E6 Sorcerer Arcane Thesis Help

[moonshinebard]

I am planning to play a Battle Sorcerer for a new E6 game. I know it limits my spells but staying at low levels the extra hit points and AC will help my survivability.

I want to use the arcane thesis feat to boost my main damage dealing spell, but am unsure which to choose.

I am between Scorching Ray and Lightning Bolt. With arcane thesis I could empower scorching Ray to cast in my third level slot or sculpt lightning bolt and still cast in the same spell slot.

For Scorching Ray, the pros seem to be gaining access to the spell earlier (4th level), ability to do more damage on a single opponent (at CL 8 with Arcane thesis 4d6*2 rays*1.5 comes out to 12d6), and more uses as I could cast empowered in my third level slots and normally in my second level spots. It also gives me access to a third level spell such as haste.

The main drawback I see is playing this character could get a bit boring. I caste haste at the start of combat then spam scorching Ray.

For Lightning bolt, the main draw would be the ability to scupt the spell. I can drop 8d6 fireball style on a large area, or pick and choose multiple opponents in cubes or a line and avoid friendly fire, while dealing more damage per round than I would with scorching Ray. Additionally, starting combat with a Born of Three Thunders wide area Lightning Bolt sounds incredible. I could also Use sculpt spell for BFC with spells like grease while with Scorching Ray id likely only empower scorching Ray.

First level spells I know I will take are Silent Image and Charm Person for a little utility and usefulness out of combat.

Any input on which spell I should decide on focusing on would be greatly appreciated. I donÂ’t play many casters so I don’t have experience personally using either in game much.

[Troacctid]

If you're planning to sculpt it anyway, scintillating sphere is probably going to be better than lightning bolt because it has a longer range.

[Vizzerdrix]

My vote is for Launch Bolt. However, since that isn't one of the spells you listed, then scorching ray.

[Zarvistic]

Just to offer an alternative you might find interesting. Have you looked at warmage? No need for spell selection and you'd have some variation. The warmage edge is also pretty good if you're staying low levels.

[Doctor Despair]

Just to offer an alternative you might find interesting. Have you looked at warmage? No need for spell selection and you'd have some variation. The warmage edge is also pretty good if you're staying low levels.

In the case of Warmage, consider using Versatile Spellcaster to gain access to your next level of spells early (thanks to their unique spells-known system). This gives you 4ths at level 6, which is a unique strength of those sorts of classes.

[Troacctid]

In the case of Warmage, consider using Versatile Spellcaster to gain access to your next level of spells early (thanks to their unique spells-known system). This gives you 4ths at level 6, which is a unique strength of those sorts of classes.
Unfortunately, warmages don't actually learn the next level of spells until they've reached a high enough class level to cast them, so this does not work the way you want it to.

[Doctor Despair]

Unfortunately, warmages don't actually learn the next level of spells until they've reached a high enough class level to cast them, so this does not work the way you want it to.


When a warmage gains access to a new level of spells, he automatically knows all the spells for that level listed on the warmage's spell list.

With Versatile Spellcaster, you can cast any spell of a higher level that you know, so you have access to that level of spells but with no spells known. Upon taking the feat, you would learn the spells.

The alternative is that Warmages never learn spells ever (not when they begin play, not after), even when they level up and gain spellslots for them. After all, although they have the means to cast a spell of that level, they have no spells known until they can already cast spells of that level. Silly, right? Clearly being able to cast spells of that level if you DID have spells known must be enough to satisfy their learning mechanism

[Troacctid]

With Versatile Spellcaster, you can cast any spell of a higher level that you know, so you have access to that level of spells but with no spells known. Upon taking the feat, you would learn the spells.

The alternative is that Warmages never learn spells ever (not when they begin play, not after), even when they level up and gain spellslots for them. After all, although they have the means to cast a spell of that level, they have no spells known until they can already cast spells of that level. Silly, right? Clearly being able to cast spells of that level if you DID have spells known must be enough to satisfy their learning mechanism
No, "Spells per day" entry on the class chart determines when you have access to new spell levels. An entry of "—" means you can't cast spells of that level. An entry of a number greater than 0 means that you are able to cast that many spells plus bonus spells.

Even if we glossed over that, you'd still have a Catch-22. Since you don't know any 4th-level spells, you can't cast 4th-level spells with Versatile Spellcaster. Since you can't cast 4th-level spells with Versatile Spellcaster, you don't learn any 4th-level spells.

[ThanatosZero]

The sole exception are knowstones from Dragon #333.

If you possess a knowstone with a 4th level spell, a spontanous 6th level arcane spellcaster with the versatile spellcaster feat, will be able to cast the spell.

A DM might protest, that you may still need CL 8 to cast the spell in question. But for that one can use beads of karma and orange ioun stones.

If one plays a kobold sorcerer, the greater draconic rite of passage will grant the kobold +1 level of spellcasting ability (spells per day and know) making them for spellcasting purposes a 7th level sorcerer.

[Doctor Despair]

No, "Spells per day" entry on the class chart determines when you have access to new spell levels. An entry of "—" means you can't cast spells of that level. An entry of a number greater than 0 means that you are able to cast that many spells plus bonus spells.


The specific text or Versatile Spellcaster overrides the general rule that you're citing.



Even if we glossed over that, you'd still have a Catch-22. Since you don't know any 4th-level spells, you can't cast 4th-level spells with Versatile Spellcaster. Since you can't cast 4th-level spells with Versatile Spellcaster, you don't learn any 4th-level spells.

By that logic, they can never cast first level spells, either, because they don't know any. You can't cast first level spells natively because you don't know any, so even though you get spell slots from levelling up, you can't cast any first level spells, so you don't learn any.

[Troacctid]

The specific text or Versatile Spellcaster overrides the general rule that you're citing.
No it doesn't. It doesn't say anything like "even if you would otherwise be unable to cast spells of that level." The only thing it changes about the spellcasting process is the slots used.


By that logic, they can never cast first level spells, either, because they don't know any. You can't cast first level spells natively because you don't know any, so even though you get spell slots from levelling up, you can't cast any first level spells, so you don't learn any.
No, the table clearly says they can cast 1st-level spells. It's right here.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/467192850862571522/807787611027931177/unknown.png
Whether or not you can cast spells of a particular level for a particular class is defined by the "Spells per day" column of that class's table, as per the PHB. A dash means you can't cast spells of that level; a 0 means you can only cast spells of that level if your ability score is high enough to grant you a bonus spell; and a number greater than 0 means you can cast that many spells of that level.

[Doctor Despair]

No it doesn't. It doesn't say anything like "even if you would otherwise be unable to cast spells of that level." The only thing it changes about the spellcasting process is the slots used.

It is a powerfully worded ability, friend. It says:


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 Wizard with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.

It doesn't say anything like "cast a spell you can cast." The only requirement is that it be a spell you know. They can cast spells of one level higher that they know.



No, the table clearly says they can cast 1st-level spells. It's right here.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/467192850862571522/807787611027931177/unknown.png
Whether or not you can cast spells of a particular level for a particular class is defined by the "Spells per day" column of that class's table, as per the PHB. A dash means you can't cast spells of that level; a 0 means you can only cast spells of that level if your ability score is high enough to grant you a bonus spell; and a number greater than 0 means you can cast that many spells of that level.

The table gives them spellslots at that level, sure. However, note they have no mechanism to gain spells known just by having spellslots. Spells per day is distinct from spells known. They can cast spells of that level, but have no spells known at that level. If Versatile Spellcaster doesn't qualify them to learn spells of that level, neither does having spell slots at that level.

[Nifft]

The table gives them spellslots at that level, sure. However, note they have no mechanism to gain spells known just by having spellslots. Spells per day is distinct from spells known. They can cast spells of that level, but have no spells known at that level. If Versatile Spellcaster doesn't qualify them to learn spells of that level, neither does having spell slots at that level.

I think the logic chain here is:

1 - Table gives spell-slots of level N, with no other precondition.

2 - Having spell-slots of level N means you can cast spells of level N.

3 - Being able to cast spells of level N unlocks all spells known at level N.


In contrast, being able to cast a known spell of level N+1 doesn't do anything if there are no known spells of level N+1 yet. You don't meet the precondition to cast N+1 spells since you don't know any N+1 spells.

[Doctor Despair]

I think the logic chain here is:

1 - Table gives spell-slots of level N, with no other precondition.

2 - Having spell-slots of level N means you can cast spells of level N.

3 - Being able to cast spells of level N unlocks all spells known at level N.


In contrast, being able to cast a known spell of level N+1 doesn't do anything if there are no known spells of level N+1 yet. You don't meet the precondition to cast N+1 spells since you don't know any N+1 spells.

I'm still not convinced that there's a functional difference between having spell slots at 2nd level (and no spells known to cast in them) and having the ability to cast a known spell at level 2 (but no known level 2 spells), but in either case, taking Heighten Spell or expanding the spells known list with a bloodline feat / Mother Cyst / Cerebrosis is never a bad idea on spontaneous casters, and should resolve that interpretation's limitation satisfactorily, granting you spells known at that level.

[Nifft]

I'm still not convinced that there's a functional difference between having spell slots at 2nd level (and no spells known to cast in them) and having the ability to cast a known spell at level 2 (but no known level 2 spells)

The functional difference would come as a direct result of the logical difference.

In the former case, you have the ability to cast level 2 spells, full stop. This can unlock other things (and in fact does).

In the latter case, you wish to use a thing you don't have to gain access to that same thing, and you can't because you don't have it yet.

[Doctor Despair]

The functional difference would come as a direct result of the logical difference.

In the former case, you have the ability to cast level 2 spells, full stop. This can unlock other things (and in fact does).

In the latter case, you wish to use a thing you don't have to gain access to that same thing, and you can't because you don't have it yet.

Based on this reading though, do you have the ability to cast level 2 spells if you don't know any level 2 spells? That's my point of contention there. If Versatile Spellcaster doesn't allow you to cast level 2 spells unless you already know a level 2 spell, then a level 2 spellslot shouldn't allow you to cast level 2 spells unless you already know a level 2 spell. If spellslots get a pass for the creature potentially being able to know a level 2 spell, Versatile Spellcaster should get that same pass.

[Nifft]

Based on this reading though, do you have the ability to cast level 2 spells if you don't know any level 2 spells? Does the class feature text lead you to any other conclusion?

Ignore for a moment your goal-oriented comparison with the feat, and only talk about the class text itself.

Can you actually justify any conclusion other than the class giving you spell access when it says it does?

[Doctor Despair]

Does the class feature text lead you to any other conclusion?

Ignore for a moment your goal-oriented comparison with the feat, and only talk about the class text itself.

Can you actually justify any conclusion other than the class giving you spell access when it says it does?

I think you've misunderstood my position here, which is fair considering I have been playing devil's advocate for a few responses now.

I hold that Warmages learn their spells on level-up and upon taking the Versatile Caster feat, as both fulfill the requirement to "gain access to a new level of spells" in order learn spells under the "the character can cast a known spell, should they have one" theory.

I am suggesting in my posts that I don't see a reading that allows a Warmage to learn their N level spells on taking their first class-level (or reaching the appropriate level) that doesn't also allow a Warmage to learn their N level spells using Versatile Spellcaster and two N-1 spellslots, as in neither scenario does the Warmage know a spell to cast in their slot (or using the feat) before learning all their spells at that level and becoming able to cast them, gaining access to spells of that level.

I am suggesting that if Versatile Caster requires Heighten Spell or a spells-known-expanding feat to learn their next level of spells, then so too should a Warmage who acquires a spell-slot of N level and wants to learn their N-level spells.

So, in short, I do agree with you -- the class feature text, to my reading, does suggest that they would learn their spells as other classes do. However, if that is true, then it must also be true, to my reading, that Versatile Spellcaster allows them to learn their spells early unaided by a feat, as both should either require or not require a spell known at that level to constitute being able to cast spells at that new level.

[Nifft]

I think you've misunderstood my position here, which is fair considering I have been playing devil's advocate for a few responses now.
(...)
So, in short, I do agree with you -- the class feature text, to my reading, does suggest that they would learn their spells as other classes do. Okay, glad we got that sorted.


However, if that is true, then it must also be true, to my reading, that Versatile Spellcaster allows them to learn their spells early unaided by a feat, as both should either require or not require a spell known at that level to constitute being able to cast spells at that new level.

The comparison you're trying to make isn't really a position, though -- it's a rhetorical device to conflate two different things, one very widely accepted (class levels grant new spell levels) with something not well accepted (versatile spellcaster does the same).

The reason I asked if you could find a good-faith reading which denied a character spell knowledge was to showcase where the rhetorical device falls down.

I don't think there are any good-faith readings of a spellcasting class like Warmage which would deny spell knowledge based on having the appropriate level. However, there are good-faith readings of Versatile Spellcaster which don't grant new spell knowledge. You've seen a couple people here presenting them.

Since there is no good-faith reading of e.g. Warmage which denies casting, and there are such readings which deny your favored interpretation of Versatile Spellcaster, it cannot be the case that the former implies the latter.

Since they are different things, I think you should focus on defending your reading of Versatile Spellcaster on its merits, not by trying to conflate it with a different (albeit related) mechanic.

[Doctor Despair]

The comparison you're trying to make isn't really a position, though -- it's a rhetorical device to conflate two different things, one very widely accepted (class levels grant new spell levels) with something not well accepted (versatile spellcaster does the same).

I fully explained why I was making the comparison in my previous post. The logic being used to deny Versatile Spellcaster from qualifying Warmages from learning new spells unaided should also preclude Warmages from learning new spells from leveling. I don't think it's a good faith reading to conclude that Warmage's don't learn spells, as that's clearly not RAI, but that's what folks seem to be arguing (unintentionally) when they argue that Versatile Spellcaster doesn't work due to not having a spell known at that level.

[Nifft]

I fully explained why I was making the comparison in my previous post. Sure, but I explained it better: you're unable to justify the conclusion you want by examining the thing in itself, therefore you seek to confuse the issue by exclusively discussing it as a comparison against something which is well-accepted.

You could prove me wrong here by justifying the conclusion you want to reach WITHOUT resorting to comparison.


The logic being used to deny Versatile Spellcaster from qualifying Warmages from learning new spells unaided should also preclude Warmages from learning new spells from leveling. This is incorrect.

Here's a reading which fully justifies Warmage gaining spells, but does not justify Versatile Spellcaster from short-cutting class levels:


I think the logic chain here is:

1 - Table gives spell-slots of level N, with no other precondition.

2 - Having spell-slots of level N means you can cast spells of level N.

3 - Being able to cast spells of level N unlocks all spells known at level N.


In contrast, being able to cast a known spell of level N+1 doesn't do anything if there are no known spells of level N+1 yet. You don't meet the precondition to cast N+1 spells since you don't know any N+1 spells.

That's not the only such justification, and it's probably not the best, but it's right here in the thread already.

[Doctor Despair]

I think the logic chain here is:

1 - Table gives spell-slots of level N, with no other precondition.

2 - Having spell-slots of level N means you can cast spells of level N.

3 - Being able to cast spells of level N unlocks all spells known at level N.


In contrast, being able to cast a known spell of level N+1 doesn't do anything if there are no known spells of level N+1 yet. You don't meet the precondition to cast N+1 spells since you don't know any N+1 spells.

The problem with this logic chain comes in step 2. If you are required to have spells known at level N to be able to cast spells of level N, then the warmage does not satisfy that, as it does not have spells known of level N at step 2

[Nifft]

The problem with this logic chain comes in step 2. If you are required to have spells known at level N to be able to cast spells of level N, then the warmage does not satisfy that, as it does not have spells known of level N at step 2

You're trying to apply the restriction from the feat text to a mechanic which does not share the same language.

The restriction is specific, not general. It's specific to that feat.

Also:


Sure, but I explained it better: you're unable to justify the conclusion you want by examining the thing in itself, therefore you seek to confuse the issue by exclusively discussing it as a comparison against something which is well-accepted.

You could prove me wrong here by justifying the conclusion you want to reach WITHOUT resorting to comparison.


Since you're still trying to use the comparison rhetorical device, is it safe to say you've conceded to my reasoning here?

[ThanatosZero]

Use a knowstone with Versatile Spellcaster and you are good to go.

[Doctor Despair]

You're trying to apply the restriction from the feat text to a mechanic which does not share the same language.

The restriction is specific, not general. It's specific to that feat.

The restriction is not specific to the feat; it is specific to the feat and the class. Look at the wording here:



Spells: A warmage casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to sorcerers and wizards), which are drawn from the warmage spell list given below. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time the way a cleric or wizard must. When a warmage gains access to a new level of spells, he automatically knows all the spells for that level listed on the warmage's spell list. Essentially, his spell list is the same as his spells known list.

Gaining access to a new level of spells must have one of the following two requirements:

1. It requires you to be able to cast a spell of that new level if you had one known to cast

2. It requires you to be able to cast a spell of that new level and have one known to cast

Having spell slots satisfies the first requirement, but not the second. Spell slots can be used to cast an Nth level spell if you have an Nth level spell known, but not otherwise. Therefore, under the second reading, the Warmage would never learn spells without a feat.

Versatile Spellcaster satisfied the first requirement, but not the second.Versatile Spellcaster can be used to cast an Nth level spell if you have an Nth level spell known and two spellslots of Nth-1 to burn, but not otherwise. Therefore, under the second reading, the Warmage with Versatile Spellcaster cannot learn new levels of spells ahead of time without a feat.

Given the choice between both working or neither working, both working seems like a much more common-sense reading of the requirement "gains access to a new level of spells" than requiring an initial spell known.



Since you're still trying to use the comparison rhetorical device, is it safe to say you've conceded to my reasoning here?

Absolutely not. The comparison is central to the discussion, as the reading you're using to preclude Versatile Spellcaster from working also preclude Warmages from learning spells at all. The comparison is evidence that the reading is flawed, and the alternative reading (that an initial spell known is not required) is stronger.

[Nifft]

The restriction is not specific to the feat; it is specific to the feat and the class. Look at the wording here: The restriction about knowing a spell preceding being able to use spells of that level is specific to the feat. The class cannot have that restriction, or it would be non-functional, and even you have already agreed that the class is functional.


Gaining access to a new level of spells must have one of the following two requirements: That's clearly inaccurate.

The text you quoted shows that a Warmage gaining access to a new level of spells (which cannot mean spells known) unlocks new spells known (and that's why it cannot require spells known).

Your interpretation is directly contradicted by the text.



Absolutely not. The comparison is central to the discussion The comparison is central to your current argument, but your current argument is wrong for the reasons presented above.

You've already agreed that Warmage actually is functional, so the idea that you can use its non-functionality as a lever to push Versatile Spellcaster into the cheddersphere is not going to work.

It's still a good feat.

[Doctor Despair]

You've already agreed that Warmage actually is functional, so the idea that you can use its non-functionality as a lever to push Versatile Spellcaster into the cheddersphere is not going to work.

It's still a good feat.

No, I've agreed that Warmage is functional if Versatile Spellcaster is also functional for that purpose. If Versatile Spellcaster is not functional for that purpose, I would hold that Warmage is nonfunctional. However, as I believe Versatile Spellcaster works, I do agree that Warmage is functional - that is what I've said above, and what you've misconstrued.

[Nifft]

No, I've agreed that Warmage is functional if Versatile Spellcaster is also functional for that purpose. If Versatile Spellcaster is not functional for that purpose, I would hold that Warmage is nonfunctional. However, as I believe Versatile Spellcaster works, I do agree that Warmage is functional - that is what I've said above, and what you've misconstrued.
Versatile Spellcaster functions as I've described -- you cannot use it to break level cap.

That means "Versatile Spellcaster works" -- it is a functional body of text -- but unfortunately it does not work as you'd hoped.


There are readings under which Warmage is functional without allowing cap-breaking effects elsewhere. If you don't see those, if you honestly see Warmage as dysfunctional, that's unfortunate for you but it won't impact my games. (Nor most games I suspect.)

[Doctor Despair]

There are readings under which Warmage is functional without allowing cap-breaking effects elsewhere. If you don't see those, if you honestly see Warmage as dysfunctional, that's unfortunate for you but it won't impact my games. (Nor most games I suspect.)

You are saying that Warmage leveling works to learn new spells because "gains access to a new level of spells" means just being able to cast them if you had a spell known at that level. You are saying that Versatile Spellcaster doesn't work to learn new spells because "gains access to a new level of spells" means being able to cast them and having spells known to cast. The interpretations are mutually exclusive, hence why your logic chain falls apart. If you want to make a houserule to fix the dysfunction, that's up to you, friend, but IMO it's better to be internally consistent with your readings.

An internally consistent reading that doesn't invite dysfunction is that they both work to learn new spells. An internally consistent reading that invites dysfunction into Warmage is that they both require a spell known to qualify as "gaining access to a new level of spells." I advocate for the first one, because I don't think we should err in favor of the reading that makes Warmage dysfunctional. You are starting with the conclusion "Versatile Spellcaster cannot function to learn new spells, and Warmages cannot be dysfunctional" and proceeding from there to try to justify your conclusion after the fact, which is why your reading has become inconsistent.

If you don't see that, that's unfortunate for you, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree at this point.

[Nifft]

You are saying that Warmage leveling works to learn new spells because "gains access to a new level of spells" means just being able to cast them if you had a spell known at that level. Incorrect. I'm noticing the functional constraints on Warmage spellcasting, and one such constraint spells out when you learn all spells of a given spell-level.


You are saying that Versatile Spellcaster doesn't work to learn new spells because "gains access to a new level of spells" means being able to cast them and having spells known to cast. Incorrect. I'm saying that Versatile Spellcaster doesn't allow you to bootstrap knowing things you don't already know. It's limited in scope.


The interpretations are mutually exclusive, hence why your logic chain falls apart. You have tried to set up a mutual exclusion -- that's why you're unable to discard the rhetorical device by which you compare these two things -- but your attempt to set-up a contradiction doesn't actually create one.


If you want to make a houserule to fix the dysfunction, that's up to you, friend, but IMO it's better to be internally consistent with your readings. There should be no houserules on my side of the discussion.

If you think that's incorrect, could you quote one?

You're trying to change the order of operations such that spell knowledge comes before the thing that grants spell knowledge, which might qualify as a house rule except it's not really well-defined enough to be much of a rule, and it's not consistent with other rules.

Is that your houserule which you think is in conflict with mine? There ought to be no houserule on my side, so I think your conflict here is with the actual rules.

[liquidformat]

No, "Spells per day" entry on the class chart determines when you have access to new spell levels. An entry of "—" means you can't cast spells of that level. An entry of a number greater than 0 means that you are able to cast that many spells plus bonus spells.

Just a small quibble with this, it should be "An entry of a number greater than or equal to 0 means that you are able to cast that many spells plus bonus spells." as there are classes that will give you an entry of 0/day in which case you can cast based on your ability score bonuses...

[Doctor Despair]

Incorrect. I'm noticing the functional constraints on Warmage spellcasting, and one such constraint spells out when you learn all spells of a given spell-level.

Warmages learn spells when they gain access to a new level of spells. Not when they gain access to a new level of spell slots; when they gain access to new levels of spells.

Spell slots allow you to cast spells of N level, but you cannot cast a spell of N level with no Nth-level spells known; Versatile Spellcaster also allows you to cast spells on N level, but you cannot cast a spell of N level with no Nth-level spells known. They have the same restrictions.

If "gains access to a new level of spells" means "has spells of Nth level known and can cast them," then Warmage is dysfunctional.

If "gains access to a new level of spells" means "is able to cast Nth level spells upon gaining knowledge of Nth level spells," then Versatile Spellcaster allows Warmages to learn the next level of spells.




You're trying to change the order of operations such that spell knowledge comes before the thing that grants spell knowledge, which might qualify as a house rule except it's not really well-defined enough to be much of a rule, and it's not consistent with other rules.

Is that your houserule which you think is in conflict with mine? There ought to be no houserule on my side, so I think your conflict here is with the actual rules.

I am trying to do no such thing. The issue is that "gains access to a new level of spells" is an ambiguous term. Hence, I've broken down what it might mean above. Warmages level up and gain spell slots. They have no spells known at that level at this point. If just having the capability to cast a spell if you did have a spell known is enough to satisfy "gains access to a new level of spells," then Versatile Spellcaster satisfies the same condition. If you need an actual spell to cast, then Warmages do not learn spells without a feat to give them spells known at each level. The latter interpretation is, in my opinion, obviously not RAI, so I think the first reading is more appropriate: "gains access to a new level of spells" means "will be able to cast a new level of spells upon learning them."

[Nifft]

Warmages learn spells when they gain access to a new level of spells. Not when they gain access to a new level of spell slots; when they gain access to new levels of spells.
(...)
I am trying to do no such thing. The issue is that "gains access to a new level of spells" is an ambiguous term. It's not ambiguous if you read the PHB (rather than the SRD).




8. Spells: Spellcasting characters gain the ability to cast more spells as they advance in levels. Each class description for a spell-casting class includes a Spells per Day section (on the class table) that shows the base number of spells (without bonus spells for high ability scores) of a given spell level that a character can cast at each class level. See your character’s class description in this chapter for details.

9. Class Features: Check your character’s class description in this chapter for any new capabilities your character may receive. Many characters gain special attacks or new special powers as they advance in levels.


The spells per day column of the class table is defined as the primary source for knowing what spell level you can cast when you level up.

The slots on the table are what give you the ability to cast spells of a given level, full stop.

Class features, including learning new spells known, happen at step 9, which is after step 8.


If just having the capability to cast a spell if you did have a spell known is enough to satisfy "gains access to a new level of spells," That's not the class table, so clearly it does not.


If you need an actual spell to cast, then Warmages do not learn spells without a feat to give them spells known at each level. You don't, because the PHB says otherwise.


The latter interpretation is, in my opinion, obviously not RAI, so I think the first reading is more appropriate: "gains access to a new level of spells" means "will be able to cast a new level of spells upon learning them." Nope, it means what the PHB says it means, which is having a number in the appropriate column of the class table.

It took a while, but we did seem to get at the root of the misunderstanding.

[Doctor Despair]

It's not ambiguous if you read the PHB (rather than the SRD).




The spells per day column of the class table is defined as the primary source for knowing what spell level you can cast when you level up.



That's a fair distinction; it does seem to explicitly qualify Warmages/Dread Necros/Beguilers and friends. Consider me convinced. Nice choice of reference. :smallsmile:

[Troacctid]

Just a small quibble with this, it should be "An entry of a number greater than or equal to 0 means that you are able to cast that many spells plus bonus spells." as there are classes that will give you an entry of 0/day in which case you can cast based on your ability score bonuses...
The PHB considers 0 to be a separate case from higher numbers, so it would really be three separate possibilities, but I truncated it a little because it wasn't important to the post. An entry of 0 means you can only cast spells of that level if your ability score is high enough to grant you bonus spells of that level.

[Nifft]

That's a fair distinction; it does seem to explicitly qualify Warmages/Dread Necros/Beguilers and friends. Consider me convinced. Nice choice of reference. :smallsmile:

Glad we could reach an accord. :)