Let's address the second one first. It would be a totally reasonable inference if the text didn't work otherwise, making inference actually necessary. But in fact the text works fine just the way it is. You say that without a minimum class level rule, "must be of high enough class level" is untrue. But that's only in two specific niche situations throughout the entire game. In other words, no, by any reasonable standard that sentence is not proven untrue by those two fringe exceptions.
It's actually only "proven untrue" with PrApp. And even then, it's not actually "proven untrue", because PrApp uses specific phrasing to make it clear that it is a special exemption to both class level and caster level requirements. Which makes it a case of Specific > General. Which does not invalidate the General rule in any way. Which makes it an exception to the rule, not something that "breaks" the rule.

Which means that you are claiming that your Faustian Pact "hypothesis" is somehow the only way this rule is broken. You have no exemption text, so now you're just breaking the rules because you say it's okay to. Furthermore, you're citing "lack of text" as your justification for it, which makes it Munchkin Fallacy.

It seems part of your problem is that you think the text in Chapter 3 "overrides" page 7, rather than giving details of what page 7 says. You know, like how the text says it contains details.

Similarly, see the phrase "A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below)." This is not proven untrue by the exceptions to this that exist throughout the game.
And those exceptions always specify that they are such, do they not? Things like Alacritous Cogitation and such.

Having Specific Exceptions to General Rules doesn't invalidate the General Rule, especially when it applies evenly everywhere else.

The problem with "your interpretation" is that you're attempting to undermine the general rule itself, to try and claim that Faustian Pacts are valid within RAW, not even as an exemption to them.

That brings us to the second inference. "See below for details" is standard terminology in nonfiction that usually implies exactly a descriptive or informative, rather than technical, nature to the preceding clause. So there's little reason to think the PHB 7 quote even constitutes its own rule, especially in light of its incompleteness re: the supposed minimum level clause if that were the case.
And this again. You have a claim for something that is "standard in nonfiction" with a following allegation (and even that is preceded by "usually"), as if you are citing a rule. And you don't back THAT claim up with anything. So I did your work for you and tried to look up something, ANYTHING, that might back up what you are saying, and could not find it.

OTOH, I went and found some more Grammar and Syntax rules for you:

Whatever the material inside the parentheses, it must not be grammatically integral to the surrounding sentence.

From https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/parentheses.html
© 2019 thepunctuationguide.com

Parentheses (singular: parenthesis) or, outside the U.S., round brackets, set off material that is useful to the reader but less crucial to the meaning of a sentence than information that would be set off by em dashes or commas. Parenthetical words, phrases, and clauses are usually remarks from the writer, informative side-notes, introduced abbreviations, definitions, translations, examples, cross-references to other things within a text, or citations.

The rule of thumb for whether to use parentheses is this: If the meaning of the sentence would be clear without the parenthetical remark, then parentheses are appropriate. When a parenthetical remark contains crucial information, consider an alternative form of punctuation.
https://grammarist.com/grammar/parentheses/

Parentheses ( )
Parentheses are used to enclose nonessential or supplemental information in a sentence.
Parentheses are always used in pairs; you must have both an opening and a closing parenthesis.
Rule #1:
Use parentheses around nonessential information or abrupt changes in thought. When the words
in parentheses form a complete sentence, place the period inside the closing parenthesis. When
the words in parentheses are not a complete sentence, place the period outside the closing
parenthesis. Always place commas, semicolons, and colons outside the closing parenthesis.
Examples of Rule #1:
No personal phone calls are allowed on company time. (Refer to the policy manual.)
The meeting will be held next year (in March).
*snip*
Rule #4:
Use parentheses for references or documentation of sources.
Examples of Rule #4:
Fifty contracts were issued this year. (See Table 1.)
The U.S. leads the world in Internet use (Leslie 89).

https://awc.ashford.edu/PDFHandouts/Punctuations-Parentheses.pdf

There, your claim that page 7 is is "subordinate" to "(See...chapter 3 for details)" is disproved. Because The preceding sentence is a complete rule in and of itself. The statement inside the parentheses is a reference to the preceding sentence, a citation to show that what the previous sentence has said is true . Which means the details you draw from Chapter 3 are the details of how "class level" applies as a restriction to casting spells of a given spell level.

You don't get to denounce the mechanical primacy of rules text on your say-so. I have no doubt you have read nonfiction in which "see for details" was interpreted by you in the fashion you claim. You may have even been correct in some of those instances. But it's not a hard rule of those words, and you have STILL yet to cite any kind of source to back up your claim.

Elves

2019-11-05, 03:17 PM

I know you think that you've uncovered some "greater truth" of the RAW here
Odd that you assume your reading is the one everyone must have by default, so that a difference could only be an artificial deviation. Wrong in this case.

Ot's actually only "proven untrue" with PrApp. And even then, it's not actually "proven untrue", because PrApp uses specific phrasing to make it clear that it is a special exemption to both class level and caster level requirements.
It is proven untrue when applied to those cases. An exemption being specifically called out or given special rules doesn't prevent it from being an exemption. In any other bluntly stated situation, where something says what it does and is an exemption by virtue of that, you wouldn't be making this argument.

Furthermore, you're citing "lack of text" as your justification for it, which makes it Munchkin Fallacy.
Since you keep mentioning this "fallacy", I hope you know it was formulated for 4e, and even specifies:

"The 3.5e books do not contain the language given as my basis for this Fallacy, and as such the Munchkin Fallacy is unofficial and only really exists as a function for practical concerns (in which case the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization are a better guide anyway)."

The Reverse Munchkin Fallacy is more relevant to 3.5.

OTOH, I went and found some more Grammar and Syntax rules for you:
Apparently you didn't notice that these citations support my interpretation. If the PHB 7 sentence is primary rules text, the parenthetical can't be "nonessential", because the rest of the sentence doesn't form a complete rule, making the reference essential. Meanwhile, if the sentence is descriptive, everything in your citation is a true description of how it works.

I think you were thinking "nonessential" simply in terms of what is 'more important', rather than in a linguistic sense.

RedMage125

2019-11-05, 03:47 PM

Odd that you assume your reading is the one everyone must have by default, so that a difference could only be an artificial deviation. Wrong in this case.
"My reading"? Oh, you mean reading the words of the text with an understanding on English Language grammar, syntax, and ability to understand context?

Silly me.

It is proven untrue when applied to those cases. An exemption being specifically called out or given special rules doesn't prevent it from being an exception. In any other bluntly stated situation, where something says what it does and is an exemption by virtue of that, you wouldn't be making this argument.
Do you have exemption language regarding the ability to cast a spell of whichever spell level for Faustian pact? No? Then it isn't an exception, is it?

Presence of a spell slot does not equal "abilty to cast spells". I'll repeat my example for you (although this might have been in the "minimum caster" thread, now that I think about it). Mialee is a level 11 wizard, but her INT is 15. Can she cast L6 spells? Obviously, no. Does she have L6 spell slots, by virtue of being a level 11 wizard? Yes, she does. And she may use them for metamagic, or simply to prepare lower-level spells.

PrApp is the only thing (that I am aware of) that grants a spell slot outside of class levels. When it does so, it explicitly makes itself an exception to the rules regarding class level and caster level restrictions on casting L2 spells. Faustian pact just gives a slot and says nothing else.

Since you keep mentioning this "fallacy", I hope you know it was formulated for 4e, and even specifies:

"The 3.5e books do not contain the language given as my basis for this Fallacy, and as such the Munchkin Fallacy is unofficial and only really exists as a function or practical concerns (in which case the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization are a better guide anyway)."

The Reverse Munchkin Fallacy is more relevant to 3.5.
Would you prefer Argumentum Ad Silentio? I was keeping it a little lighter with terms used in gaming forums, but your entire "interpretation" is based off of "lack of text" as opposed to actual citation of text to support it. It is a logical fallacy, and your conclusion is not valid.

Apparently you didn't notice that these citations support my interpretation. If the PHB 7 sentence is primary rules text, the parenthetical can't be "nonessential", because the rest of the sentence doesn't form a complete rule, making the reference essential. Meanwhile, if the sentence is descriptive, everything in your citation is a true description of how it works.

I think you were thinking "nonessential" simply in terms of what is 'more important', rather than in a linguistic sense.
...are you trolling me?
If you're just trolling me this whole time, can you just cop to it and bring your little game to an end?
There's no way you actually think this is an argument.

In that context "nonessential" means "nonessential to making the sentence make sense". Did you not notice the first part? "Grammatically integral". I included that one specifically to help prevent you having this kind of confusion over the term "nonessential". That, and the second one, where I bolded "If the meaning of the sentence would be clear without the parenthetical remark, then parentheses are appropriate". And yet, here you are.

And that is in a linguistic sense. I'm a little irritated that you think you are correcting me on that, because I feel, at this point, that I have a better grasp of the nuances of the language, especially syntax, than you do. You literally tried to claim earlier that that "this level" used in PrApp's text might mean something other than "caster level", because you didn't get that singular demonstrative pronouns actually do indicate something specific.

You really have nothing to add about how the text is parsed, including syntax? Other than to try and twist the words (which I assume was intentional) to say it supports you? If you're gonna come at me about grammar and syntax, you better come correct, or stay in your lane. If you have nothing to actually counter those points, say so.

You can't say one half of a sentence is a rule, when it says, "In addition to [that rule], one must also [X] in order to [do the thing]", and claim that [X] is "not a rule". Of course it isn't complete, you need to refer to chapter 3 to get the details, because depending on which class and which spell level you are talking about, the required class level is different. So is the ability score. You had to refer to Chapter 3 for the details on that, too. Didn't you? *gasp*

Example: If a college's requirements said "In addition to high SAT score, you must also have high enough GPA to be considered for admission. (See Enclosure A for details.)" That first sentence is a complete sentence. You don't have to have the values for "high score" or "high enough GPA" for that to be a complete sentence. And they are both clearly requirements, yes? Do you need to follow a reference to find out what those values are? Yes. Does that make the first sentence "not a requirement"? No.

Seriously, if this is all you have to say in your defense, why not just have the grace to admit you were wrong?

After all, you formulated no response to the following points (continuing your trend):
You have no authority to declare one half of a sentence "not a rule" or "descriptive"
Calling it "descriptive" in a flat-out lie in the example of your hypothetical wizard anyway, since he's level 1, "of high enough class level" doesn't describe him.
You have no authority to declare page 7 "subsidiary" to Chapter 3 (or more correctly, your inferential leap you made from looking at Chapter 3). Chapter 3 is where one finds the details of what page 7 said.
You declared that "that [spell slot] allotment, and not some other general rule, is what the quote on page 7 is referring to", but myopically ignore that it is spell slots granted by class levels.
You originally admitted that "the slot from the Faustian pact is equivalent to one granted through your class" was probably wrong, and I agreed and told you it was. You never responded to that again, and have been acting this entire time like they are equivalent, like it was "word-of-God truth". That you never backed up, supported, or found any proof for in any way.
You repeatedly dodge the points about Faustian Pact and "exemption text". Since you wanna get into semantics about "Munchkin Fallacy", let's call it what it is: Argumentum Ad Silentio.
I'm not really sure where you landed on the caster level adjustments thing. Do you finally acknowledge that things that provide adjustment to caster level only adjust for the things the book says they do? Or is the Argumentum Ad Silentio train gonna keep going on this track, too?

A lot of these are related, I know. Because if you were able to pony up any proof that class level "isn't a restriction", you might have a case for "only spell slots matter". Of course, if such proof existed, I would think you would have found it by now.

Elves

2019-11-05, 09:59 PM

PrApp is the only thing (that I am aware of) that grants a spell slot outside of class levels. When it does so, it explicitly makes itself an exception to the rules regarding class level and caster level restrictions on casting L2 spells. Faustian pact just gives a slot and says nothing else.
Funnily enough this falls into one of the adjuncts listed under the Munchkin Fallacy, false parallelism. Precocious Apprentice's rules govern Precocious Apprentice.

Would you prefer Argumentum Ad Silentio? I was keeping it a little lighter with terms used in gaming forums, but your entire "interpretation" is based off of "lack of text" as opposed to actual citation of text to support it. It is a logical fallacy, and your conclusion is not valid.
Formalizing the term doesn't change the bit I quoted -- the fallacy is of limited applicability to the 3.5 game. If anything, in this game, the fallacy tends to fall on the opposite side.

There are two places where it seems you're accusing me of this fallacy: the possible uses of the pact slot and the benefits of CL boosting. CL boosting I've addressed -- CL's role in minimum CL for spells is addressed elsewhere and so needn't be listed. Your interpretation that bonus CL only applies at the time of casting is potentially ok, but nonstandard.

Meanwhile, the pact slot is a spell slot, so yes, if no additional restrictions are listed you can do with it what you're able to. This is why we came back to PHB 7, which your fallacy claim is unrelated to our talk about.

You literally tried to claim earlier that that "this level" used in PrApp's text might mean something other than "caster level", because you didn't get that singular demonstrative pronouns actually do indicate something specific.
Another misrepresentation. I said just as "this" refers to caster level there, the earlier "level" might refer to the "caster level" in the prereqs (then immediately dismissed that possibility because it's obvious that "level" refers to a class level that gives you 2nd level spells).

You don't have to have the values for "high score" or "high enough GPA" for that to be a complete sentence.
Fair enough, so as you ask, I'll get to the important part: idiomatic usage often contradicts general grammatical guidelines. One of those principles about punctuation is even contradicted on the page we're discussing. Altogether, these things are both too vague to be informative.

What it comes down to is this: the "separate rule" reading relies on an inferential jump; the "citational" reading requires no such jump, and does not, as you've claimed, contradict the sentence on page 7. Where no inferential jump is necessary, the reading that doesn't demand one should be preferred.

After all, you formulated no response to the following points (continuing your trend):
Bizarre -- argue with what I say on these topics, but don't act as if your disagreement with what I've said means I haven't responded.

You never responded to that again, and have been acting this entire time like they are equivalent, like it was "word-of-God truth". That you never backed up, supported, or found any proof for in any way.
Initially I did say the one reading was "controversial" because it would let this work, but going and actually reading the text made me skeptical that there was a class level rule in the way you claimed.

RedMage125

2019-11-06, 08:06 AM

Funnily enough this falls into one of the adjuncts listed under the Munchkin Fallacy, false parallelism. Precocious Apprentice's rules govern Precocious Apprentice.
Obviously. Are you just bringing up random little tangents because you feel like you need a "win"? This doesn't actually even help your case.

PrApp is only relevant because it's the only RAW way to cast a L2 spell at level 1. And it is filled with exemption text. Since PrApp's rules only govern PrApp, you can't claim Faustian Pact does the same thing.

Formalizing the term doesn't change the bit I quoted -- the fallacy is of limited applicability to the 3.5 game. If anything, in this game, the fallacy tends to fall on the opposite side.

There are two places where it seems you're accusing me of this fallacy: the possible uses of the pact slot and the benefits of CL boosting. CL boosting I've addressed -- CL's role in minimum CL for spells is addressed elsewhere and so needn't be listed. Your interpretation that bonus CL only applies at the time of casting is potentially ok, but nonstandard.

Meanwhile, the pact slot is a spell slot, so yes, if no additional restrictions are listed you can do with it what you're able to. This is why we came back to PHB 7, which your fallacy claim is unrelated to our talk about.
Quite related, actually. Your "interpretation" of page 7 kind of hinges on "since there isn't a clause saying 'your class level must be high enough to grants spell slots of that spell level'" not being present. Since that clause is absent, you claim your "interpretation" is correct, even though it blatantly violates the words of the text. So your basing that on absence of evidence, rather than presence of it.

"Caster level's role is addressed elsewhere"...I'm sorry, you seem to have mistaken me for some kind of ignorant cretin. Do you need it spelled out for you again?
As a wizard, your caster level is equal to your class level (this is RAW), so your caster level is 1 for your hypothesis.
Your hypothetical uses items and abilities to "boost" caster level artificially.
There is a distinct list of what things that "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" apply to. So your hypothetical is only considered CL 17 for those effects on that list. Ability to cast spells of a higher spell level than one's class level allows is not on that list.
What I said about "applies at time of casting" (post #161), if you go back and read it, was an inference that I quite blatantly said is not RAW, so don't try and build a Straw Man to try and undercut what I've been saying to you.

And, the spell slot...I love that you defend your argument as "not being guilty of Argumentum Ad Silentio" with the phrase " if no additional restrictions are listed you can do with it what you're able to", basically copping to the fact that you think the absence of a specific restriction means you don't abide by general ones. Which is Argumentum Ad Silentio.

Bravo.

Another misrepresentation. I said just as "this" refers to caster level there, the earlier "level" might refer to the "caster level" in the prereqs (then immediately dismissed that possibility because it's obvious that "level" refers to a class level that gives you 2nd level spells).
There was never a "might", that was never a possibility. Not unless you don't understand what a singular demonstrative pronoun like "this" indicates when it precedes a word.

Fair enough, so as you ask, I'll get to the important part: idiomatic usage often contradicts general grammatical guidelines. One of those principles about punctuation is even contradicted on the page we're discussing. Altogether, these things are both too vague to be informative.
1) Since when do we read rules text as "idiomatic usage"?
2) Where is the principle of punctuation "contradicted"? Example, please.
3) How is it too vague? You refer to Chapter 3 for the details of "high ability score". You refer to Chapter 3 for the details of "high enough class level", finding that information on the table in Chapter 3. Tables are a part of class descriptions.

What it comes down to is this: the "separate rule" reading relies on an inferential jump; the "citational" reading requires no such jump, and does not, as you've claimed, contradict the sentence on page 7. Where no inferential jump is necessary, the reading that doesn't demand one should be preferred.
A citational reading still requires you to abide by the text that sent you running to Chapter 3 for the detail in the first place.

Have you never read the very next few sentences from the PHB?

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

And yet you claim a level 1 wizard can cast a L9 spell? And that such a reading is RAW?

Your hypothetical level 1 wizard depends on 2 major factors, the first of which is kind of divided into 2 smaller sections.
That "class level is not a restriction", something you think is RAW because of lack of a specific clause you came up with that is "missing from the text. And that Faustian Pact spell slots are "equivalent to" spell slots granted by class, also based on lack of text telling you they aren't. These things each require the other to be true to back up each point, making them a self-referential tautological loop of logic. This is why I said I perceived you as saying "I'm right because I want to be right".
Totally separate from that, you also assume that "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" affect more than the list of things that the RAW specifically applies to. Because for your purposes, you want it to count as actual caster level as far as "minimum caster level" rules. But that higher CL is achieved through adjustment to caster level, and must follow the rules for adjustments.

Bizarre -- argue with what I say on these topics, but don't act as if your disagreement with what I've said means I haven't responded.
I just drew that list from my previous 2 posts that you hadn't yet addressed. Oh, and dodging a question doesn't count as addressing it.

Like this most recent post of yours.
Have you yet discussed what authority you have to declare one rule "subsidiary"? Or one clause "descriptive", or "not a restriction"?
You finally said "fair enough" on the complete sentence nature of page 7, but never back to the fact that since the reference is in parenthesis, it is "less crucial" to understanding the sentence. And the sentence establishes that "high enough class level" is equal in weight to "high ability score" which is, in fact, a restriction. Yes, the parenthetical gives us a reference that we must follow to understand how that rule applies, but it is not necessary to understand what the rule says.
Myopia regarding that Chapter 3's "ability to cast spells of a given spell level" is in reference to spell slots granted by class levels, not just "spell slots".

You kind of addressed what I said about the other now, but you still haven't backed up your claim with proof. Unless "lack of evidence to the contrary" is something you think is "proof positive". Which is exactly copping to Argumentum Ad Silentio.

Initially I did say the one reading was "controversial" because it would let this work, but going and actually reading the text made me skeptical that there was a class level rule in the way you claimed.

Even this isn't really answering my point, because you haven't told us where you found RAW proof that says that the faustian pact slot was "equivalent to one granted by class". This quoted statement, to me, just says "oh, I decided it was. I based this on my other interpretation, which still is not 100% ironclad. And if this is true, then it helps support the interpretation I am using to support this interpretation".

Elves

2019-11-06, 12:17 PM

Since PrApp's rules only govern PrApp, you can't claim Faustian Pact does the same thing.
Facepalm. No, it means that PrApp's rules cover how its slot works and the pact slot functions by whatever other rules govern spellcasting. Those rules are what we're talking about. Your constant comparison to PrApp's text is irrelevant.

Quite related, actually. Your "interpretation" of page 7 kind of hinges on "since there isn't a clause saying 'your class level must be high enough to grants spell slots of that spell level'" not being present.
Claiming argumentum ex silentio in order to justify inserting additional evidence that isn't present is a crackpot's application of the fallacy.

Since that clause is absent, you claim your "interpretation" is correct, even though it blatantly violates the words of the text.
How many times do I have to point out: no, it does not blatantly violate the text. The text is true by any reasonable standard. Moreover, it's already in your view "blatantly violated" by Precocious Apprentice, so your actual argument is about claiming that exemptions must have some standard, defined by you, of explicit exception wording.

What I said about "applies at time of casting" (post #161), if you go back and read it, was an inference that I quite blatantly said is not RAW, so don't try and build a Straw Man to try and undercut what I've been saying to you.[/list]
I haven't tried to build such a strawman. As I said, it's "if x then y, if z then a".

And, the spell slot...I love that you defend your argument as "not being guilty of Argumentum Ad Silentio" with the phrase " if no additional restrictions are listed you can do with it what you're able to", basically copping to the fact that you think the absence of a specific restriction means you don't abide by general ones. Which is Argumentum Ad Silentio.

Bravo.
Seemingly you didn't read the paragraph before that, where I pointed out that formalizing "munchkin fallacy" to "argumentum ex silentio" doesn't change its limited applicability to the 3.5 system.

1) Since when do we read rules text as "idiomatic usage"?
"See for details" and similar is idiomatic. You cited those punctuation guidelines to allege it worked a certain way.

Have you never read the very next few sentences from the PHB?
That sentence presents the exact same wording as the one before -- which we've already established is not actually dissonant with a citational reading.

Have you yet discussed what authority you have to declare one rule "subsidiary"? Or one clause "descriptive", or "not a restriction"?
My argument doesn't include any assertion of personal authority. It's based on prioritizing text that is present.

Even this isn't really answering my point, because you haven't told us where you found RAW proof that says that the faustian pact slot was "equivalent to one granted by class".
If there's no minimum level rule that's not really relevant, which was my point.

You did a "how you sound to me" bit. To me, you sound like you are willing to make an unintuitive reading of page 7, with little support elsewhere in the rules, simply to prevent a single obscure combo -- one which, in your view, doesn't work anyway due to your interpretation of caster level boosting. Why not use the simpler reading of page 7 and simply argue that it's CL boosting that prevents this combo from working?

In any case, I've tried twice to step out of this circular conversation and at this point I'm going to formally say I won't be discussing page 7 further unless you bring new evidence. I might look into the stuff from your CL post in the other thread when I have a bit.

RedMage125

2019-11-06, 04:19 PM

Facepalm. No, it means that PrApp's rules cover how its slot works and the pact slot functions by whatever other rules govern spellcasting. Those rules are what we're talking about. Your constant comparison to PrApp's text is irrelevant.
Having a spell slot of whichever spell level does not equate to the ability to cast spells of that level. Remember my example about Mialee being level 11 with an INT of 15? She has L6 spell slots, but may not cast L6 spells. That's not meeting the "high ability score" restriction. Your hypothesis doesn't meet the "be of high enough class level" restriction. By no reading does your hypothetical meet that restriction.

Claiming argumentum ex silentio in order to justify inserting additional evidence that isn't present is a crackpot's application of the fallacy.
I've never actually claimed anything about "inserting additional evidence that isn't present". You've been making that Straw man for pages now. I'm only talking about reading page 7 as a complete sentence, with it's context, grammar and syntax considered. Then going to Chapter 3 for the details of what the sentence means for each given class. You know, like the text says to. No more, no less.

How many times do I have to point out: no, it does not blatantly violate the text. The text is true by any reasonable standard. Moreover, it's already in your view "blatantly violated" by Precocious Apprentice, so your actual argument is about claiming that exemptions must have some standard, defined by you, of explicit exception wording.
PrApp is a feat. Many feats allow for violation of general rules by using exemption text, or specifying circumstances under which the general rule can be broken by someone with the feat. You and I both argued this to Doctor_Awkward earlier regarding Alacritous Cogitation. Let's not forget that Weapon Finesse allows a character to use a stat other than STR for some melee attacks. PrApp explicitly allows for casting a L2 spell by a level 1 character. Faustian Pact just gives a slot. That's it.

I haven't tried to build such a strawman. As I said, it's "if x then y, if z then a".
And again, I have no idea what you are trying to say with that, you need to be more specific.
And yes, taking what I said "would be a reasonable inference from the text, but is by no means RAW", and calling it "my interpretation that is nonstandard" is a straw man.

Seemingly you didn't read the paragraph before that, where I pointed out that formalizing "munchkin fallacy" to "argumentum ex silentio" doesn't change its limited applicability to the 3.5 system.
No, it's true of any edition of D&D. You can't claim you can do something on the grounds that there is a lack of RAW saying you can't. That's not valid.

"See for details" and similar is idiomatic. You cited those punctuation guidelines to allege it worked a certain way.
So...you didn't read those guidelines that say that the information in the parentheses is "supplemental" to the text outside it, huh?

Words and syntax have meaning in English. Not being as familiar with those meaning as I am is not "unforgivable". But continuing to argue after they have been presented to you may be.

That sentence presents the exact same wording as the one before -- which we've already established is not actually dissonant with a citational reading.
It also specifies the connection between "class level" and "ability to cast spells" in regards to L2 spells. So if level 1 is explicitly not high enough to cast a L2 spell*, what makes you think that it can cast a L9 spell?

*wizards who have taken the PrApp feat obviously exempted.

My argument doesn't include any assertion of personal authority. It's based on prioritizing text that is present.
No, your argument is based on de-prioritizing the text present. Because you want to, apparently. Which in your mind is "proof".

You have tried to declare one clause "subsidiary" to the other. I pointed out the rules of syntax and punctuation that explicitly say you are wrong. You continue to insist you are right, which means you are in fact, claiming "authority".

If there's no minimum level rule that's not really relevant, which was my point.
If you depend on hypothesis #1 being true to prove hypothesis #2 to be true, and Hypothesis #2 being true is the clincher that makes Hypothesis #1 true...then these are tautological and self-referential, and neither are true.

See how easy that is?

You did a "how you sound to me" bit. To me, you sound like you are willing to make an unintuitive reading of page 7, with little support elsewhere in the rules, simply to prevent a single obscure combo -- one which, in your view, doesn't work anyway due to your interpretation of caster level boosting. Why not use the simpler reading of page 7 and simply argue that it's CL boosting that prevents this combo from working?
Again, I have said multiple times that CL boosting on it's own merit prevents your hypothesis from working.

You're also wrong about "your interpretation" of page 7, which is a wholly separate issue.

In any case, I've tried twice to step out of this circular conversation and at this point I'm going to formally say I won't be discussing page 7 further unless you bring new evidence. I might look into the stuff from your CL post in the other thread when I have a bit.
Quit because you can't furnish evidence if you want, but your logic is backwards. As the one trying to prove an experimental hypothesis, the burden on proof is on you. I've cited English Language Grammar and Syntax as my proof, even linked you to some language and punctuation refreshers. Not to mention the Context of the words on page 7.

To which you have not cited even one source of actual proof or reference to back up your claim. Just a lot of "nuh-uh", and trying to take a word or two out of context to twist things, and act like it was your proof. Remember? The "nonessential" BS you tried to claim a few posts ago?

But...walk away because you're stymied and can't figure out a way to still be "right"? Sure. I thought we grew out of that, but whatever floats your boat.

Elves

2019-11-06, 08:29 PM

If you depend on hypothesis #1 being true to prove hypothesis #2 to be true, and Hypothesis #2 being true is the clincher that makes Hypothesis #1 true...then these are tautological and self-referential, and neither are true.
If there's no class level rule, it doesn't matter how you count the pact slot (except insofar as whether it can be used for multiple spellcasting classes you have levels in).

Quit because you can't furnish evidence if you want, but your logic is backwards. As the one trying to prove an experimental hypothesis, the burden on proof is on you.
We're focusing on PHB 7 right now. Interpreting it doesn't involve the wider hypothesis. And you may find your interpretation of PHB 7 self-evident, but that's clearly not the case for everyone. Other threads on this have shown it, too.

But...walk away because you're stymied and can't figure out a way to still be "right"? Sure. I thought we grew out of that, but whatever floats your boat.
This PHB 7 thing is going in circles of slight rephrasing. There's no point continuing without new evidence, unless it's ego, which seems to be what you're decrying, so...

RedMage125

2019-11-07, 11:55 AM

Ok, first of all, we're dealing with too many hypothetical issues here, let's give your "level 1 wizard with faustian pact granted L9 slot and CL 17" a name. Let's call him Bob.

Bob requires your "interpretation" of page 7 to work, as well as "your interpretation" regarding caster level via effects that provide adjustment to it.

If there's no class level rule, it doesn't matter how you count the pact slot
I'm quite tickled that you responded to my point with this, because it's copping to exactly what I've been saying is wrong with your logic, and why it's self-referrential.

Hypothetical #1 = "there is no class level rule"
Hypothetical #2 = "spell slot granted by faustian pact is equivalent to one granted by class"

#1 must be true for #2 to be true. So yes, in an imaginary world where there was no class level rule, it would not matter.

So how do you prove #1? Well so far, you've been unable to, save that you use an inference that you drew from chapter 3 (where you were referred to look for details of "must be of high enough class level") to claim that only spell slots matter, and that if you use faustian pacts to get a L9 spell slot at 1st level, then 1st level is "high enough class level". I'm quite aware of your claim.

But that means you're using #2 as proof that #1 is true.

If #2 is your proof that #1 is true, but #1 must be true for #2 to be true, then your claims are self-referential and tautological, and neither are true.

(except insofar as whether it can be used for multiple spellcasting classes you have levels in).
This makes no sense. Spell slots for multiclass characters are tracked separately, review the rules for multiclass characters yourself if you need to. If you get a L9 spell slot from faustian pact, it needs to be a spell slot of whichever class you intend to cast spells from.

We're focusing on PHB 7 right now. Interpreting it doesn't involve the wider hypothesis. And you may find your interpretation of PHB 7 self-evident, but that's clearly not the case for everyone. Other threads on this have shown it, too.
I understand that I have a better grasp on the nuances of grammar and syntax than a lot of people.

That doesn't make them not wrong.

Look at the 2016 thread. Look at how many people claimed that the line in UA about Domain Wizards was "just flavor text, not rules". Sorry, but 2 independent clauses connected with a semicolon indicates that they are of equal importance. So all the people who claimed that everything on one side of the semicolon "is rules" and everything on the other side "is fluff" are wrong, objectively.

This PHB 7 thing is going in circles of slight rephrasing. There's no point continuing without new evidence, unless it's ego, which seems to be what you're decrying, so...
We might be getting somewhere if you could just grasp that context, grammar, and syntax have significance in how rules are parsed.

In any context, "In addition to [restriction], a spellcaster must [X] to be able to [do the thing]." Means that [X] is a restriction, too.
"(See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)" is a separate sentence, and it is in parentheses. Ergo it is supplemental to the information in the sentence preceding it. When you go to Chapter 3, you go for details of what "high ability score" and what "high enough class level" mean. Trying to take what you glean from Chapter 3 and infer a rule that makes "high enough class level" not a restriction in an invalid reading of the text.
It's intellectually dishonest to claim that you cannot glean that information from Chapter 3, because you've demonstrated that you can. using the information in Chapter 3 as details of what page 7 says is also the only way that the example on page 8 resonates with the text as well.

So if your "interpretation" is correct, it invalidates the text that referred you to Chapter 3 in the first place, not to mention makes the "for example" that follows the page 7 text not resonate with the rules.
-OR-
You are incorrect, everything I have been saying to you about how context, grammar, and syntax are significant and important, and there is no dissonance with the rest of the rules.

Just...try to be objective here, and set your ego aside and ask...which is more likely?

Facepalm. No, it means that PrApp's rules cover how its slot works and the pact slot functions by whatever other rules govern spellcasting. Those rules are what we're talking about. Your constant comparison to PrApp's text is irrelevant.
Having a spell slot of whichever spell level does not equate to the ability to cast spells of that level. Remember my example about Mialee being level 11 with an INT of 15? She has L6 spell slots, but may not cast L6 spells. That's not meeting the "high ability score" restriction. Your hypothesis doesn't meet the "be of high enough class level" restriction. By no reading does your hypothetical meet that restriction.

Claiming argumentum ex silentio in order to justify inserting additional evidence that isn't present is a crackpot's application of the fallacy.
I've never actually claimed anything about "inserting additional evidence that isn't present". You've been making that Straw man for pages now. I'm only talking about reading page 7 as a complete sentence, with it's context, grammar and syntax considered. Then going to Chapter 3 for the details of what the sentence means for each given class. You know, like the text says to. No more, no less.

How many times do I have to point out: no, it does not blatantly violate the text. The text is true by any reasonable standard. Moreover, it's already in your view "blatantly violated" by Precocious Apprentice, so your actual argument is about claiming that exemptions must have some standard, defined by you, of explicit exception wording.
PrApp is a feat. Many feats allow for violation of general rules by using exemption text, or specifying circumstances under which the general rule can be broken by someone with the feat. You and I both argued this to Doctor_Awkward earlier regarding Alacritous Cogitation. Let's not forget that Weapon Finesse allows a character to use a stat other than STR for some melee attacks. PrApp explicitly allows for casting a L2 spell by a level 1 character. Faustian Pact just gives a slot. That's it.

I haven't tried to build such a strawman. As I said, it's "if x then y, if z then a".
And again, I have no idea what you are trying to say with that, you need to be more specific.
And yes, taking what I said "would be a reasonable inference from the text, but is by no means RAW", and calling it "my interpretation that is nonstandard" is a straw man.

Seemingly you didn't read the paragraph before that, where I pointed out that formalizing "munchkin fallacy" to "argumentum ex silentio" doesn't change its limited applicability to the 3.5 system.
No, it's true of any edition of D&D. You can't claim you can do something on the grounds that there is a lack of RAW saying you can't. That's not valid.

"See for details" and similar is idiomatic. You cited those punctuation guidelines to allege it worked a certain way.
So...you didn't read those guidelines that say that the information in the parentheses is "supplemental" to the text outside it, huh?

Words and syntax have meaning in English. Not being as familiar with those meaning as I am is not "unforgivable". But continuing to argue after they have been presented to you may be.

That sentence presents the exact same wording as the one before -- which we've already established is not actually dissonant with a citational reading.
It also specifies the connection between "class level" and "ability to cast spells" in regards to L2 spells. So if level 1 is explicitly not high enough to cast a L2 spell*, what makes you think that it can cast a L9 spell?

*wizards who have taken the PrApp feat obviously exempted.

My argument doesn't include any assertion of personal authority. It's based on prioritizing text that is present.
No, your argument is based on de-prioritizing the text present. Because you want to, apparently. Which in your mind is "proof".

You have tried to declare one clause "subsidiary" to the other. I pointed out the rules of syntax and punctuation that explicitly say you are wrong. You continue to insist you are right, which means you are in fact, claiming "authority".

You did a "how you sound to me" bit. To me, you sound like you are willing to make an unintuitive reading of page 7, with little support elsewhere in the rules, simply to prevent a single obscure combo -- one which, in your view, doesn't work anyway due to your interpretation of caster level boosting. Why not use the simpler reading of page 7 and simply argue that it's CL boosting that prevents this combo from working?
Again, I have said multiple times that CL boosting on it's own merit prevents your hypothesis from working.

You're also wrong about "your interpretation" of page 7, which is a wholly separate issue.

Of course, if you've finally been convinced, feel free to say so.

RedMage125

2019-11-12, 07:43 PM

So...are we on the same page now? Because I am about to be -like my profile says- On A Boat, for the next month or so, where internet is spotty at best. I don't expect to be able to get on the forums very much.

You don't seem to otherwise have an answer to your 2 hypotheticals that "your interpretation" is based on being entirely a referential loop with each other. Each can only be true if the other one is, and you can't prove one of them true without reference to the other. Not in a manner that actually takes the context, grammar, and syntax of those sentences into account with proper understanding.

Also, I never quite got what you meant by "if x then y, if z then a", in regards to caster level adjusting effects. Because irrespective of your claims about how "it's included in the rules about minimum caster level", getting to CL 17 requires adjustments to caster level, and those adjustments only apply to specific things. Of which, your proposed use of them is not included.

I would hope that if you still contest these things, you'll respond to my previous post. And if not, that you'd have the grace to admit you were incorrect. People are wrong, it happens. Hell, I admitted I was wrong in this very thread (way back on page 2 somewhere). It diminishes you not at all to be wrong.

Elves

2019-11-13, 11:29 AM

Like I said, I wasn't planning on continuing further without new evidence, and I'm guessing you're as bored of the discussion as I am.

Also, I never quite got what you meant by "if x then y, if z then a", in regards to caster level adjusting effects.
This was in regards to your potential reading of CL boosting not being constant or whatever. It's just - under one reading, one result, under another reading, a different result.

I would hope that if you still contest these things, you'll respond to my previous post. And if not, that you'd have the grace to admit you were incorrect.
Your reading of page 7 is, IMO, unfounded. (Again, barring other evidence.) Your argument about what CL boosting applies to is not, IMV, a strict refutation of the Faustian combo because as I've said that clause would not need to be there, but I'm open to your reading because it resolves problems with wild mage and other situations. I haven't looked into it in detail.

Have a good time on the boat.

RedMage125

2019-11-13, 06:41 PM

This was in regards to your potential reading of CL boosting not being constant or whatever. It's just - under one reading, one result, under another reading, a different result.
Yes, when you utterly ignore how the rules work and input whatever you want on the basis of "the RAW don't specifically say I can't do this", you get a different reading from someone who actually abides by the rules.

Shocking.

Your reading of page 7 is, IMO, unfounded. (Again, barring other evidence.)
Unfounded?

I have been literally citing to you how the English Language works. I've even provided sources.

Tell you what...what actual evidence, citation, or other founding have you used to support your claim?

There was the one time you said "[see for details] is very often used in nonfiction writing to direct from a glib or simplified summary to the info on how something actually operates.". But you didn't even support that statement. No citation, no proof that was true, just your word that this is "often" the case, so not even a guarantee that such is the case in this instance.

And you have the absurd notion that I am the one with an "unfounded" argument?

You haven't even countered the evidence I did show. Not to mention that I rather neatly dissected how your two hypotheses use only each other as "proof". Even in your last post you said "If there's no class level rule, it doesn't matter how you count the pact slot". Which is the same as saying "well, if you hypothetically accept that I'm right about this first thing I haven't proven yet, it makes the second one right, too." Which would be fine if you could prove the first one. But your proof for that was in using the second was as evidence that it was true. Which is saying "Now that you see the second one is right, that's the proof that the first one was correct". You've never actually proven your claims with any kind of citation outside yourself. Nothing from the RAW, nothing from any grammatical, contextual , or syntax-related sources, either. Nothing to actually try and prove what I have said about grammar, context and syntax was "wrong", or that such did not apply.

No, you just referred to yourself again. This is why you gave the perception of "because I wish it really hard it's true". Please provide some kind of actual source for your claims. Or admit you are wrong.

Or send me a PM and tell me that you've just been trolling me this whole time.

Your argument about what CL boosting applies to is not, IMV, a strict refutation of the Faustian combo because as I've said that clause would not need to be there, but I'm open to your reading because it resolves problems with wild mage and other situations. I haven't looked into it in detail.
By claiming something is "true" of the rules in the absence of a clause saying it is true is exactly why your claim is Munchkin Fallacy, or whatever you want to call it. The RAW say what one can do. So the only relevant questions are: 1) Does Bob require "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" to work?; and 2) Do we have rules that govern "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level"?

Have a good time on the boat.

If you've ever been on a Navy vessel, you'd know that's not likely. But I'll try, thank you.

Elves

2019-11-13, 09:46 PM

Yes, when you utterly ignore how the rules work and input whatever you want on the basis of "the RAW don't specifically say I can't do this", you get a different reading from someone who actually abides by the rules.

Shocking.
Like I said this was in regards to the part you provided as an example of a "by no means RAW" inference.

Tell you what...what actual evidence, citation, or other founding have you used to support your claim?

Occam's razor for one. It's the simpler reading and there's no genuine contradiction involved in it (because no, this unforeseen and non-RAI edge case in a later sourcebook isn't a valid basis to claim contradiction).

You haven't even countered the evidence I did show.
The analogy with Precocious Apprentice is invalid -- PrApp's rules govern PrApp. I don't know where your implication that only feats can provide specific exemptions is coming from. Your emphasis on the word "must" I already addressed, and like I said there's no valid claim for contradiction under a citational reading. So in regards to page 7 what haven't I addressed?

By claiming something is "true" of the rules in the absence of a clause saying it is true is exactly why your claim is Munchkin Fallacy, or whatever you want to call it. The RAW say what one can do. So the only relevant questions are: 1) Does Bob require "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" to work?; and 2) Do we have rules that govern "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level"?

We know that magic items and special abilities can provide an "adjustment to your caster level". We know there is a minimum caster level to cast spells of a certain level. The implication seems clear, and I claim inference is justified here because this is a unique and unanticipated situation (also a reason why it wouldn't specifically be called out in the text).

In line with this, the sentence about caster level adjustment is phrased inclusively and doesn't draw a distinction between adjusted and innate CL. On the contrary its point is that they have all the same effects.

This reading also works fine with Precocious Apprentice -- "Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances" -- regardless of whether normal caster level is taken as inclusive of CL-adjusting effects.

RedMage125

2019-11-14, 05:17 PM

Like I said this was in regards to the part you provided as an example of a "by no means RAW" inference.
No, it was in regards to you ignoring what the RAW says that "[things] which provide an adjustment ot caster level" apply to. No more, no less.

Occam's razor for one. It's the simpler reading and there's no genuine contradiction involved in it (because no, this unforeseen and non-RAI edge case in a later sourcebook isn't a valid basis to claim contradiction).
First of all, that's not a citation. Even though I was citing English Language Syntax as a source, I at least provided some evidence to support that. You have provided none.

Second, you really think this:

Read "In addition to high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to cast spells of a given spell level. (See class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)"
Go to Chapter 3, see that the way class level interacts with spell level is by spell slots granted by class level.
Deduce that only spell slots matter.
So if a L9 spell slot is granted at level 1 thru a Faustian pact, that is sufficient.
But now "high enough class level" isn't actually a restriction, even though it's parsed with another restriction using the words "in addition to" and "must".
Decide for oneself that it must be "subordinate to 'see for details'".
is "simpler" than:
Read "In addition to high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to cast spells of a given spell level. (See class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)".
Go to Chapter 3, see how spell slots granted by class level equate to ability to cast spells.
This is the details of what is meant by "high enough class level".

Really?

Because to me, the simplest thing to do would be to assume that if something said "[Rule]. (See later chapter for details.)", then the later chapter's specifics are just the details of [rule]. How in Pelor's name is your convoluted mental acrobatics "interpretation" more "simple"?

The analogy with Precocious Apprentice is invalid -- PrApp's rules govern PrApp. I don't know where your implication that only feats can provide specific exemptions is coming from.
Don't put words in my mouth, I never said "only feats can provide specific exemptions".

PrApp's rules only govern PrApp, yes. So the general rule is only "broken" for characters who possess the feat. Your claim that the existence of a feat which overrides the general rule is somehow "proof" that the general rule "isn't actually a rule" is absurd.

Your emphasis on the word "must" I already addressed, and like I said there's no valid claim for contradiction under a citational reading. So in regards to page 7 what haven't I addressed?
This is frustrating me because this is what is sounds like when you say the above:

Hey, I already said I don't think "must" means anything, and "must" was one of the words RedMage bolded. So I'm going to ignore that he was pointing out the entire sentence, which included "in addition to [something I recognize as a restriction], a spellcaster must [X] to [do the thing]. (See Chapter 3 for details.)". I'm also going to ignore that he provided actual citation about the way syntax in English works, how the fact that one sentence ended as a complete sentence, and that the following sentence being in parentheses means it is subordinate to the preceding sentence.

No, I will ignore all that, because I saw the word "must" again, and I don't think that's important. So I'll just blithely ignore everything being said and repeat that I have already addressed the word "must". I am making good points. My arguments are well supported because I wished it super hard, even though I refuse to provide citation in the text of the RAW or any other source to support my claim.

This is frustrating to me because, for the record, I do not believe you are some kind of idiot. You show a great deal of attention to detail, you have a very good grasp of the rules (to include a lot of TO "tricks"), you have shown a willingness to look up some (like Munchkin Fallacy)...the fact that you have responded this way after everything I have been citing and pointing things out to you is frustrating. It is precisely because I think you are a smart person that I find your seeming unwillingness to understand so frustrating. Not "inability" to understand, "unwillingness".
You make statements like "well, under a citational reading". What, exactly, do you think that word means? Because (as I have demonstrated) I am very well versed in grammar and syntax rules, and nothing about reading "(See Chapter 3 for details.)" as a citation supports what you are claiming. Can you find something, anything to maybe try and shore up your baseless claims? Maybe something that supports what you think "a citational reading" means? Preferably a reputable source. Maybe a ".edu" website? Anything other than your own claims and what you presume to say about "how it should be read". Because I have very clearly supported my points. You have not reciprocated.

You want to know what I think you're not responding to? How about this?

In any context, "In addition to [restriction], a spellcaster must [X] to be able to [do the thing]." Means that [X] is a restriction, too. Period. The end. [X] is a restriction. That's Context and Grammar. Claiming that [X] is "not a restriction" can only be done by someone deliberately ignoring the text for their own dishonest benefit, or someone who does not understand how words in English work and what they mean.
"(See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)" is a separate sentence, and it is in parentheses. Ergo it is supplemental to the information in the sentence preceding it. That is Syntax.
When you go to Chapter 3, you go for details of what "high ability score" and "high enough class level" mean. So what you learn from Chapter 3 about spell slots is a detail of "high enough class level". Trying to take what you glean from Chapter 3 and infer a rule that makes "high enough class level" not a restriction is an invalid reading of the text. Attempting to claim that "'high enough class level' is subordinate to 'see for details'" is claiming an authority you do not have. The Syntax rules for use of parentheses in English have been cited to you. You do not have authority over those rules of syntax. They have more weight as fact than your wishes and desires.
It's intellectually dishonest to claim that you cannot glean that information from Chapter 3, because you've demonstrated that you can. Using the information in Chapter 3 as details of what page 7 says is also the only way that the example on page 8 resonates with the text as well.

So if your "interpretation" is correct, it invalidates the text that referred you to Chapter 3 in the first place, not to mention makes the "for example" that follows the page 7 text not resonate with what you claim about the rules.
-OR-
You are incorrect, everything I have been saying to you about how context, grammar, and syntax are significant and important, and there is no dissonance with the rest of the rules.

Just...try to be objective here, and set your ego aside and ask...which is more likely?

We know that magic items and special abilities can provide an "adjustment to your caster level". We know there is a minimum caster level to cast spells of a certain level. The implication seems clear, and I claim inference is justified here because this is a unique and unanticipated situation (also a reason why it wouldn't specifically be called out in the text).
1) Does Bob require "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" to work?; and 2) Do we have rules that govern "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level"?

In line with this, the sentence about caster level adjustment is phrased inclusively and doesn't draw a distinction between adjusted and innate CL. On the contrary its point is that they have all the same effects.
This goes so far beyond "intellectual dishonesty" that I'm going to call it what it is. A blatant lie.

The sentence about caster level adjusting effects is actually a completely separate paragraph from "minimum caster level" rules. They are both under the heading of "Caster Level". That you claim it is "phrased inclusively" to try and make your point tells me you are either going off memory (in which case it is not a blatant lie, but a mistake), or you think I wouldn't look and would just take your word for it, thinking you could slip a falsehood past me and parse it as "true". Especially in the arena of "Sentence Structure And How It Is Significant", trying to get that one past me, of all people, was a poorly conceived plan.
There are 3 paragraphs under the Caster Level heading. 1) Brief explanation of how caster level impacts a spell's power; 2) Minimum Caster Level for spells; 3) Effects that provide adjustment to caster level.

This reading also works fine with Precocious Apprentice -- "Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances" -- regardless of whether normal caster level is taken as inclusive of CL-adjusting effects.

PrApp is a feat. It's rules only apply to characters who take the feat. Stop trying to refer to a feat that provides exception to a general restriction to claim the restriction "isn't a restriction".

Furthermore, nothing about what I am saying about "CL adjusting effects" makes PrApp "problematic" or "not work". Because when you cast the PrApp spell (after making your DC 8 Spellcraft check), you would apply adjusted CL to everything that page 171 says you apply those adjustments to.