Rainbow Warmage combo does not work by RAW

[Elves]

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.

Cleric Spell Access: A 10th-level rainbow servant can learn and cast spells from the cleric list, even if they don?t appear on the lists of any spellcasting class he has. Such spells are cast as divine spells if they don't appear on the sorcerer/wizard or bard spell lists.

The typical notion is that getting the cleric spell access ability means that all cleric spells are added to the warmage's spell list, and thus the warmage automatically knows them all and can cast them spontaneously.

The problem here is when you read closely.

"A 10th-level rainbow servant can learn and cast spells from the cleric list, even if they don?t appear on the lists of any spellcasting class he has."

The rainbow servant ability explicitly does not add the cleric spells to your class spell list. It just allows you to learn and cast them even if they are not on your spell list.

This means that far from being uber-powerful for the fixed list casters (beguiler, warmage, dread necro), it is almost useless to them. Because their spells known are the same as their class spell list, allowing them to learn spells that are not on their class spell list is meaningless for them. The only value they get from this class feature is in the following line:


The 10th-level rainbow servant can likewise read scrolls with cleric spells on them and use wands and staffs that contain cleric spells.


Live by the RAW, die by the RAW. Learning from this, we should read closely and not take famous charop combos for granted just because they're well known; oftentimes they are based on sloppy readings of the text. For another example, see my post about Selective Spell antimagic field (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?636533-Combining-Selective-Spell-Antimagic-Field&highlight=selective+spell).

[Crake]

The rainbow servant ability explicitly does not add the cleric spells to your class spell list. It just allows you to learn and cast them even if they are not on your spell list.

You're of the misguided notion that anything can change a class spell list.

Class spell lists are objective and unchanging, but a character's spell list can be change easily and dynamically. And a warmage knows all the spells on their spell list.

Take a read of the advanced learning class feature. It doesn't add it to the class spell list, it adds it to your spell list.

Now, your argument is that rainbow servant lacks the veribage of "is added to your spell list", however, since "spell list" is not actually a glossary defined term, and the functionality of the cleric spell access is identical to having a spell on your character's spell list, we can use common sense to say that, if it walks like a duck, and it looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

[Paragon]

Also, it says, by raw, that a Rainbow Servant can CAST and learn spells. Which, by the "live by raw, die by raw" thing you mention, is a paradox because no class can cast spells they don't have learnt previously

[Elves]

You're of the misguided notion that anything can change a class spell list.

I know there are some things that modify class spell list and which a warmage can use perfectly fine as a result. For example, the Arcane Disciple feat:

"Add the chosen domain's spells to your class list of arcane spells."

Something that adds a spell to "your" list also seems fine. That's not what rainbow servant does though. It lets you learn and cast spells that don't appear on your spell list. For traditional prepared and spontaneous casters, that works perfectly fine. For warmages it does not.


we can use common sense to say that, if it walks like a duck, and it looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Sure, but that's not what's happening here. The text in this case could not be more clear. Whoever thought of this combo just did not read it attentively, and assumed it was doing something other than what it says.

You can argue RAI that the writer was not thinking about this distinction. My take would be to agree that they probably weren't, but the reason they weren't is because for traditional casters it makes no difference. The text doesn't secretly mean something other than what it says, it just wasn't written with nontraditional casters in mind and so no trouble was taken to make it work with their unique rules.

It's a moot point, since charop combos are expected to work RAW.

-----

Interestingly, there's another way in which rainbow servant is bad rather than good for warmage/dread necro/beguiler: the class grants domains, but unlike the Arcane Disciple feat, the rules for gaining domains don't work with their form of spellcasting.


If the noncleric is a spontaneous caster like a sorcerer or favored soul, then she may select a domain spell to add to her spells known whenever she would have an option to choose a new known spell.

They don't choose known spells at all, except through advanced learning, which has its own restriction (wizard evocation spell) that probably overrides the text above. But you could argue that rather than acting perpetually, that restriction establishes the options available and the domain then expands those options, which would at least make the domain spells eligible advanced learning options.


I would also put this in the basket of something where the way a rule is worded is not friendly to nontraditional casters because the writer was likely not thinking about those classes. But like with the other ability, that doesn't mean the text says something other than what it says.

[rohde]

The D&D FAQ v 3.5 from 6/30/208, page 29 has this:


If a warmage (CAr 10) gains access to all the cleric spells though the rainbow servant prestige class (CD 54), does he really have all those spells to choose from each time he casts a spell?
If a warmage takes ten levels of rainbow servant, he adds all of the spells from the cleric spell list to his own spell list and can choose from all of them when he casts spells.

[Darg]

You're of the misguided notion that anything can change a class spell list.

Class spell lists are objective and unchanging, but a character's spell list can be change easily and dynamically. And a warmage knows all the spells on their spell list.

Take a read of the advanced learning class feature. It doesn't add it to the class spell list, it adds it to your spell list.

Now, your argument is that rainbow servant lacks the veribage of "is added to your spell list", however, since "spell list" is not actually a glossary defined term, and the functionality of the cleric spell access is identical to having a spell on your character's spell list, we can use common sense to say that, if it walks like a duck, and it looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

Your argument is a basis for RAI, but not a RAW argument. WotC is an educated actor. In every other situation where they modify a spell list, they say it. In this case, they do not.

Your "quacks like a duck" argument can be used to say the opposite as well. You have "cleric spell access," the same verbiage used to describe a cleric's domain access. Access to a domain doesn't put the domain list on the cleric's list. So in the same way access to the cleric's spell list does not dump the list on your spell list. It also follows the rules established in the same book for arcane casters to learn and cast domain spells when they get access to them.

I find that a stronger argument, but ultimately rainbow warsnake is so embedded in the popular psyche that any argument against it is facing a social uphill battle.


Also, it says, by raw, that a Rainbow Servant can CAST and learn spells. Which, by the "live by raw, die by raw" thing you mention, is a paradox because no class can cast spells they don't have learnt previously

It's "learn and cast," not "cast and learn." In a normal situation an arcane class would have the opportunity to learn spells as they level. Warmage, beguiler, and dread necromancer do not. Unfortunately they also use the sorcerer's language in their spells ability. Thus they can only cast spontaneously spells they have learned. Cleric Spell Access does not add the spells to the list of known spells, which according to their spells ability is a separate list from any class list.


The D&D FAQ v 3.5 from 6/30/208, page 29 has this:

The FAQ isn't RAW. The FAQ is simply a compilation of rulings by a person who has access to the team. Many of the rulings flout the rules as they have been written to attempt to provide something maybe easier to understand or simply to add them where they don't exist. At best they could help paint RAI. However, at the same time the actor is biased toward making the audience happy rather than truly deciphering rules as they were intended. Sometimes what is intended doesn't make a fun game or interactions were never really thought about in the first place.

[Crake]

Your "quacks like a duck" argument can be used to say the opposite as well. You have "cleric spell access," the same verbiage used to describe a cleric's domain access. Access to a domain doesn't put the domain list on the cleric's list. So in the same way access to the cleric's spell list does not dump the list on your spell list. It also follows the rules established in the same book for arcane casters to learn and cast domain spells when they get access to them.

The issue is that “spell list” is not mechanically defined, so we cant realistically confirm nor deny whether meeting literally all the functional characteristics of having a spell on your spell list qualifies it as being on your spell list, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated as such.

Its a sort of all A are B, but not all B are A, however, we dont have any explicitly stated cases of Bs not being As, just a case of a B that is functionally identical to an A, but not explicitly stated as being an A.

If B is functionally identical to A in all but name, can you really say its not A?

Remember, complete divine was a pretty early written book, so the verbiage of “add x spell to your spell list” may simply not have been cemented as standard at that point.

[Elenian]

So, since Arcane Disciple adds spells to my class's list, if I take the feat as a Warmage it adds the spells to the Warmage class list.

If Jim, on the other side of the world, is also a Warmage, he can spontaneously cast those spells, right, because I've added them to the Warmage list?

Or are there three spell lists- my list, my class list, and 'the' class list?

[Troacctid]

Warmages do actually learn spells. When they gain access to a new level of spells, they learn all spells of that level on their class spell list. So, if nothing else, you should be able to gain access to 8th and 9th level cleric spells.

[Paragon]

It's "learn and cast," not "cast and learn."
Yes and while you read it as a statement that describes steps of an action, it could be read as 2 different options. You can learn on the one side and cast on the other.

If you want to implement (which I don't) that Live by RAW Die by RAW, you can do stuff like this.

My point was mostly attacking that second statement

[holbita]

To be honest, if you live by RAW... you live shortly. The game falls down very quickly if you don't try to understand RAW in context, just quick glance at the glossary is enough to know that this was not written with keywords in mind. You need to understand that they may use 5 different ways to talk about the same thing, if you try to treat each of them as separate ones you will not be able to work with the rules.

[Darg]

The issue is that “spell list” is not mechanically defined, so we cant realistically confirm nor deny whether meeting literally all the functional characteristics of having a spell on your spell list qualifies it as being on your spell list, regardless of whether it is explicitly stated as such.

Its a sort of all A are B, but not all B are A, however, we dont have any explicitly stated cases of Bs not being As, just a case of a B that is functionally identical to an A, but not explicitly stated as being an A.

If B is functionally identical to A in all but name, can you really say its not A?

Remember, complete divine was a pretty early written book, so the verbiage of “add x spell to your spell list” may simply not have been cemented as standard at that point.

I gave an example how having access to another spell list isn't adding it to your spell list by virtue of simple access. Having another possibility already dilutes the certainty of your interpretation. Regardless, the line, "Essentially, his spell list is the same as his spells known list," runs true either way cleric spell access is interpreted. But really, is the ability to access spells not on your list equivalent to having them on your list? This is the real question, and I obviously argue it does not. A low hanging fruit example of this is Anyspell. Just because you have access to those extra spells doesn't mean they are added to your spell list.


So, since Arcane Disciple adds spells to my class's list, if I take the feat as a Warmage it adds the spells to the Warmage class list.

If Jim, on the other side of the world, is also a Warmage, he can spontaneously cast those spells, right, because I've added them to the Warmage list?

Or are there three spell lists- my list, my class list, and 'the' class list?

Baseline everything that is gotten as a feature or an effect for a character is for just that character. Otherwise the rules get crazy and stop working all over the place. It's a slippery slope.


Warmages do actually learn spells. When they gain access to a new level of spells, they learn all spells of that level on their class spell list. So, if nothing else, you should be able to gain access to 8th and 9th level cleric spells.

Except the new spells are on the cleric spell list, not the warmage's spell list. Hence the debate.

[Crake]

A low hanging fruit example of this is Anyspell. Just because you have access to those extra spells doesn't mean they are added to your spell list.

Anyspell doesnt grant you the ability to use spell trigger or spell completion items of said spells the way that cleric spell access does, its not an equivalent example.

[Troacctid]

Except the new spells are on the cleric spell list, not the warmage's spell list. Hence the debate.
Rainbow servant allows you to learn the spells even though they're not on your class spell list. So, when you learn a new level of spells, it should also grant you access to cleric spells of that level. AFAICT, the sticking point in the wording is actually that it doesn't work retroactively for lower spell levels, not that it doesn't work at all.

[Darg]

Rainbow servant allows you to learn the spells even though they're not on your class spell list. So, when you learn a new level of spells, it should also grant you access to cleric spells of that level. AFAICT, the sticking point in the wording is actually that it doesn't work retroactively for lower spell levels, not that it doesn't work at all.

There is a problem with that theory. The three classes in question don't learn spells on their list; they automatically know them. Contrast that with their advanced learning abilities that represent "the result of personal study and experimentation."

[animewatcha]

The typical notion is that getting the cleric spell access ability means that all cleric spells are added to the warmage's spell list, and thus the warmage automatically knows them all and can cast them spontaneously.

The problem here is when you read closely.

"A 10th-level rainbow servant can learn and cast spells from the cleric list, even if they don?t appear on the lists of any spellcasting class he has."

The rainbow servant ability explicitly does not add the cleric spells to your class spell list. It just allows you to learn and cast them even if they are not on your spell list.

This means that far from being uber-powerful for the fixed list casters (beguiler, warmage, dread necro), it is almost useless to them. Because their spells known are the same as their class spell list, allowing them to learn spells that are not on their class spell list is meaningless for them. The only value they get from this class feature is in the following line:




Live by the RAW, die by the RAW. Learning from this, we should read closely and not take famous charop combos for granted just because they're well known; oftentimes they are based on sloppy readings of the text. For another example, see my post about Selective Spell antimagic field (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?636533-Combining-Selective-Spell-Antimagic-Field&highlight=selective+spell).

In the games that you are in, when you have your character cast spells that require attack rolls (touch or not), you are applying non-proficiency penalty (good old -4) to them right? Or even humanoid monks and such to apply non-proficiency penalty to unarmed strikes.

@everyone else: I can connect this to the thread, but need answer from OP.

[Elves]

The D&D FAQ v 3.5 from 6/30/208, page 29 has this:
Thanks for posting this. Like Darg said, many FAQ answers are wrong, but I don't think that means the FAQ is worthless. I think it should be treated as a valid rules source. But it's not errata, so per the primary source rule the original source still takes precedence if the two contradict. In this case, I think that FAQ answer is incorrect because it contradicts something that in the text is clearly stated.

I could see a DM using that answer to justify an RAI-based ruling that the combo works, but RAW I don't think it holds up.


Rainbow servant allows you to learn the spells even though they're not on your class spell list. So, when you learn a new level of spells, it should also grant you access to cleric spells of that level. AFAICT, the sticking point in the wording is actually that it doesn't work retroactively for lower spell levels, not that it doesn't work at all.

I think you're misreading slightly here Troacc.
"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."

Becoming able to learn a spell is not the same as learning it. In this case, the warmage has no mechanism by which to learn a spell that is not on his spell list. He is able to learn the cleric spells, but has no way to do so -- other than, arguably, advanced learning.


In the games that you are in, when you have your character cast spells that require attack rolls (touch or not), you are applying non-proficiency penalty (good old -4) to them right? Or even humanoid monks and such to apply non-proficiency penalty to unarmed strikes.
Monk US proficiency is a famous gaffe. Touch spells don't incur non-proficiency because touch isn't a weapon. Weaponlike spells in general don't because they aren't weapons either, they simply "function like weapons in certain respects" (RC). But you can certainly find other examples of commonly-ignored dysfunctional rules that would hamper play. The reason we ignore them is because it's common sense to do so. I don't think it's common sense to brush over the rules in order to permit an uber-powerful charop combo.

And as I said to Crake, I don't believe this is a dysfunction; it's just rules text that is unfriendly to warmage because the author likely wasn't even thinking about that niche class. Complaining that it's unfriendly to them is like complaining that it doesn't offer anything to incarnum characters, or that a prestige class with abilities that are good for sorcerers isn't also good for wizards.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Becoming able to learn a spell is not the same as learning it. In this case, the warmage has no mechanism by which to learn a spell that is not on his spell list. He is able to learn the cleric spells, but has no way to do so -- other than, arguably, advanced learning.

Does a wizard have a mechanism by which to learn a spell that is not on his spell list? No more than a Warmage. A Warmage learns all the spells in their list when they level up. A wizard learns 2 spells from their list when they level up‚ then can learn more spells from their list by scribing them. If Rainbow Servant does nothing to a Warmage‚ I'm unsure how you think it works for a wizard.

[Crake]

Does a wizard have a mechanism by which to learn a spell that is not on his spell list? No more than a Warmage. A Warmage learns all the spells in their list when they level up. A wizard learns 2 spells from their list when they level up‚ then can learn more spells from their list by scribing them. If Rainbow Servant does nothing to a Warmage‚ I'm unsure how you think it works for a wizard.

The argument is that it allows them to learn the spells, but doesn't add them to the list, and since warmage's learning mechanism is that it knows all the spells on it's list, then it would follow that the warmage is not given the opportunity to learn those cleric spells.

I disagree with the assessment that the cleric spells are not added to their list though, since cleric spell access has all the functional equivalency of having a spell on your spell list.

[Darg]

A Warmage learns all the spells in their list when they level up.

They do not actually learn spells. They already know them. While your argument may be made for beguiler and dread necromancer, warmage in particular learns all their spells in preparation to be a warmage. Leveling up just gives them the ability to cast spells they've already learned.

Not to mention "automatically knows" is kind of counter to learning something.


gain or acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) by study, experience, or being taught.

[Chronos]

I think the answer to this one might be complementary to the answer to how warmages interact with Versatile Spellcaster. That one says that a first-level warmage with Versatile Spellcaster can use two first-level spell slots to cast one of their second-level spells, because they already know them (and ordinarily can't cast them just because they lack the slots to do so). On the other hand, if they don't already know all their spells, but learn them as soon as they level up, then Versatile Spellcaster wouldn't work, but Rainbow Servant would.

[Elves]

The argument is that it allows them to learn the spells, but doesn't add them to the list, and since warmage's learning mechanism is that it knows all the spells on it's list, then it would follow that the warmage is not given the opportunity to learn those cleric spells.

I disagree with the assessment that the cleric spells are not added to their list though, since cleric spell access has all the functional equivalency of having a spell on your spell list.
Thanks Crake, that's well put. I always appreciate when despite having different readings people can understand each others' arguments.


I think the answer to this one might be complementary to the answer to how warmages interact with Versatile Spellcaster. That one says that a first-level warmage with Versatile Spellcaster can use two first-level spell slots to cast one of their second-level spells, because they already know them (and ordinarily can't cast them just because they lack the slots to do so). On the other hand, if they don't already know all their spells, but learn them as soon as they level up, then Versatile Spellcaster wouldn't work, but Rainbow Servant would.
That Versatile Spellcaster trick doesn't work for warmage, at least not out of the box. "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."

But that doesn't affect the rainbow servant debate. If my OP isn't clear enough, Crake restated it well in the post I just quoted.

[icefractal]

I'm not convinced that "knows" and "learns" are meaningfully different here. A Sorcerer "learns" spells, and then those become part of their "spells known".

[Darg]

I think the answer to this one might be complementary to the answer to how warmages interact with Versatile Spellcaster. That one says that a first-level warmage with Versatile Spellcaster can use two first-level spell slots to cast one of their second-level spells, because they already know them (and ordinarily can't cast them just because they lack the slots to do so). On the other hand, if they don't already know all their spells, but learn them as soon as they level up, then Versatile Spellcaster wouldn't work, but Rainbow Servant would.

Or as the book describes, they learned the spells in their training prior to level 1 and gain access to the ability to use that knowledge when they level up.


Warmages access their magic peculiarly, at least compared to the way wizards, sorcerers, and clerics do. A warmage selects his spells from a limited pool of knowledge that rarely changes. Early in their difficult training, warmages instill deep within themselves the knowledge of all the spells they will ever need. Warmages know fewer spells than wizards and even sorcerers, but the spells they do know are enhanced.


Throughout their training, warmages are forced to wear ponderous garments (meant to familiarize their bodies with the limitations of movement in armor) while drilling constantly with spells, most of which are too high in level to be cast by the student.

Now, beguiler and dread necromancer don't declare that they learned their spells in the same way, or how at all, but considering warmage is the origin of the class type it's reasonable to assume they should work the same way in some fashion. After all, they copy word for word most of the same verbiage.

As for versatile spellcaster it is quite clear. The spells a warmage has knowledge of aren't considered a known spell until the level they'd be able to cast them.


I'm not convinced that "knows" and "learns" are meaningfully different here. A Sorcerer "learns" spells, and then those become part of their "spells known".

Learning is the process and knowing is the result. When the game says a character learns something, it implies that the character goes through the process of learning to make it known. Warmage in particular has already done the learning prior to level 1. They just gain access to the knowledge they had already accumulated prior when they level.

[Crake]

They just gain access to the knowledge they had already accumulated prior when they level.

It would be more accurate to say that they gain the ability to APPLY that knowledge.

Honestly, this entire post makes me lean toward rainbow servant NOT working, but versatile spellcaster almost CERTAINLY working.

Take this line: Essentially, his spell list is the same as his spells known list.

Your spell list includes spells ABOVE your normal level. A level 1 mage can still use a wand of scorching ray, because scorching ray is on their spell list, regardless of being able to cast it or not.

Similarly, a level 1 warmage knows even their 9th level spells, they simply lack the capability to cast them. They knowledge isnt sealed away, or locked somehow, its there, and all they need is the power to apply it, which is something that versatile spellcaster provides

[Darg]

It would be more accurate to say that they gain the ability to APPLY that knowledge.

Honestly, this entire post makes me lean toward rainbow servant NOT working, but versatile spellcaster almost CERTAINLY working.

Take this line: Essentially, his spell list is the same as his spells known list.

Your spell list includes spells ABOVE your normal level. A level 1 mage can still use a wand of scorching ray, because scorching ray is on their spell list, regardless of being able to cast it or not.

Similarly, a level 1 warmage knows even their 9th level spells, they simply lack the capability to cast them. They knowledge isnt sealed away, or locked somehow, its there, and all they need is the power to apply it, which is something that versatile spellcaster provides

I subscribe to the RAW that you can't cast spells of a particular level unless you have the appropriate class level. Versatile Spellcaster doesn't negate that rule (I also prescribe that to DMM to cut the cheese so to speak). But I don't really care to argue that case particularly hard though. The rule is a bit obscure and it isn't always clear where the line is that determines what is in conflict and what is not. I personally err on the side that if there is an understanding that does not conflict then that is the rule.

[Crake]

I subscribe to the RAW that you can't cast spells of a particular level unless you have the appropriate class level.

My arguement to that is that the context of the rule is specifically describing the requirements for getting bonus spell slots from high ability scores. If you can cast a higher level spell through some other means (like the one provided to you by versatile spellcaster), this rule does not forbid that, however, just because you can cast a higher level spell through versatile spellcaster, doesn't mean you'll get a bonus spell slot for that level, because your CLASS level is not high enough to provide a bonus spell slot.

See, and now that I'm thinking about that... it actually kinda ruins a tiny bit of my favourite chameleon build, I always took it to be that, if you had a spell slot, you got bonus spell slots from high ability score, but it seems like that's not enough of a qualifier, so there's no point in getting 7th or 8th level spell slots as a chameleon, you may as well just go all in on 9ths or above for metamagics.

[Elves]

I'm not convinced that "knows" and "learns" are meaningfully different here. A Sorcerer "learns" spells, and then those become part of their "spells known".
That distinction isn't important. It's that being able to learn a spell is obviously different from learning or knowing it -- a sorcerer is able to learn a lot of spells, but only learns and knows a few.

A warmage rainbow servant becomes "able to learn" cleric spells. However, the only spells they learn and know are the spells on their spell list, and rainbow servant doesn't add the cleric spells to their list, so it does them no good. Except in that arguably the cleric spells become eligible advanced learning choices.


BTW, we shouldn't forget that the rainbow servant capstone is still incredibly good -- for wizards. I would probably houserule use of the table version (6/10 casting) rather than the text version because of how good it is.


Honestly, this entire post makes me lean toward rainbow servant NOT working, but versatile spellcaster almost CERTAINLY working.

Take this line: Essentially, his spell list is the same as his spells known list.

Your spell list includes spells ABOVE your normal level. A level 1 mage can still use a wand of scorching ray, baecause scorching ray is on their spell list, regardless of being able to cast it or not.

Again, in light of this quote I don't see how warmage could be interpreted as knowing all their spells from the start: "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."

As for VS, it depends on how you interpret "gains access". Does it mean actually gaining the appropriate class level? Does it mean having a spell slot of that new spell level? Or does VS itself count as a form of access? (You still need to CL boost so you can cast a spell of the higher level.) I lean toward gaining access meaning gaining a spell slot of that level, but the other two readings are plausible.

[Crake]

Again, in light of this quote I don't see how warmage could be interpreted as knowing all their spells from the start: "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."

As for VS, it depends on how you interpret "gains access". Does it mean actually gaining the appropriate class level? Does it mean having a spell slot of that new spell level? Or does VS itself count as a form of access? (You still need to CL boost so you can cast a spell of the higher level.) I lean toward gaining access meaning gaining a spell slot of that level, but the other two readings are plausible.

I was more referring to the flavour text, not any rules text. I personally find, as a DM, that the easiest way to make internally consistent rulings is to understand how something works from an in-universe perspective, rather than adherance to a strict RAW, so that matters far more to me than what the exact wording of the rules are.

It's also part of the reason why I'm not hugely fond of just haphazardly refluffing rules, because while it may be mechanically the same, a refluff can come with drastically different in-universe repercussions.

[Darg]

My arguement to that is that the context of the rule is specifically describing the requirements for getting bonus spell slots from high ability scores. If you can cast a higher level spell through some other means (like the one provided to you by versatile spellcaster), this rule does not forbid that, however, just because you can cast a higher level spell through versatile spellcaster, doesn't mean you'll get a bonus spell slot for that level, because your CLASS level is not high enough to provide a bonus spell slot.

See, and now that I'm thinking about that... it actually kinda ruins a tiny bit of my favourite chameleon build, I always took it to be that, if you had a spell slot, you got bonus spell slots from high ability score, but it seems like that's not enough of a qualifier, so there's no point in getting 7th or 8th level spell slots as a chameleon, you may as well just go all in on 9ths or above for metamagics.

No, it's specifically the ability to cast spells of a particular level:


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.

You must be of a high enough class level to cast spells of a given spell level. You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. They come into conflict when trying to cast spells of a higher level than you can normally cast. Unlike precocious apprentice, the feat isn't giving explicit permission to ignore the earlier rule.

Let's give a similar example. The general rule is that you can't apply a metamagic feat twice to the same spell. However, Widen Spell says, "You can alter a burst, emanation, line, or spread shaped spell to increase its area. Any numeric measurements of the spell’s area increase by 100%." The feat says you can do something and it doesn't limit you in the way the general rule does. Should the general rule set boundaries or should the feat's non-limited nature overrule it? Nobody thinks it should and in the same fashion the other conflict shouldn't be ruled differently either. BUT, honestly RAW doesn't state how one should approach these conflicts and the RC only says that "specific trumps general" which would technically negate both of these general rules. Unless, of course, we conclude that the lack of specific address to the conflict itself is a generalization and thus the general rule becomes more specific to the situation than the feats. From my experience, this way of doing things leads to quite a bit of non-cheesy RAW that just works.

[Chronos]

On the 6/10 casting vs 10/10 casting question, my take is that "Text Trumps Table" is meant to address situations where a table only gives the name of an ability, or a brief summary, because there's not room for the full description. It's not meant to cover cases where there's a typo in one of them. When two sources conflict, and one has a typo, you should always use the one that doesn't have the typo.

And of the two, it's pretty clear that it's the text, not the table, that has the typo. The class is described in multiple places as being only moderate casting. Most translations of the book into other languages use the table version. It'd be harder for the writers to have made a mistake on the table (they'd have noticed it and fixed it) than in the text. And the exact levels where the Rainbow Servant doesn't gain spells, according to the table, are when it gains significant other benefits.

[Crake]

No, it's specifically the ability to cast spells of a particular level:

Again, that line is in context of gaining bonus spell slots.

It doesn't say that that is the only way to gain access to higher level spells, merely that that is the only way to qualify for bonus spell slots.

[Darg]

Again, that line is in context of gaining bonus spell slots.

It doesn't say that that is the only way to gain access to higher level spells, merely that that is the only way to qualify for bonus spell slots.

I don't see how that's even possible as a reading. The section is talking about both bonus spells and the ability to cast spells. Limiting it to only bonus spells is ignoring the context, not including it. You need both levels and the appropriate ability score to cast spells of a particular level and benefit from bonus spells.

It doesn't say you gain access to spells, it's saying you simply can't cast if you don't have either qualifications. The examples in the PHB make it clear that it governs both the calculation of bonus spells and the ability to cast spells.

[Crake]

I don't see how that's even possible as a reading. The section is talking about both bonus spells and the ability to cast spells. Limiting it to only bonus spells is ignoring the context, not including it. You need both levels and the appropriate ability score to cast spells of a particular level and benefit from bonus spells.

It doesn't say you gain access to spells, it's saying you simply can't cast if you don't have either qualifications. The examples in the PHB make it clear that it governs both the calculation of bonus spells and the ability to cast spells.

It also doesn't use exclusive language, meaning it's not limiting access to spells via only that way.

It also seems a bit redundant to say "you can only cast spells when your class lets you cast the spells", but on the other hand it's much more understandable to say "you don't get bonus spell slots for spell levels which you can't cast yet", because, especially with metamagic involved, it's understandable to think that a new player might assume "oh, I get a bonus 2nd level spell slot for my 15 int, which lets me cast a +1 metamagic 1st level spell at level 1". In that context, I think it's very apparent that the text so often cited is specifically making sure people understand they can't get 9th level spell slots at level 1 even if they have 28 in their spellcasting ability somehow.

[Darg]

It also doesn't use exclusive language, meaning it's not limiting access to spells via only that way.

It also seems a bit redundant to say "you can only cast spells when your class lets you cast the spells", but on the other hand it's much more understandable to say "you don't get bonus spell slots for spell levels which you can't cast yet", because, especially with metamagic involved, it's understandable to think that a new player might assume "oh, I get a bonus 2nd level spell slot for my 15 int, which lets me cast a +1 metamagic 1st level spell at level 1". In that context, I think it's very apparent that the text so often cited is specifically making sure people understand they can't get 9th level spell slots at level 1 even if they have 28 in their spellcasting ability somehow.

How is it redundant when it's the only place in the rules where it's stated directly? Class level grants the ability to cast spells of a given level, not just grants access to secondary attributes that give you the mechanical tools to do so.

Either way, let's say your understanding is true and versatile spellcaster does indeed grant you the ability to cast a higher level spell. How does that not overwrite the class level rule when the rule only stipulates that the class is relevant because that is what is tied to the ability to cast levels of spells. If you're a level 1 wizard with 34 intelligence and versatile spellcaster you are "of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of" 2nd level. Thus you get bonus spells of 2nd level, which allows you to cast 3rd level spells, qualifies you for 3rd level bonus spells, etc. All the way up to 9ths.

As you can see if class level is not relevant to the ability to cast spells of a particular level and just gives access, things get out of hand really quickly.

[Crake]

How is it redundant when it's the only place in the rules where it's stated directly? Class level grants the ability to cast spells of a given level, not just grants access to secondary attributes that give you the mechanical tools to do so.

It's redundant, because class levels granting the ability to cast spells is stated in the class descriptions.

The only point where it becomes pertinent under ability scores, is for bonus spell slots, because it's not written anywhere else that bonus spell slots are limited to spell levels that are granted by your class levels.


Either way, let's say your understanding is true and versatile spellcaster does indeed grant you the ability to cast a higher level spell. How does that not overwrite the class level rule when the rule only stipulates that the class is relevant because that is what is tied to the ability to cast levels of spells. If you're a level 1 wizard with 34 intelligence and versatile spellcaster you are "of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of" 2nd level. Thus you get bonus spells of 2nd level, which allows you to cast 3rd level spells, qualifies you for 3rd level bonus spells, etc. All the way up to 9ths.

As you can see if class level is not relevant to the ability to cast spells of a particular level and just gives access, things get out of hand really quickly.

Because versatile spellcaster is not a function of your class.

You can have the ability to cast 3rd level spells at 3rd level thanks to versatile spellcaster, but your class level only allows you to cast 2nd level spells, ergo, your bonus spell slots are limited to 2nd level spell slots.

[Darg]

It's redundant, because class levels granting the ability to cast spells is stated in the class descriptions.

Where? It's only inferred from class tables. And if class tables are a statement, versatile spellcaster doesn't change a - to a 0.


The only point where it becomes pertinent under ability scores, is for bonus spell slots, because it's not written anywhere else that bonus spell slots are limited to spell levels that are granted by your class levels.

If you read the whole section it pertains to both bonus spells and the ability to cast spells. As such, the entire sentence pertaining to the ability to cast spells includes the limitations of ability score and class level.


Because versatile spellcaster is not a function of your class.

You can have the ability to cast 3rd level spells at 3rd level thanks to versatile spellcaster, but your class level only allows you to cast 2nd level spells, ergo, your bonus spell slots are limited to 2nd level spell slots.

No one said a feat was the function of the class, but if specific trumps general then it must apply in all relevant areas it could apply, including bonus spells. If as you said that the rule I pointed out does not in fact determine what level you get the ability to cast spells of a particular level then nowhere states such a rule (except in examples in reference to such a rule). Class descriptions don't state that class level determines your ability to cast spells, just the levels at which you gain spell slots and spells known and that by table. Thus by process of elimination your interpretation means that the ability to cast 9th level spells is simply a function of having the spells feature. Thus a 1st level caster would have the ability to cast 9th level spells if they had access by other means. Thus they are "of high enough class level."

[Crake]

but if specific trumps general then it must apply in all relevant areas it could apply, including bonus spells.

Disagree, specific trumps general, in specifically the ways it states. Trying to apply degrees of separation to rules will lead you down a very dirty rabbit hole of rules interpretations.

Versatile spellcaster grants you the ability to spend 2 spell slots to cast a spell 1 level higher, it makes no mention of altering the existing rules of anything else, including the rules on bonus spell slots, and so it does not.

[Darg]

Disagree, specific trumps general, in specifically the ways it states. Trying to apply degrees of separation to rules will lead you down a very dirty rabbit hole of rules interpretations.

Versatile spellcaster grants you the ability to spend 2 spell slots to cast a spell 1 level higher, it makes no mention of altering the existing rules of anything else, including the rules on bonus spell slots, and so it does not.

No no, you're right. I should be able to apply single metamagics more than once to the same spell because the rule that prevents applying single metamagic feats more than once to a spell isn't part of the feat and is thus altered by the lack of mention.

Doesn't make sense right? It's the same argument that has to be made for versatile spellcaster. X feat says you can do Y even though general rule Z says you can't do that. X doesn't mention Z and thus Y has exception status over conflict with Z. This argument is perfectly sound until you realize that sometimes Y doesn't have to come into conflict with Z and both can coexist without violating either. Versatile spellcaster's description is still true even if it does not grant you the ability to cast higher level spells than what your class level normally allows. You can metamagic spells and not make empowered empowered spells. Is a rule always an exception if it doesn't have to be? Based on evidence littered throughout the rules and common sense I argue it is not.

A perfect example of this is metabreath feats:


A dragon can use the same metabreath feat multiple times on the same breath. In some cases, this has no additional effects. In other cases, the feat’s effects are stackable. Apply the feat’s effect to the base values for the breath weapon once for each time the feat is applied and add up the extra time the dragon must wait before breathing again. For example, a Small dragon with a line-shaped breath weapon could use Enlarge Breath twice on the same breath. Since the base length of the line is 40 feet, the doubly enlarged line would become 80 feet long (20 extra feet per application of the feat), and the dragon would have to wait 1d4+2 rounds before breathing again.
If a metabreath feat stacks with itself, this fact will be
noted in the Special section of the feat description.

That last line does not have to conflict with the given example at all. Never does it say that applying a single metabreath more than once is "stacking" except in that line. The single metabreath that "stacks" has an effect where if it's effect were applied separately and added up as instructed it would have no additional effect as many others would. So it's given a stacking rule to allow it to benefit from applying the metabreath more than once. Thus if "stacking" is limited to a category of metabreaths that would otherwise not benefit from applying the feat more than once, but is given a specific exception to benefit from the multiple applications, then there is no conflict whatsoever.

[Crake]

No no, you're right. I should be able to apply single metamagics more than once to the same spell because the rule that prevents applying single metamagic feats more than once to a spell isn't part of the feat and is thus altered by the lack of mention.

Doesn't make sense right?

It doesn't make sense because that's the complete opposite of what I said.

I said, if a feat makes no mention of changing the base rule, then you don't infer extra changes. You did the literal opposite here. Terrible strawman.

[Darg]

It doesn't make sense because that's the complete opposite of what I said.

I said, if a feat makes no mention of changing the base rule, then you don't infer extra changes. You did the literal opposite here. Terrible strawman.

Except my interpretation doesn't rely on any changed rule other than the one you think happens with versatile spellcaster. You think it does, but it doesn't. At all. I've broken it down several times already. I've pointed out multiple flaws with your argument and you call them strawmen just so you don't have to address the issues with your argument. Calling something a strawman without say how they are strawman is a simple dismissal. If you aren't willing to actually discuss anything we aren't having a discussion.

[Crake]

Except my interpretation doesn't rely on any changed rule other than the one you think happens with versatile spellcaster. You think it does, but it doesn't. At all. I've broken it down several times already. I've pointed out multiple flaws with your argument and you call them strawmen just so you don't have to address the issues with your argument. Calling something a strawman without say how they are strawman is a simple dismissal. If you aren't willing to actually discuss anything we aren't having a discussion.

Your issue is that you're trying to attack my interpretation of the rules by looking at extensions of the rule, rather than actually addressing my interpretation of the rule.

We have a fundamental disagreement about what the line you cited actually refers to. You tend to quote just the single sentence:
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.

However, if we look at the whole paragraph it becomes a bit clearer that the context is specifically referring to bonus spell slots:
The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers; or Charisma for sorcerers and bards. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.

The disagreement occurs because you take the last sentence in isolation, and address it as a general rule, wheras I take it in context, and address it as part of the rules governing bonus spell slots.

Neither of us is demonstrably right or wrong, but you aren't going to change my mind by randomly galavanting across the rulescape and talking about how the interaction between completely unrelated rules proves you to be right. Especially when you do so in a disingenuous manner that doesnt even come close to accurately representing my statement, to the point where it seems like you're almost deliberately misinterpreting my words.

[Pezzo]

What would happen to an epic character with only 5 levels of trapsmith, arcane disciple and improved spell capacity?

[St Fan]

What would happen to an epic character with only 5 levels of trapsmith, arcane disciple and improved spell capacity?

Well, assuming that Improved Spell Capacity can be applied to a prestige class (which admittedly seems to be RAW), there is one little problem with this combo applied to Trapsmith: it is a spontaneous casting class with a repertoire of spells known.

Improved Spell Capacity only gives you a spell slot (a 4th-level one for Trapsmith) and Arcane Disciple only expands your class list (quote: "You may learn these spells as normal for your class.") Neither can add a spell known to your repertoire, which is how a Trapsmith learn new spells. So, in this case, the 4th-level spell slot couldn't be used with the 4th-level spell granted by arcane disciple, since it cannot be "learnt" for lack of a 4th-level spell known. It can be used with your 3rd-level (or lower) spells known, however.

[Pezzo]

Yeah my bad, let's give him extra spell after that, can he learn the 4th level domain spell?

[St Fan]

Yeah my bad, let's give him extra spell after that, can he learn the 4th level domain spell?

Well, Extra Spell is also limited: it can only give an additional spell known one level below the max spell level the character can cast. So, with spellcaster levels solely in Trapsmith, that max spell level is 3, thus Extra Spell will give an extra spell known of maximum level 2.

Mind you, there is a reading of Extra Spell that points out that this maximum spell level doesn't need to be in the same class; so, if you have the ability to cast spell up to 5th level in another class, you can theoretically use Extra Spell and Arcane Disciple to add a 4th-level spell known to Trapsmith. But, then the combo is a bit of a moot point (since it's better to apply Arcane Disciple to that other class), and there is another often-overlooked rule that the DM can invoke to veto this, namely:



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.


For a prestige class limited to 5 levels and 3rd-level spells, you're out of luck. The trick could be applied to a base class, but there is not much ways to increase a class level beyond its actual class level (as opposed to caster level or spellcaster level). Only method I'm aware of are Bloodline levels.

As a side note, you may notice that Arcane Disciple is pretty useless for spontaneous casters. For Sorcerers at least, there is a much better alternative (Divine Sorcery from Dragon #343).

[Pezzo]

I was asking, because of the RAW argument that you need to be of high enough class level to cast a spell, and the versatile spellcaster thing. If that was true then improved highten spell could not be used to highten a spell beyond 9th level, because there is no class that grants the ability to cast 10th level and higher spells.

[Darg]

However, if we look at the whole paragraph it becomes a bit clearer that the context is specifically referring to bonus spell slots:

The disagreement occurs because you take the last sentence in isolation, and address it as a general rule, wheras I take it in context, and address it as part of the rules governing bonus spell slots.

Neither of us is demonstrably right or wrong, but you aren't going to change my mind by randomly galavanting across the rulescape and talking about how the interaction between completely unrelated rules proves you to be right. Especially when you do so in a disingenuous manner that doesnt even come close to accurately representing my statement, to the point where it seems like you're almost deliberately misinterpreting my words.

Except you're the one taking the paragraph out of context. The paragraph is not talking solely about bonus spell slots, but also a spellcaster's ability to cast spells. I think what is going on here is that you aren't reading the PHB, but rather the SRD which is actually missing the second paragraph.


ABILITIES AND SPELLCASTERS
The ability that governs bonus spells (see Chapter 3: Classes) depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers; or Charisma for sorcerers and bards. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.) For instance, the wizard Mialee has an Intelligence score of 15, so she’s smart enough to get one bonus 1st-level spell and one bonus 2nd-level spell. (She will not actually get the 2nd-level spell until she is 3rd level wizard, since that’s the minimum level a wizard must be to cast 2nd-level spells.)

If your character’s ability score is 9 or lower, you can’t cast spells tied to that ability. For example, if Mialee’s Intelligence score dropped to 9 because of a poison that reduces intellect, she would not be able to cast even her simplest spells until cured.

As one can plainly see, it does not only pertain to bonus spell slots, but also the ability to cast spells. The "In addition to having a high ability score" is in reference to the fact that you need a high ability score to even cast spells. The "In addition to" connects the first part of the sentence prior to the comma to the predicate of "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." "In addition" adds "a spellcaster must be of high enough class level" to the result the predicate dictates.


I was asking, because of the RAW argument that you need to be of high enough class level to cast a spell, and the versatile spellcaster thing. If that was true then improved highten spell could not be used to highten a spell beyond 9th level, because there is no class that grants the ability to cast 10th level and higher spells.

Specific exceptions do exist, like Precocious Apprentice. My argument is about when it isn't specifically an exception, but rather one tangentially caught as a side note. When there is a reading where two rules don't have to conflict, that reading should be the one used because that is the most likely intended way for the rules to be read. Basically, a feat like Versatile Spellcaster is just too broad to be considered more specific than the rule attempted to be overturned.

[Troacctid]

It would be more accurate to say that they gain the ability to APPLY that knowledge.

Honestly, this entire post makes me lean toward rainbow servant NOT working, but versatile spellcaster almost CERTAINLY working.

Take this line: Essentially, his spell list is the same as his spells known list.

Your spell list includes spells ABOVE your normal level. A level 1 mage can still use a wand of scorching ray, because scorching ray is on their spell list, regardless of being able to cast it or not.

Similarly, a level 1 warmage knows even their 9th level spells, they simply lack the capability to cast them. They knowledge isnt sealed away, or locked somehow, its there, and all they need is the power to apply it, which is something that versatile spellcaster provides
The maximum level of spells you can choose with advanced learning is set based on the highest level of spell that you know, not the highest level of spell that you can cast. Your reading here would result in that restriction being dysfunctional; if you know 9th-level spells starting at level 1, what is the intent of that line supposed to be?

Advanced Learning (Ex): At 3rd, 6th, 11th, and 16th level, a warmage can add a new spell to his list, representing the result of personal study and experimentation. The spell must be a wizard spell of the evocation school, and of a level no higher than that of the highest-level spell the warmage already knows. Once a new spell is selected, it is forever added to that warmage's spell list and can be cast just like any other spell on the warmage's list.
I mean, it is a fairly mild dysfunction, as far as these things go, so it's not as if it actually breaks anything, but it is pretty weird, and it does have a big impact on the level 3 advanced learning in particular.

[RedMage125]

As for VS, it depends on how you interpret "gains access". Does it mean actually gaining the appropriate class level? Does it mean having a spell slot of that new spell level? Or does VS itself count as a form of access? (You still need to CL boost so you can cast a spell of the higher level.) I lean toward gaining access meaning gaining a spell slot of that level, but the other two readings are plausible.
We've been over this before, Elves. It means class level (or effective class level, in the case of PrCs that improve spellcasting). Having a spell slot through some other, bizarre means (like a Faustian Pact) is not sufficient to cast spells spell of that level.

Once again, things that provide an adjustment to Caster Level ONLY affect the things listed on page 171 of the PHB (effects based on caster level like range, duration, and damage; CL for overcoming SR; and CL for Dispel checks). It does not allow you to cast spells higher than your class level allows.

That said, VS is still useful to a Warmage, but not to cast spells above their level. If a level 6 Warmage with VS is out of L3 spell slots, he may use 2 L2 slots to cast fireball.


Except you're the one taking the paragraph out of context. The paragraph is not talking solely about bonus spell slots, but also a spellcaster's ability to cast spells. I think what is going on here is that you aren't reading the PHB, but rather the SRD which is actually missing the second paragraph.



As one can plainly see, it does not only pertain to bonus spell slots, but also the ability to cast spells. The "In addition to having a high ability score" is in reference to the fact that you need a high ability score to even cast spells. The "In addition to" connects the first part of the sentence prior to the comma to the predicate of "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." "In addition" adds "a spellcaster must be of high enough class level" to the result the predicate dictates.



Specific exceptions do exist, like Precocious Apprentice. My argument is about when it isn't specifically an exception, but rather one tangentially caught as a side note. When there is a reading where two rules don't have to conflict, that reading should be the one used because that is the most likely intended way for the rules to be read. Basically, a feat like Versatile Spellcaster is just too broad to be considered more specific than the rule attempted to be overturned.

My God, thank you for finally posting the whole text. I was spooling myself up as I read all of Crake's "interpretation". This is exactly what I was about to say, to include mention of Precocious Apprentice, and what Specific exemption text looks like.

Because (and this came up in a thread with the same OP about 4 years ago), a spellcaster with both Precocious Apprentice and Versatile Spellcaster is able to burn 2 L1 spell slots to cast their PA spell a second time.

Also (to further support your point), check out PHB 171. Things that adjust Caster Level ONLY affect certain factors. And "caster level minimum to cast a spell of a given level" isn't one of them. That means that a level 9 wizard who takes Mage Slayer (-4 Caster Level), can still cast their level 5 spells. But the damage, range, duration, SR rolls and Dispel check rolls will be as if CL was 5.

[St Fan]

We've been over this before, Elves. It means class level (or effective class level, in the case of PrCs that improve spellcasting). Having a spell slot through some other, bizarre means (like a Faustian Pact) is not sufficient to cast spells spell of that level.

Once again, things that provide an adjustment to Caster Level ONLY affect the things listed on page 171 of the PHB (effects based on caster level like range, duration, and damage; CL for overcoming SR; and CL for Dispel checks). It does not allow you to cast spells higher than your class level allows.

That said, VS is still useful to a Warmage, but not to cast spells above their level. If a level 6 Warmage with VS is out of L3 spell slots, he may use 2 L2 slots to cast fireball.


You are quite correct; there are plenty tricks that can increase caster level, but they only affect what you listed and not class level.

As I mentioned above, the only thing to my knowledge that can increase class level without increasing spellcasting level (as prestige classes can do) are Bloodline levels.



Include the character's bloodline level when calculating any character ability based on his class levels (such as caster level for spellcasting characters, or save DCs for characters with special abilities whose DCs are based on class level). The character doesn't gain any abilities, spells known, or spells per day from the addition of his bloodline levels, though—only the calculations of his level-based abilities are affected.


In the case of Versatile Spellcaster, a spontaneous caster who manages to have a spell known 1 level above the maximum level she can cast could cast it at the cost of two spell slots if she also have 1, 2 or 3 Bloodline levels to raise her effective class level high enough for said spell. That's the only way I can see for this specific combination to be working.

[Crake]

As one can plainly see, it does not only pertain to bonus spell slots, but also the ability to cast spells. The "In addition to having a high ability score" is in reference to the fact that you need a high ability score to even cast spells. The "In addition to" connects the first part of the sentence prior to the comma to the predicate of "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." "In addition" adds "a spellcaster must be of high enough class level" to the result the predicate dictates.

You might note that the line about having a caster ability score of 9 or lower is completely separated from the earlier section about bonus spell slots, and that paragraph indeed begins with "The ability that governs bonus spells".


Also (to further support your point), check out PHB 171. Things that adjust Caster Level ONLY affect certain factors. And "caster level minimum to cast a spell of a given level" isn't one of them. That means that a level 9 wizard who takes Mage Slayer (-4 Caster Level), can still cast their level 5 spells. But the damage, range, duration, SR rolls and Dispel check rolls will be as if CL was 5.

The factors stated there are not implied as being a limited list, and in fact, I should very much hope they are not, as, other things that went unmentioned are: caster level for crafting items, caster level for meeting prerequisites, and I'm sure people can find plenty of other dysfunctions with treating this list as a limited list, despite it not using any limiting terminology.

One thing you might note, is that the line in the paragraph for bonus spell slots, is specifically referring to class level required to cast spells of a sufficient level, and it makes no mention of caster level whatsoever.

As an aside


I was spooling myself up as I read all of Crake's "interpretation".

If you're finding yourself getting riled up over another person's reading of a 20 year old piece of rules text from a version of the game that is slowly being less and less played by people around the world, on a topic that has always been rather highly contentious... Maybe just take a second and relax.

[Darg]

You might note that the line about having a caster ability score of 9 or lower is completely separated from the earlier section about bonus spell slots, and that paragraph indeed begins with "The ability that governs bonus spells".

A paragraph can contain multiple concepts and ideas. It does not have to be filled in with words that are automatically adjusted in meaning to the theme of the first sentence rather than the paragraph as a whole.

There's a language barrier here and we just aren't going to agree on this point.

[Crake]

A paragraph can contain multiple concepts and ideas. It does not have to be filled in with words that are automatically adjusted in meaning to the theme of the first sentence rather than the paragraph as a whole.

Except, the fact that the sentence begins with “In addition” means its clearly an extension of the previous sentence, which is specifically talking about bonus spell slots, and then the NEXT sentence, which is an example, also is demonstrating how bonus spell slots work

[RedMage125]

You might note that the line about having a caster ability score of 9 or lower is completely separated from the earlier section about bonus spell slots, and that paragraph indeed begins with "The ability that governs bonus spells".
Your attempt to squint your eyes and tilt your head to make the words say what you want does not have greater authority than the way English works and the primacy of the text.

In any context, text which says:
"In addition to [restriction], an individual must [X] in order to [do the thing]"
Means that X is also a restriction. Period. Full stop.

That is how language and words work, and you don't have the authority to supercede that.

Furthermore, the sentence is followed by a complete sentence in parentheses which indicates it is supplemental to the preceding sentence. That sentence in parentheses tells us to "See the class description in Chapter 3 for details". Those details in Chapter 3 should us that classes gain access to spells of a certain level when their class level grants them slots.



The factors stated there are not implied as being a limited list, and in fact, I should very much hope they are not, as, other things that went unmentioned are: caster level for crafting items, caster level for meeting prerequisites, and I'm sure people can find plenty of other dysfunctions with treating this list as a limited list, despite it not using any limiting terminology.
Appeal to Silence is a Fallacy for a reason. In gaming terms, it's often called Munchkin Fallacy, to say "the rules don't say I can't, therefore I can". Anything that provides an adjustment to caster level only affects what the rules say they do.

Like I said to the above poster, this is actually critical to understanding how things with negative modifiers to CL work (Mage Slayer, Unseen Seer, and Wild Mage, for example). Since those things don't prohibit spells of a certain level from being cast (assuming high enough class level), neither does boosting it permit higher level spells to be cast. A 9th level wizard who picked up Mage Slayer (-4 CL) can still cast her 5th level spells, but all the caster level dependent effects listed on page 171 that are affected by adjusted caster level are likewise affected when she does.

Caster Level adjustments don't affect caster level for crafting items. Because they don't say they do. There are specific rules that sometimes provide specific exceptions to this (such as the way the Artificer works vis a vis items he can create).

Caster level for meeting prerequisites is one of the most often Munchkined claims about 3e out there. And it's fallacious for the same reason you cite. The assumption that adjusted caster level counts as their actual spellcaster level. This point of the RAW is often overlooked, and it's almost always by people trying to gain some kind of advantage by glossing over it.



One thing you might note, is that the line in the paragraph for bonus spell slots, is specifically referring to class level required to cast spells of a sufficient level, and it makes no mention of caster level whatsoever.
That paragraph is, more correctly, about the relationship between ability scores and spellcasting. You know, like the header above it explicitly states. Bonus spells are only one part of that. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the whole paragraph is "only about bonus spells".

And the fact that caster level ISN'T mentioned is important, I agree. Because artificially boosting/draining caster level has no impact on what level of spells a caster is able to cast. The connection between caster level and spell level is covered later in the book (page 171).




If you're finding yourself getting riled up over another person's reading of a 20 year old piece of rules text from a version of the game that is slowly being less and less played by people around the world, on a topic that has always been rather highly contentious... Maybe just take a second and relax.

Settle down, Kemosabe. I meant only that I was working up exactly what I was gonna say to utterly destroy your argument with complete RAW citations (that you kept snipping out bits of so you could ignore the context while simultaneously accusing your opponent of the same). He just beat me to it. Don't allow your ego to inflate to the point that you think I had any more emotional investment. You don't have nearly that kind of presence in my worldview.

[Elves]

We've been over this before, Elves. It means class level (or effective class level, in the case of PrCs that improve spellcasting). Having a spell slot through some other, bizarre means (like a Faustian Pact) is not sufficient to cast spells spell of that level.
I'm not going to rehash this but there is simply no rules basis for your claim that there is a minimum class level required to cast spells of a certain level. What you're calling the "appeal to silence" is an appeal to the gaping lack of any rules text to support your claim. In any case we talked about this at length a couple of years ago and I would encourage others not to re-litigate it here.

[RedMage125]

I'm not going to rehash this but there is simply no rules basis for your claim that there is a minimum class level required to cast spells of a certain level. What you're calling the "appeal to silence" is an appeal to the gaping lack of any rules text to support your claim. In any case we talked about this at length a couple of years ago and I would encourage others not to re-litigate it here.

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.) "

That's actually very clear. You are dead wrong. And I would encourage others not to listen to your absurd claims and instead, actually read the rules for themselves.

*drops microphone*

[Darg]

Page 8 has an example that explains you don't get bonus slots because the class hasn't gotten to the minimum level needed to cast spells of that level.

Page 171 declares you can't choose to lower caster level below the minimum needed to cast the spell and also declares that the minimum level a wizard needs to be to cast a fireball is level 5.

Considering there are 4 points in the text that reference or state that you need a particular class level in order to cast spells of a given level, it kind of makes sense that it's an actual rule.

[RedMage125]

Page 8 has an example that explains you don't get bonus slots because the class hasn't gotten to the minimum level needed to cast spells of that level.

Page 171 declares you can't choose to lower caster level below the minimum needed to cast the spell and also declares that the minimum level a wizard needs to be to cast a fireball is level 5.

Considering there are 4 points in the text that reference or state that you need a particular class level in order to cast spells of a given level, it kind of makes sense that it's an actual rule.

Love everything you've said.

But I'd like to build on something, the second part of what's on page 171, explicitly says "For example" with regards to minimum level for a wizard to cast fireball being 5. Which showcases explicitly that it is only example of a general rule that applies to all spells. This is necessary to point out, because there are Munchkins who try to claim that the RAW only ever spells out the minimum caster level for fireball, and pretty that no general rule exists.

One thing to note that we discovered in earlier threads, though, is that voluntarily lowering one's caster level (as per page 171) is irrespective of things that provide adjustments to caster level. Because casters can voluntarily lower their ACTUAL level, but those adjustments apply to the things the RAW says they do whenever spells are cast, regardless.

That means the level 9 wizard with Mage Slayer (-4 CL adjustment) can choose to cast fireball at CL5. But the damage, range, and roll to beat SR are going to be considered CL 1.

[Darg]

Love everything you've said.

But I'd like to build on something, the second part of what's on page 171, explicitly says "For example" with regards to minimum level for a wizard to cast fireball being 5. Which showcases explicitly that it is only example of a general rule that applies to all spells. This is necessary to point out, because there are Munchkins who try to claim that the RAW only ever spells out the minimum caster level for fireball, and pretty that no general rule exists.

One thing to note that we discovered in earlier threads, though, is that voluntarily lowering one's caster level (as per page 171) is irrespective of things that provide adjustments to caster level. Because casters can voluntarily lower their ACTUAL level, but those adjustments apply to the things the RAW says they do whenever spells are cast, regardless.

That means the level 9 wizard with Mage Slayer (-4 CL adjustment) can choose to cast fireball at CL5. But the damage, range, and roll to beat SR are going to be considered CL 1.

This is getting a bit off topic, but if you are a level 9 wizard with mage slayer, your fireball is caster level 5. You can't choose to lower it further. If you were a level 5 wizard with mage slayer, your fireball is caster level 1, but nothing says you can't cast a spell with a lower caster level, just that you can't choose to lower it further. So the CL 1 fireball is legal to cast.

[RedMage125]

This is getting a bit off topic, but if you are a level 9 wizard with mage slayer, your fireball is caster level 5. You can't choose to lower it further. If you were a level 5 wizard with mage slayer, your fireball is caster level 1, but nothing says you can't cast a spell with a lower caster level, just that you can't choose to lower it further. So the CL 1 fireball is legal to cast.

That's just it. The -4 is an adjustment to caster level. And adjustments only affect what the RAW says they do. That level 9 wizard with Mage Slayer is still a level 9 wizard and can cast her level 5 spells. But CL for CL-dependent effects mentioned on page 171 will be CL 5. It's no different than the example level 7 Good domain cleric who uses CL 8 for [Good] spells.

Just as things like orange prism ioun stones and the Practiced Spellcaster feat are not capable of granting extra spells known or spells per day, negative adjustments don't affect those things, either.

The clincher is that page 171 says that "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question...". Adjustments (positive or negative) from magic items, feats, Prestige classes, and such, are imposed on the caster as they cast their spells. Most don't have caveats allowing the caster to ignore them (I say "most" because I am not 100% sure, but Practiced Spellcaster, for example, does not imply that it can be opted out of). This also means that, by a strict RAW reading, a level 9 wizard who has an orange prism ioun stone can lower her CL to 5 to cast fireball, but when she casts it, the damage, range, and checks to beat SR will be at CL 6. Now, in practice, is this usually enforced? No, most DMs will treat the adjusted caster level as something the caster can also lower. But a strict RAW reading doesn't indicate that it can be opted out of.

So our example wizard with Mage Slayer? When she hits level 12, say, and tries to cast a level 5 spell at the lowest possible caster level (9), will still have those CL-dependent effects adjusted down by an additional 4 when the spell is cast. She isn't able to cast a 5th level spell with all CL-dependent effects equal to CL 9 until she's level 13.

It's important to not conflate "actual/base caster level"* (which a caster can voluntarily lower when casting), with "adjusted caster level" which is for "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)." [Exact text from the PHB]. Adjusted caster level never affects spells known or per day. It cannot be used to qualify for feats or prestige classes. This is often overlooked in a lot of TO and "early entry exploits", and is exactly why they don't work.

*Just to avoid any pedantic semantics, many prestige classes explicitly add to increased effective level for spellcasting "as if [they] had gained a level in [their spellcasting class]". Those are explicitly equivalent to class levels for that purpose, which includes actual/base caster level. They are effective levels of the class, not an adjustment to caster level.

This is the only coherent way to deal with things that provide a negative CL adjustment (Mage Slayer, Unseen Seer, and Wild Mage, for example), because otherwise a caster is potentially unable to cast their spells at all. It also explains why the section starting with "In the event that a class feature, domain granted power, or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level..." comes AFTER the section on the minimum caster level for a given spell level (and the potential voluntary lowering thereof) because those adjustments are applied as the spell is being cast, after such choices have been made.

But this has become tangential, yes. I'm sorry.

[St Fan]

If I may, I'll cast serious doubt on the latest assertions.

Voluntarily lowering your caster is no different than having a caster level penalty (if only to simplify things). If you already have a caster level reduction, you still can't lower your caster level further below the minimum to cast the spell. That means that if the reduction put you below that minimum caster level, you can't cast a spell of this level. You'll need some caster level bonuses to compensate (which isn't that hard).

Please take note of the specification in the text for the Precocious Apprentice feat: "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 is a rare exception to the above rule, specifying the rule in the process: in normal circumstances, if your caster level is insufficient, then you cannot cast the spell.

It falls under the more general rule of Spell Failure: "If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted."

[RedMage125]

If I may, I'll cast serious doubt on the latest assertions.

Voluntarily lowering your caster is no different than having a caster level penalty (if only to simplify things). If you already have a caster level reduction, you still can't lower your caster level further below the minimum to cast the spell. That means that if the reduction put you below that minimum caster level, you can't cast a spell of this level. You'll need some caster level bonuses to compensate (which isn't that hard).

Please take note of the specification in the text for the Precocious Apprentice feat: "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 is a rare exception to the above rule, specifying the rule in the process: in normal circumstances, if your caster level is insufficient, then you cannot cast the spell.

It falls under the more general rule of Spell Failure: "If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted."

PA is talking about your actual/base caster level. And yes, it is the sole exception to casting a spell of a level above that which one's base class level allows.

There are several problems with your assertion.
1) PHB 171 has an explicit list of what is affected by this that "provide an adjustment to your caster level". Note that it says "adjustment", not "increase". So only those things are affected. And they are all factors of a spells effects, no mention of affecting one's ability to cast spells of a certain level. A level 8 Cleric with the Good domain doesn't get access to 5th level [Good] spells, do they? Of course not. The rule about requiring high enough class level is an absolute, but that works both ways.
2) Building on that...if you were correct, then prestige classes like Wild Mage would be unable to function. They'd lose the ability to cast spells they've had access to for the last 2 levels. They get a -3 to caster level, and then add 1d6 to it when they cast. Whereas by the RAW, as I point out, they have full access to their spells, but only those factors mentioned on page 171 are affected. Your interpretation is also problematic for Unseen Seer. If "adjusted caster level" affects spell access, then how does one figure out what the Unseen Seer's spells per day are, once they have a +3 CL for divination spells and -3 for all others? Do they have access to the spells their base caster level allows or not?
3) Your proposal causes a wild dissonance between RAW and RAI for these things. And while that is not unheard of...what I have just pointed out is entirely based on the text of the RAW and allows these things to function as intended. It also stops a lot of "early entry exploits".

Now, thinking over what you've said, you've given me cause to consider one possibility. That negative adjustments may not be possible to lower past a specific threshold. Which would mean that a level 9 wizard with Mage Slayer still gets to cast their 5th level spells, but that CL9 is an absolute floor to CL for those spells. Which would mean she could only cast them at CL 9 until she hit level 14.

I doubt it, though. Again, the big issue is that what we are calling "adjusted caster level" only affects factors of the spell itself. Those boosts only affect damage/healing, range, duration, SR penetration, and the DC to dispel. Not whether or not it can be cast. A given character is still a caster of whatever level their class(es) say, but the power of their spells are affected. Because the "adjusted caster level" is, more correctly, an adjustment to the power of the spells they can already cast. You know, like the rules text says it is.

Your caster level is your caster level, based on your class(es). A Sor8/Wild Mage 2 uses the 10th level row on the sorcerer table to determine their spells. They are eligible for a bonus 5th level spell slot (if CHA is 20 or more). But when they cast their spells, all those CL-determined factors are going to be anywhere from 8-13.

Where the rules get wonky, is how such a character works if they have Practiced Spellcaster. PS explicitly does not allow CL to exceed HD. But Wild Mage explicitly does. Does PS offset the -3, and allow the full 1d6 boost to be applied? Or does it only affect a low d6 roll by preventing CL for the spell from being under HD? Which would make the CL range for the above character 10-13?

[Elves]

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.[b](See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)"

Awesome, let's go check the class descriptions for details. What does it say?

"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: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score."

[RedMage125]

Awesome, let's go check the class descriptions for details. What does it say?

"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: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score."

Yes...that is the DETAILS of what the RULE of "must be high enough class level" means. That was my point years ago, and remains my point now.

There's no data you can draw from the table that makes "must be high enough class level" somehow "not a rule". And that's why your analysis years ago failed. And why your claim that "there isn't a clear rule requiring class level" is blatantly false.

"(See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)" Is in parentheses following a complete sentence. By the grammar and syntax rules of the English language, that means it is supplemental to the preceding sentence. The preceding sentence being: "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." That means that, with regard to ability to cast spells of a certain level, the information contained in Chapter 3 is supplemental details of what "must be of high enough class level" means. None of it ever invalidates "high enough class level" as a restriction. And there's only 2 kinds of people that insist that it does.
1) Blatant liars trying to gloss over rules and attempt to fast-talk a DM into giving them an advantage not actually supported by the Rules.
2) Ignorant cretins who don't understand the primacy of FACTS over OPINIONS.

Unless, of course, you just made an honest mistake, and can now realize that you were wrong. Mistakes happen, too.

[Troacctid]

Awesome, let's go check the class descriptions for details. What does it say?

"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: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score."
This text appears under the "Class Descriptions" header in chapter 3:

Spells per Day: How many spells of each spell level the character can cast each day. If the entry is "—" for a given level of spell, the character may not cast any spells of that level.
I'd interpret this as supporting RedMage125's reading.

[RedMage125]

This text appears under the "Class Descriptions" header in chapter 3:

I'd interpret this as supporting RedMage125's reading.

Quite, thank you.

But he's not going to be convinced. You see, Elves believes that if a level 1 wizard could make a Faustian Pact for a 9th level slot, and if she could boost her CL to 17 (and have an INT of 19+), that she could cast it. That's why he claims that there "isn't a rule requiring class level", because he claims that the tables in the class descriptions show that it means spell slots, therefore, only having spell slots matters. Which utterly disregards the complete sentence on page 7 which explicitly says that "must be of high enough class level" is a requirement, and that referring to Chapter 3 is for details of that.

His argument is that the Faustian Pact L9 slot means that it's no longer a "-". He is incorrect, because the table doesn't change. And the RAW, with context, specify that they wizard must be of a high enough class level that the CLASS TABLE no longer has a "-" for L9 spells, which is level 17. Even if an individual wizard got a higher level spell slot that she could cast, the table doesn't change.

Precocious Apprentice is the only RAW exception to the rule. And the exceptions it provides are only the ones specified in the feat. It's a common misconception for people to try and mix other rules to eke a greater advantage out of this, but those aren't RAW. A level 1 Elven Generalist Wizard with PA gets to prepare a 2nd Level 2 spell, but it must be another iteration of the spell chosen with PA. A Domain Wizard with PA, by the RAW, does not know her 2nd level Domain spell, because she is not "able to cast it". The only L2 spell she can cast is the PA one.

[St Fan]

There are several problems with your assertion.
1) PHB 171 has an explicit list of what is affected by this that "provide an adjustment to your caster level". Note that it says "adjustment", not "increase". So only those things are affected. And they are all factors of a spells effects, no mention of affecting one's ability to cast spells of a certain level. A level 8 Cleric with the Good domain doesn't get access to 5th level [Good] spells, do they? Of course not. The rule about requiring high enough class level is an absolute, but that works both ways.


I disagree that the list of things that are affected by caster level is exhaustive; the text is a quick list of what caster level does, but the wording is not limiting it. And the paragraph right above is the one specifying that caster level cannot be reduced below the minimum for a spell.

The example you give (the Good Domain) has nothing to do with the subject, since it's just a caster level bonus to a specific spell descriptor at the time of casting. Of course that doesn't affect spell access.

The point I am making is that a spellcaster have essentially three value called "levels", and that even if they can be equal on a basic character, they can also quite easily diverge.

The first is CLASS level, the actual level of the character in a given class.
The second is SPELLCASTING level, which define the number of spell per day and maximum spell level that can be cast. This level is the class level plus the number of levels in a prestige class giving "+1 level of existing [arcane/divine] spellcasting class" and applied to said class.
The third is CASTER level, which affect the variable of the spells. Caster level is equal to spellcasting level plus whatever modifiers, positive or negative, change said caster level. A spell cannot be cast below the minimum caster level, which is equal to the minimum class level when a spell of this level is gained. Caster level may also influence some feat prerequisites, but it never modify the actual spellcasting level.



2) Building on that...if you were correct, then prestige classes like Wild Mage would be unable to function. They'd lose the ability to cast spells they've had access to for the last 2 levels. They get a -3 to caster level, and then add 1d6 to it when they cast. Whereas by the RAW, as I point out, they have full access to their spells, but only those factors mentioned on page 171 are affected. Your interpretation is also problematic for Unseen Seer. If "adjusted caster level" affects spell access, then how does one figure out what the Unseen Seer's spells per day are, once they have a +3 CL for divination spells and -3 for all others? Do they have access to the spells their base caster level allows or not?


The rule does affect such classes, indeed, although not to the point of "unable to function" as you're saying. A Wild Mage would indeed risk a spell failure, but only for the highest level of spells he can cast (1d6-3 has a minimum result of -2 caster level). And that can easily be compensated by positive caster level modifiers, like an orange ioun stone.

Likewise, an Unseen seer can indeed only use divination spells for his highest (or maybe two highest when the modifier reaches -3) spell slot(s), unless gifted with enough positive caster level modifiers to compensate the negative modifier for other spell schools. Which again are not that hard to pile up (here's a thread solely on this subject) (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654710-Raising-Caster-Level).



Where the rules get wonky, is how such a character works if they have Practiced Spellcaster. PS explicitly does not allow CL to exceed HD. But Wild Mage explicitly does. Does PS offset the -3, and allow the full 1d6 boost to be applied? Or does it only affect a low d6 roll by preventing CL for the spell from being under HD? Which would make the CL range for the above character 10-13?

For such cases as Practiced Spellcaster, my advice is to differentiate modifiers that affect the standing (base) caster level for all spells (which would also influence feat prerequisites), like Practiced Spellcaster (let's call it, "pre-casting CL"), and the modifiers to caster level that take effect solely on casting (about all CL modifier dependent on a spell school or spell descriptor, for starter; let's call it, "post-casting CL"). If you consider the Wild Mage modifier to be applied solely on casting, then the -3+1d6 modifier intervene after Practiced Spellcaster has fixed the base caster level, capped by HD.

Please note that a spellcaster with a negative pre-casting CL modifier can still prepare spells that have a minimum CL higher than his score (caster level doesn't affect spell slots, unlike Class/Spellcasting level). Those spells could be cast without failing if the post-casting CL is raised to the minimum or more, even by separate conditional modifiers from different sources (most CL modifiers are, thankfully, untyped).

[RedMage125]

I disagree that the list of things that are affected by caster level is exhaustive; the text is a quick list of what caster level does, but the wording is not limiting it.
That's not how rules work. They only do what they say they do. Therefore, anything that "provides an adjustment to caster level" only affects what the text says it does.



The point I am making is that a spellcaster have essentially three value called "levels", and that even if they can be equal on a basic character, they can also quite easily diverge.

The first is CLASS level, the actual level of the character in a given class.
The second is SPELLCASTING level, which define the number of spell per day and maximum spell level that can be cast. This level is the class level plus the number of levels in a prestige class giving "+1 level of existing [arcane/divine] spellcasting class" and applied to said class.
The third is CASTER level, which affect the variable of the spells. Caster level is equal to spellcasting level plus whatever modifiers, positive or negative, change said caster level. A spell cannot be cast below the minimum caster level, which is equal to the minimum class level when a spell of this level is gained. Caster level may also influence some feat prerequisites, but it never modify the actual spellcasting level.

Caster level may be different from class level, only because Rangers and Paladins show that this is true.
But you have no written text that says that adjustments to caster level allow for that boosted level to meet feat prerequisites.



The rule does affect such classes, indeed, although not to the point of "unable to function" as you're saying. A Wild Mage would indeed risk a spell failure, but only for the highest level of spells he can cast (1d6-3 has a minimum result of -2 caster level). And that can easily be compensated by positive caster level modifiers, like an orange ioun stone.

Likewise, an Unseen seer can indeed only use divination spells for his highest (or maybe two highest when the modifier reaches -3) spell slot(s), unless gifted with enough positive caster level modifiers to compensate the negative modifier for other spell schools. Which again are not that hard to pile up (here's a thread solely on this subject) (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654710-Raising-Caster-Level).
OR...and, hear me out...
Adjustments to CL only affect what the text says they do.



For such cases as Practiced Spellcaster, my advice is to differentiate modifiers that affect the standing (base) caster level for all spells (which would also influence feat prerequisites), like Practiced Spellcaster (let's call it, "pre-casting CL"), and the modifiers to caster level that take effect solely on casting (about all CL modifier dependent on a spell school or spell descriptor, for starter; let's call it, "post-casting CL"). If you consider the Wild Mage modifier to be applied solely on casting, then the -3+1d6 modifier intervene after Practiced Spellcaster has fixed the base caster level, capped by HD.
That's nonsensical. If the -3 from Wild Mage is only applied on casting, then so is the +4 from PS. Both are adjustments to caster level, and only affect what page 171 of the PHB says they do.

What I am pointing out about the RAW allows these things to work as RAI. Your assertion means they don't.

Wild Mage is meant to be a class whose power fluctuates, not "has a 1 in 3 chance of failing completely".

[RedMage125]

Apologies for the double post, but I feel guilty for getting so off-topic, and wanted to try and veer the thread back to the OP's original subject.

Let's look at the text again, shall we? I'm going to start by copy/pasting what you cited in your OP.

Warmage Class
"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."

Rainbow Servant Prestige Class
"Cleric Spell Access: A 10th-level rainbow servant can learn and cast spells from the cleric list, even if they don?t appear on the lists of any spellcasting class he has. Such spells are cast as divine spells if they don't appear on the sorcerer/wizard or bard spell lists."

Elves, you know I am one who certainly appreciates finding holes in commonly accepted "tricks" (I am, after all, the author of the original thread debunking the "Leapfrog Wizard" that you referenced in your own thread). And I see your point. You are correct that RS does not "add cleric spells to the Warmage spell list".

HOWEVER, what it does do is let the RS cast spells from the cleric spell list.

What's the difference? Well, if all the cleric spells were "added to the Warmage spell list", they would all be Arcane spells. But we can see from the text of the "cleric spell access" ability that such is explicitly not the case. Rainbow Servants are primarily arcane spellcasters who are out there casting divine spells.

Moreover, you've left out text that I think is actually critical.
[This is the rest of the "Cleric Spell Access" power from Rainbow Servant]
"This class feature grants access to the spells, but not extra spells per day. The 10th-level rainbow servant can likewise read scrolls with cleric spells on them and use wands and staffs that contain cleric spells."

[Note: going forward, to ease confusion, I am going to refer to a specific character. His name is Billy, and he is a Warmage 6/Rainbow Servant 10. I do this to clarify the language that is sometimes confusing when discussing the term "warmage" when used with regards to the class as a whole vis a specific individual, as well as the spell lists thereof. Most confusion seems to stem from when it I used in the possessive form.]

It has already been brought up to you that things like Advanced Learning add a spell to Billy's spell list, not the Warmage Class Spell List. And the Warmage class ability quoted above means that Billy's Spells Known List is the same as Billy's Spell List (which, as of Warmage level 6, is the Warmage Class Spell List and has 2 extra wizard evocation spells not normally on that list). I'm sorry for repeating the obvious, but I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Okay, moving on...

Cleric Spell Access, as I acknowledged, does not add cleric spells to Billy's Warmage Spell List. Again, if it did, those spells would be Arcane spells when he cast them. Also, if Billy were to hypothetically get another Advanced Learning ability (which would would be Warmage 11, and thus character level 21), he could, of course add a cleric spell to Billy's Warmage Spell List (but it would be a divine spell). From what you have said, Elves, I believe you agree to all this so far. That would be "learning" the spell, even by the metrics you have established, right? After all, a Wizard/Rainbow Servant would have to scribe cleric spells into their spellbook and memorize them as normal, right? And a Sorcerer/RS would have to choose a cleric spell as a Spell Known when they gained a level that gave them one, right?

Everything so far is a perfectly valid way to read the RAW text (and you know me, I am a stickler for the grammar and syntax of the written word of the RAW).

Here's where you may disagree. There is another way to read that text (really, two). I will include explanation of why they are in keeping with the text.
1) One is that, the next time Billy gains access to a new level of spell (which would be Warmage 8, 7th level spells), he also gets all of the cleric spells of that level added to Billy's Spell List. This is because of that singular possessive use of the word "warmage's" in the Warmage class entry quoted above, indicating that it is the individual's (Billy's, in this case), and not just that of the Warmage Class. This seems like a redundant distinction, because in the case of a single-classed warmage, those would be the same. But this case makes it relevant. Warmages (unlike Wizards and Sorcerers mentioned above) get to spontaneously cast from their entire spell list, which, once they get access to a given spell level, includes all spells of their entire Class Spell List. And Billy now has two classes' lists to draw from. This reading does NOT allow Billy to cast cleric spells of level 1-6, however. The text of the Warmage class explicitly says he "automatically knows all spells of that level". But RS gave Billy "access" to the Cleric Class Spell List in addition to the Warmage Class Spell List.
2) The other reading (and this is the one most commonly endorsed by people), is that Billy isn't "adding cleric spells to his Warmage Class list", but rather, it is focused on the following lines of the text: "can cast spells from the cleric spell list" and "This class feature grants access to the spells" (this is part of what you left out of your OP). If the cleric class spell list is now accessible to him, he can cast from it. This only works with classes that can spontaneously cast from the entire list of spells they have access to. Wizards and Sorcerers have less spells known (the PHB Glossary specifies that an individual Wizard's "spells known" are the spells in their spellbook), but the Warmage class and its spellcasting do not require them to "learn" spells like Wizards and Sorcerers do (because "[a warmage's] spell list is the same as his spells known list."). It's predicated on the concept of Specifc > General, and the notion that explicit "access to cleric spells" and text saying the RS may "cast spells from the cleric list" specifically means that the Cleric Spell List is accessible like the Warmage Spell List is. This is actually very similar to how multiclass spellcaster characters in 5e later worked. That they have one table that is their "spells per day", but they have multiple class spell lists to draw from and spend the spell slots on. So they're casting spells from, essentially, 2 different spell lists. That's the principle, anyway.

Like I said, I see how you came to your conclusion. And, admittedly, I think the most permissible reading is a bit fast and loose with the application of "can cast from", and "access to the spells", but those exact words ARE in the text.

[Darg]

HOWEVER, what it does do is let the RS cast spells from the cleric spell list.

What's the difference? Well, if all the cleric spells were "added to the Warmage spell list", they would all be Arcane spells. But we can see from the text of the "cleric spell access" ability that such is explicitly not the case. Rainbow Servants are primarily arcane spellcasters who are out there casting divine spells.

The problem here is that warmage only has permission to cast spells they know. The spells they know are their class spell list and any others that they "learn." The dysfunction is that the feature doesn't add the spells to the class list or their spells known. It's the exact same process for learning domain spells spelled out at the beginning of the chapter. Warmage cannot cast domain spells to a domain they got access to from a prestige class either because they cannot learn those spells. To assume that domain access and cleric spell access work differently when they say the same things is a leap.


Here's where you may disagree. There is another way to read that text (really, two). I will include explanation of why they are in keeping with the text.

1) One is that, the next time Billy gains access to a new level of spell (which would be Warmage 8, 7th level spells), he also gets all of the cleric spells of that level added to Billy's Spell List. This is because of that singular possessive use of the word "warmage's" in the Warmage class entry quoted above, indicating that it is the individual's (Billy's, in this case), and not just that of the Warmage Class. This seems like a redundant distinction, because in the case of a single-classed warmage, those would be the same. But this case makes it relevant. Warmages (unlike Wizards and Sorcerers mentioned above) get to spontaneously cast from their entire spell list, which, once they get access to a given spell level, includes all spells of their entire Class Spell List. And Billy now has two classes' lists to draw from. This reading does NOT allow Billy to cast cleric spells of level 1-6, however. The text of the Warmage class explicitly says he "automatically knows all spells of that level". But RS gave Billy "access" to the Cleric Class Spell List in addition to the Warmage Class Spell List.

2) The other reading (and this is the one most commonly endorsed by people), is that Billy isn't "adding cleric spells to his Warmage Class list", but rather, it is focused on the following lines of the text: "can cast spells from the cleric spell list" and "This class feature grants access to the spells" (this is part of what you left out of your OP). If the cleric class spell list is now accessible to him, he can cast from it. This only works with classes that can spontaneously cast from the entire list of spells they have access to. Wizards and Sorcerers have less spells known (the PHB Glossary specifies that an individual Wizard's "spells known" are the spells in their spellbook), but the Warmage class and its spellcasting do not require them to "learn" spells like Wizards and Sorcerers do (because "[a warmage's] spell list is the same as his spells known list."). It's predicated on the concept of Specifc > General, and the notion that explicit "access to cleric spells" and text saying the RS may "cast spells from the cleric list" specifically means that the Cleric Spell List is accessible like the Warmage Spell List is. This is actually very similar to how multiclass spellcaster characters in 5e later worked. That they have one table that is their "spells per day", but they have multiple class spell lists to draw from and spend the spell slots on. So they're casting spells from, essentially, 2 different spell lists. That's the principle, anyway.

1) "Access" does not equal "knows." This falls apart as I mention above domain access does not grant the ability to cast the domain spells outside of learning them from the advanced learning feature. So "access" has precedence in this meaning considering this is at the beginning of the chapter.

2) If the line "can learn and cast spells from the cleric list" gets gutted to "can cast spells from the cleric list" for warmage, you must apply this logic to all classes. Not just the warmage. Wizards and sorcerers wouldn't need to actually learn the spells as the feature says they must. Honestly, this is the shakiest argument of all because it requires contradicting the text itself.

This also falls apart when you realize that warmages don't learn their spells as they level, they already know them (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25976447&postcount=24).

[RedMage125]

The problem here is that warmage only has permission to cast spells they know. The spells they know are their class spell list and any others that they "learn." The dysfunction is that the feature doesn't add the spells to the class list or their spells known. It's the exact same process for learning domain spells spelled out at the beginning of the chapter. Warmage cannot cast domain spells to a domain they got access to from a prestige class either because they cannot learn those spells. To assume that domain access and cleric spell access work differently when they say the same things is a leap.



1) "Access" does not equal "knows." This falls apart as I mention above domain access does not grant the ability to cast the domain spells outside of learning them from the advanced learning feature. So "access" has precedence in this meaning considering this is at the beginning of the chapter.

2) If the line "can learn and cast spells from the cleric list" gets gutted to "can cast spells from the cleric list" for warmage, you must apply this logic to all classes. Not just the warmage. Wizards and sorcerers wouldn't need to actually learn the spells as the feature says they must. Honestly, this is the shakiest argument of all because it requires contradicting the text itself.

This also falls apart when you realize that warmages don't learn their spells as they level, they already know them (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25976447&postcount=24).

Warmages, however, have a unique relationship with their "known" spells that is different from all PHB arcane casters. Icefractal pointed this out, and I don't think you debunked it as well as you think you did.

"Their spells known are their class list" is the General rule for Warmages. Rainbow Servant explicitly granting access to the Cleric Class Spell List is a Specific rule. That means the entire Cleric Spell List is (arguably) also available to Billy.

Again, as I closed with, I do think the most permissive reading is a little generous. But "can learn and cast cleric spells" is explicit RAW text, therefore it must be true. As are the words "grants access to the spells". How do you propose it is true that Billy has "access" to those spells?

You focused for a bit in your linked post on the narrative of how warmages already learned all those spells in their warmage training. If that's relevant, then why isn't the cleric-like power imparted to the Rainbow Servant? They get domains. They can cast Detect Evil/Chaos/Thoughts at will. They can grow wings like a couatl. A Rainbow Servant is more than just a standard Warmage. And clerics get access to those spells with no training in them. Why is it so difficult for you that Billy is imparted knowledge of them and casting them like prayers? They are, after all, divine, and not arcane spells.

[Darg]

Warmages, however, have a unique relationship with their "known" spells that is different from all PHB arcane casters. Icefractal pointed this out, and I don't think you debunked it as well as you think you did.

"Their spells known are their class list" is the General rule for Warmages. Rainbow Servant explicitly granting access to the Cleric Class Spell List is a Specific rule. That means the entire Cleric Spell List is (arguably) also available to Billy.

Again, as I closed with, I do think the most permissive reading is a little generous. But "can learn and cast cleric spells" is explicit RAW text, therefore it must be true. As are the words "grants access to the spells". How do you propose it is true that Billy has "access" to those spells?

You focused for a bit in your linked post on the narrative of how warmages already learned all those spells in their warmage training. If that's relevant, then why isn't the cleric-like power imparted to the Rainbow Servant? They get domains. They can cast Detect Evil/Chaos/Thoughts at will. They can grow wings like a couatl. A Rainbow Servant is more than just a standard Warmage. And clerics get access to those spells with no training in them. Why is it so difficult for you that Billy is imparted knowledge of them and casting them like prayers? They are, after all, divine, and not arcane spells.

They get access to domains, sure, but they can't cast domain spells without learning them through advanced learning or the extra spell feat. Domain access doesn't add spells to your list or spells known. Why would cleric spell access be any different?

The feature grants you the ability to learn and cast cleric spells. Logic dictates that you must learn the spells before you can cast them, otherwise there would be no reason to learn them in the first place. Use of the word "can" in "can learn and cast spells" means that the feature does not automatically grant you the knowledge of the spells.

Thus the only valid way to say a warmage gets to cast all cleric spells is to say that "automatically knows" equates to "automatically learns." But logically speaking, knows and learns have two different meanings. Implying they are the same would be wrong.

The reason I quoted the background is to put the rules into context where it's easier to understand the words on the page. You wouldn't normally equate "knows" with "learns" outside of the confusing circumstances surrounding the class and it's interaction with rainbow servant.

[Zancloufer]

They get access to domains, sure, but they can't cast domain spells without learning them through advanced learning or the extra spell feat. Domain access doesn't add spells to your list or spells known. Why would cleric spell access be any different?

So Domain access DOES add spells to your list of spells known. To summarize the bit in Complete Divine about Extra Domains for non-Clerics;

If they are like Druids/Rangers/Paladins (IE: Prepared casters that known the entire list) they add all their spells to their spells known.

Classes with a spellbooks (IE: Wizard) can scribe the relevant divine scrolls into their book.

Spontaneous casters that choose their spells known (IE: Favored Souls or Sorcerers) can learn these new spells, but don't gain extra spells known.

Warmages (along with Beguilers and Dread Necros) are unique in that they have an entire list they know (Like Druids) but cast spontaneously (like Sorcerers). Since their spells known are their entire list and don't have a limited number of spells known one can extrapolate that they probably should use the rules for the fist set of classes as it describes them the best. They don't have a spell book, they have no limit on spells known and they know their entire list.

Finally you can not use Advanced Learning on Cleric spells, as for Warmages that only works on Evocation spells on the Wiz/Sorc list.

[RedMage125]

They get access to domains, sure, but they can't cast domain spells without learning them through advanced learning or the extra spell feat. Domain access doesn't add spells to your list or spells known. Why would cleric spell access be any different?
Arcane Disciple would be better than extra spell. That feat explicitly adds the domain's spells to your class list.

But that's a tangent. My point was to address you bringing up how warmages "did all their learning" in the past, as if it were a relevant point. You kind of missed the forest for the trees on that one. Domains (not just the spells) were relevant because the RS still gets the granted power of those domains, as well as at-will spells, and wings. And to the point, divine casters themselves are never narratively described as being trained on all their spells in their past, and they have access to their whole spell list (why all members of the same class access the same list is veering into magical theory, which is not RAW).
The knowledge of their spells are a result of external forces imparting that knowledge. As a Rainbow Servant is also casting divine spells, as part of an organization that they were not a part of when they were in warmage training, why would not having trained on those spells be relevant?
THAT was the point. Was that the narrative of the Warmage's training was irrelevant, because the knowledge of the cleric spells would be imparted, similar to how it is for other divine casters.



The feature grants you the ability to learn and cast cleric spells. Logic dictates that you must learn the spells before you can cast them, otherwise there would be no reason to learn them in the first place. Use of the word "can" in "can learn and cast spells" means that the feature does not automatically grant you the knowledge of the spells.
I'm going to stop for a moment before replying and reiterate something for what is now the 3rd time. I, personally, believe that the "most permissive" reading of the text is playing a bit fast and loose with "can cast cleric spells", "grants access to the spells", and "spell list is the same as spells known list". But as those words ARE in the text, I can see it as one valid way to read that, even if I am not convinced that it's the most correct one. So, going forward, I am playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here.

First off, you are basing your point off of "logic dictates you must learn before you can cast". But that is ignoring that, as a class, Warmages (and Beguilers and Dread Necromancers) have a unique relationship with their spells that other spellcasting classes do not. They DON'T "learn" their new spells on their spell lists when they gain access to a new level of spells. Wizards do (spells known for a wizard means the ones in their spellbook and the term "learn" is occassionally used to describe the process of adding a spell to the book, but not consistently), sorcerers and bards do (they use the term "learn" for adding to their Spells Known list). The word "learn" is never used for any of the 3 full-list casters adding to their spell list, except in the title of the ability "Advanced Learning". That ability just says "add a spell to your list". Meanwhile, if "their spell list is the same as their spells known list", then the inverse, being "their spells known list is the same as their spell list" is also true, right? If "A=B", then "B=A", yes? So, if we add more value to "B" (spell list explicitly given access to), then those spells become "A" (i.e. "known").

So while you COULD be correct in insisting that "can learn" must be a prerequisite to "cast", there's also a strong case for the Warmage being a Specific Overrides General situation, as the Rainbow Servant PrC in general can be taken by any Arcane spellcasting class (probably hardest for a Dread Necromancer, though, who cannot be Good, and frequently makes use of objectively evil magicks). And, more to the point, Warmages themselves don't ever need to "learn" in order to cast. Even a single-classed Warmage never "learns" a new spell throughout their career. They only "add spells to their spell list".



Thus the only valid way to say a warmage gets to cast all cleric spells is to say that "automatically knows" equates to "automatically learns." But logically speaking, knows and learns have two different meanings. Implying they are the same would be wrong.
Your logic ignores the logic-defying nature of the Warmage's relationship to "learning" and "knowing". And in a strict-RAW sense, Warmages have no mechanism for, and indeed no need for, "learning" spells. They simply "know" them.

RAW is sometimes a thing that operates in defiance of conventional logic and common sense (especially in 3.5e). If you don't believe me, look up "drown healing". And what we are discussing is the RAW semantics.



The reason I quoted the background is to put the rules into context where it's easier to understand the words on the page. You wouldn't normally equate "knows" with "learns" outside of the confusing circumstances surrounding the class and it's interaction with rainbow servant.
You're right. Outside of Warmages, Beguilers, and Dread Necromancers, there is no such dissonance.

But there is with these classes. And while, as single-classed characters, it's largely irrelevant, it has ramifications with the interaction with some other game elements, like Rainbow Servant.

Also, as mentioned, the Arcane Disciple feat. That feat adds spells to the person's class list of arcane spells. A Wizard would still need to find a scroll for each of those 9 spells and scribe it into his book (i.e. "learn" it). A Bard or Sorcerer would still need to add them to their Spells Known individually (i.e. "learn" them). But our 3 full-list casters? Since the exact wording of "spells are added to your class list of Arcane spells"...that means that they, for 100% know all of those spells and can cast them (1 per spell level per day, as per the restrictions of the feat).

As an aside, I would like to add a note, here. One of the reasons I'm less convinced of the most permissive reading is that the Complete Divine is trash. That book has more errors in it than any other D&D book of any edition I've ever seen. And I don't just mean "bad elements", I mean actual ERRORS. The editors of that book were asleep at the wheel.

Multiple instances of "see page XX" (as in the book actually says "XX").
Spells that change name between the spell lists and the full description (I remember one is a high level druid spell relating to water).
Favored weapon of one of the deities in the book is listed as "check toee" (presumably Temple Of Elemental Evil).
Dissonance between the text and table of some prestige classes. Rainbow Servant is actually one of them, the table says it's a 6/10 caster increase, the text says it's 10/10. By RAW, text trumps table, and even the Sage Advice of the time acknowledged that, but says that the 6/10 was probably what was intended.
So...for a lot of reasons, I am generally loathe to just accept any super-powerful combo that hinges on an element from that book. I am also super-critical of any "tricks" people rely on (like "early entry" tricks). But when I look at the RAW for this combo -through the same pedantic lens that acknowledges that "drown healing" is RAW- I can see multiple ways to read the text. And all 3 that I mentioned in my post could be drawn from that text. I'm not unilaterally declaring any of them as "correct", least of all the most permissive one. My point is that they are actually all supported by text and precedent.


So Domain access DOES add spells to your list of spells known. To summarize the bit in Complete Divine about Extra Domains for non-Clerics;

If they are like Druids/Rangers/Paladins (IE: Prepared casters that known the entire list) they add all their spells to their spells known.

Classes with a spellbooks (IE: Wizard) can scribe the relevant divine scrolls into their book.

Spontaneous casters that choose their spells known (IE: Favored Souls or Sorcerers) can learn these new spells, but don't gain extra spells known.

Warmages (along with Beguilers and Dread Necros) are unique in that they have an entire list they know (Like Druids) but cast spontaneously (like Sorcerers). Since their spells known are their entire list and don't have a limited number of spells known one can extrapolate that they probably should use the rules for the fist set of classes as it describes them the best. They don't have a spell book, they have no limit on spells known and they know their entire list.
While I appreciate you trying to help, your last paragraph is an inference, and is not in the text of the RAW, which is the crux of the discussion.



Finally you can not use Advanced Learning on Cleric spells, as for Warmages that only works on Evocation spells on the Wiz/Sorc list.
I disagree here, too. The RAW explicitly "grant access to the spells". Even the most restrictive reading of the RAW would acknowledge that as a Specific>General line that would allow a Warmage/Rainbow Servant to "learn" a cleric spell with that feature. Although, without any "early entry" shenanigans, that won't happen until character level 21.

[Pezzo]

Finally you can not use Advanced Learning on Cleric spells, as for Warmages that only works on Evocation spells on the Wiz/Sorc list.
RAW doesn't specify that warmages can't learn spells. Their advance learning feature is mentioned inside their spellcasting description as the way they learn new spells, where normal spontaneous caster have their text on how many spells they can learn at each level, and how to swap spells known.
The cleric spell access doesn't specify when they can learn new spells, it's very vague. It could mean it works with advanced learning, but subject to level and school restriction, or unrestricted, or it could mean that they can add only spells that are both on the sorcerer/wizard AND cleric spell list and of the evocation school, and one level lower than the max (which would make it an anti-feature).
Also the sorcerer/wizard spell list is tricky as it's a double class spell list with single class exceptions, making it look like 3 different spell lists (I'm looking at you arcane fusion!)

[Crake]

RAW doesn't specify that warmages can't learn spells. Their advance learning feature is mentioned inside their spellcasting description as the way they learn new spells, where normal spontaneous caster have their text on how many spells they can learn at each level, and how to swap spells known.

The advanced learning feature never actually says they learn the spell however, merely that it is added to their spell list, the implication being that, if its on their spell list, they automatically know it.

The real question is, does cleric spell access count as adding it to your spell list? It doesn’t specifically SAY it does, but it grants literally all the benefits of having the spells on your spell list, with one ADDED stipulation (not a removed one), that if a spell is not on the sorc/wiz spell list, it is cast as a divine spell.

For me, that is enough to consider it as being added to the caster’s spell list, but for others its not.

[lylsyly]

Okay, we've established that it doesn't work by Raw. How about we work on reworking the class so it does work?

[Troacctid]

Okay, we've established that it doesn't work by Raw. How about we work on reworking the class so it does work?
There's not much to rework. You either decide, "Yes, it works," or "No, it doesn't work," and that's pretty much it.

[RedMage125]

RAW doesn't specify that warmages can't learn spells. Their advance learning feature is mentioned inside their spellcasting description as the way they learn new spells, where normal spontaneous caster have their text on how many spells they can learn at each level, and how to swap spells known.
The RAW doesn't say they CAN, either. Their class feature called "Advanced Learning" (both in its mention inside the spellcasting description and it it's own description) uses the words "add spells to his list".
The word "learn" is never used as a verb to describe a warmage's spell acquisition. In fact, it's only ever used as a verb to describe the 8th level ability to cast spells without failure in Medium Armor. And once in the narrative description of the class, talking about mundane warlike skills and learning to cast in armor.




The cleric spell access doesn't specify when they can learn new spells, it's very vague. It could mean it works with advanced learning, but subject to level and school restriction, or unrestricted, or it could mean that they can add only spells that are both on the sorcerer/wizard AND cleric spell list and of the evocation school, and one level lower than the max (which would make it an anti-feature).
Also the sorcerer/wizard spell list is tricky as it's a double class spell list with single class exceptions, making it look like 3 different spell lists (I'm looking at you arcane fusion!)
Technically...the Warmage class says it must be picked from "a wizard spell". So, spells that are "Sorcerer only" (like arcane fusion) aren't eligible. Mordy's Lucubration and Rary's Menmonic Enhancer (both Wizard only) would be eligible, but they're both Transmutation.


The advanced learning feature never actually says they learn the spell however, merely that it is added to their spell list, the implication being that, if its on their spell list, they automatically know it.
That's not an implication. "his spell list is the same as his spells known list" is a direct quote.



The real question is, does cleric spell access count as adding it to your spell list? It doesn’t specifically SAY it does, but it grants literally all the benefits of having the spells on your spell list, with one ADDED stipulation (not a removed one), that if a spell is not on the sorc/wiz spell list, it is cast as a divine spell.

For me, that is enough to consider it as being added to the caster’s spell list, but for others its not.
That is the crux. Getting access to the cleric's list doesn't specify that it DOES or DOES NOT work with the class exactly like his own class list does.

However, to be fair, for Wizards, Bards, and Sorcerers who take RS, it does. They just also have to "learn" spells from their own class list in a way Warmages do not.


Okay, we've established that it doesn't work by Raw. How about we work on reworking the class so it does work?
We have not established that. We have established that there are at least 3 ways to read how these rules interact. Some are more permissive than others.

There's not much to rework. You either decide, "Yes, it works," or "No, it doesn't work," and that's pretty much it.
Basically, yes.

[Darg]

So Domain access DOES add spells to your list of spells known. To summarize the bit in Complete Divine about Extra Domains for non-Clerics;

If they are like Druids/Rangers/Paladins (IE: Prepared casters that known the entire list) they add all their spells to their spells known.

Classes with a spellbooks (IE: Wizard) can scribe the relevant divine scrolls into their book.

Spontaneous casters that choose their spells known (IE: Favored Souls or Sorcerers) can learn these new spells, but don't gain extra spells known.

Warmages (along with Beguilers and Dread Necros) are unique in that they have an entire list they know (Like Druids) but cast spontaneously (like Sorcerers). Since their spells known are their entire list and don't have a limited number of spells known one can extrapolate that they probably should use the rules for the fist set of classes as it describes them the best. They don't have a spell book, they have no limit on spells known and they know their entire list.

Finally you can not use Advanced Learning on Cleric spells, as for Warmages that only works on Evocation spells on the Wiz/Sorc list.

It is not added to their spell list. If it were it would have said so. There is precedence for this too. Domain spells aren't added to a cleric's spell list, they are held separate even though they can prepare and cast from the domains they access. There is no rule that says all spells you know must be on your spell list.

Warmages are spontaneous casters which explicitly must choose the domain spell when they select a new known spell.

The rules about selecting a domain spell are more specific than the warmage's class feature.


The advanced learning feature never actually says they learn the spell however, merely that it is added to their spell list, the implication being that, if its on their spell list, they automatically know it.

I mean, there's a lot of dysfunction if the name of a feature can't confer it's own meaning. For example, a psion's Maximum Power Level Known feature doesn't say you have a maximum power level known unless you take the name as part of the explanation.


Arcane Disciple would be better than extra spell. That feat explicitly adds the domain's spells to your class list.

But that's a tangent. My point was to address you bringing up how warmages "did all their learning" in the past, as if it were a relevant point. You kind of missed the forest for the trees on that one. Domains (not just the spells) were relevant because the RS still gets the granted power of those domains, as well as at-will spells, and wings. And to the point, divine casters themselves are never narratively described as being trained on all their spells in their past, and they have access to their whole spell list (why all members of the same class access the same list is veering into magical theory, which is not RAW).
The knowledge of their spells are a result of external forces imparting that knowledge. As a Rainbow Servant is also casting divine spells, as part of an organization that they were not a part of when they were in warmage training, why would not having trained on those spells be relevant?
THAT was the point. Was that the narrative of the Warmage's training was irrelevant, because the knowledge of the cleric spells would be imparted, similar to how it is for other divine casters.

Clerics don't learn or "know" spells in the mechanical sense. The term "known spell" is baseline reserved for wizard, bard, and sorcerer by definition. Other books have included other spellcasters, but always by explicit inclusion. The reason why a warmage bypassing the learning stage is wrong is because for it to work the feature would have to be permissive enough to do the same for all classes. Why would the warmage know all the divine spells all at once when a wizard or sorcerer has to put in time and effort to learn these spells? That doesn't make any sense, nor does the feature say that happens.


I'm going to stop for a moment before replying and reiterate something for what is now the 3rd time. I, personally, believe that the "most permissive" reading of the text is playing a bit fast and loose with "can cast cleric spells", "grants access to the spells", and "spell list is the same as spells known list". But as those words ARE in the text, I can see it as one valid way to read that, even if I am not convinced that it's the most correct one. So, going forward, I am playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here.

First off, you are basing your point off of "logic dictates you must learn before you can cast". But that is ignoring that, as a class, Warmages (and Beguilers and Dread Necromancers) have a unique relationship with their spells that other spellcasting classes do not. They DON'T "learn" their new spells on their spell lists when they gain access to a new level of spells. Wizards do (spells known for a wizard means the ones in their spellbook and the term "learn" is occassionally used to describe the process of adding a spell to the book, but not consistently), sorcerers and bards do (they use the term "learn" for adding to their Spells Known list). The word "learn" is never used for any of the 3 full-list casters adding to their spell list, except in the title of the ability "Advanced Learning". That ability just says "add a spell to your list". Meanwhile, if "their spell list is the same as their spells known list", then the inverse, being "their spells known list is the same as their spell list" is also true, right? If "A=B", then "B=A", yes? So, if we add more value to "B" (spell list explicitly given access to), then those spells become "A" (i.e. "known").

So while you COULD be correct in insisting that "can learn" must be a prerequisite to "cast", there's also a strong case for the Warmage being a Specific Overrides General situation, as the Rainbow Servant PrC in general can be taken by any Arcane spellcasting class (probably hardest for a Dread Necromancer, though, who cannot be Good, and frequently makes use of objectively evil magicks). And, more to the point, Warmages themselves don't ever need to "learn" in order to cast. Even a single-classed Warmage never "learns" a new spell throughout their career. They only "add spells to their spell list".

Your logic ignores the logic-defying nature of the Warmage's relationship to "learning" and "knowing". And in a strict-RAW sense, Warmages have no mechanism for, and indeed no need for, "learning" spells. They simply "know" them.

RAW is sometimes a thing that operates in defiance of conventional logic and common sense (especially in 3.5e). If you don't believe me, look up "drown healing". And what we are discussing is the RAW semantics.

First, drown healing doesn't actually work by RAW because once you fail your first save to start drowning, you don't make anymore. In 3 rounds you're just dead.

Second, your argument contradicts itself. Warmages and the other two classes only cast known spells. According to the definition of a known spell in the glossary, a known spell is one they have already learned. To know a spell means they must have learned them at some point. Unlike wizards or sorcerers, a warmage doesn't have text stating they learn spells as they level. If they can't learn spells from levels, but they automatically know the spells and must have learned them at some point prior; then the only viable explanation is that they learn their spell list at level 1 and unlock mechanical knowledge as they level. Just like the background description describes.

Third, yes they do. It's in the name of Advanced Learning. Adding a spell to a warmage's spell list adds it to their known spells which means by definition they learned the spell.

Fourth, a specific exception is explicit in what it does. Cleric spell access doesn't overwrite anything, it doesn't conflict with another rule, nor does it add to spells known or to a spell list. In order to get rainbow warsnake to work, you have to add more to or subtract from what is there to get it to work. Whether by ignoring the "learn" which literally causes every caster to have the ability to cast every cleric spell without having to learn them. Or by saying it adds to the warmage's spell list; which is much less destructive, but still not RAW.


You're right. Outside of Warmages, Beguilers, and Dread Necromancers, there is no such dissonance.

But there is with these classes. And while, as single-classed characters, it's largely irrelevant, it has ramifications with the interaction with some other game elements, like Rainbow Servant.

Also, as mentioned, the Arcane Disciple feat. That feat adds spells to the person's class list of arcane spells. A Wizard would still need to find a scroll for each of those 9 spells and scribe it into his book (i.e. "learn" it). A Bard or Sorcerer would still need to add them to their Spells Known individually (i.e. "learn" them). But our 3 full-list casters? Since the exact wording of "spells are added to your class list of Arcane spells"...that means that they, for 100% know all of those spells and can cast them (1 per spell level per day, as per the restrictions of the feat).

It only has ramifications if you try to make the text say something it doesn't. Arcane disciple adds to the spell list and therefor the spells known of a warmage. Cleric spell access does neither. Sometimes the simplest answer IS the answer even if it isn't the one you want. Then again, arguing RAW for PrCs is kind of like arguing about homebrew RAW because by RAW PrCs are under the full purview of the DM, not the player.


As an aside, I would like to add a note, here. One of the reasons I'm less convinced of the most permissive reading is that the Complete Divine is trash. That book has more errors in it than any other D&D book of any edition I've ever seen. And I don't just mean "bad elements", I mean actual ERRORS. The editors of that book were asleep at the wheel.

Multiple instances of "see page XX" (as in the book actually says "XX").
Spells that change name between the spell lists and the full description (I remember one is a high level druid spell relating to water).
Favored weapon of one of the deities in the book is listed as "check toee" (presumably Temple Of Elemental Evil).
Dissonance between the text and table of some prestige classes. Rainbow Servant is actually one of them, the table says it's a 6/10 caster increase, the text says it's 10/10. By RAW, text trumps table, and even the Sage Advice of the time acknowledged that, but says that the 6/10 was probably what was intended.
So...for a lot of reasons, I am generally loathe to just accept any super-powerful combo that hinges on an element from that book. I am also super-critical of any "tricks" people rely on (like "early entry" tricks). But when I look at the RAW for this combo -through the same pedantic lens that acknowledges that "drown healing" is RAW- I can see multiple ways to read the text. And all 3 that I mentioned in my post could be drawn from that text. I'm not unilaterally declaring any of them as "correct", least of all the most permissive one. My point is that they are actually all supported by text and precedent.

While I agree there are a lot of flaws in the rules in general (like an elf wizard killing you with enervation and you rising as an elf), but RAW is RAW. Personally I don't think there is a conflict between the table and the text. Other irregular progression classes state the exact same thing in the text that rainbow servant does, but do have a parenthetical notation to mention the exception. Not having a notation wouldn't automatically disqualify the table because of this precedence. But that's just the way I rule things: if there is a way for the rules not to conflict, then that is the correct way to read them.

[Elves]

This text appears under the "Class Descriptions" header in chapter 3:
Quote Originally Posted by PHB 23
Spells per Day: How many spells of each spell level the character can cast each day. If the entry is "—" for a given level of spell, the character may not cast any spells of that level.

This clause is about how to read the Spells per Day entry and seems to just be communicating that "—" means "none". Taking it out of context to mean more than that seems like willful misinterpretation.

I agree you could spin that quote into a technically-RAW argument, but I think it would be a misreading. The problem is that the actual spellcasting rules are silent on this. IIRC there was some fireball example in the PHB that used the word "level" in a way that some argued referred to class level instead of caster level, but the example was removed in RC, so it's irrelevant. The only thing the actual spellcasting rules give us is minimum CL.

This does change my view to it being something you could at least argue for. Thank you for bringing evidence instead of accusing people of fallacies.

[Darg]

This clause is about how to read the Spells per Day entry and seems to just be communicating that "—" means "none". Taking it out of context to mean more than that seems like willful misinterpretation.

I agree you could spin that quote into a technically-RAW argument, but I think it would be a misreading. The problem is that the actual spellcasting rules are silent on this. IIRC there was some fireball example in the PHB that used the word "level" in a way that some argued referred to class level instead of caster level, but the example was removed in RC, so it's irrelevant. The only thing the actual spellcasting rules give us is minimum CL.

This does change my view to it being something you could at least argue for. Thank you for bringing evidence instead of accusing people of fallacies.


Following the general class description comes game rule information. Not all of the following categories apply to every class.


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

"Game rule information" is pretty explicit. It's an uphill battle to try to warp that around. Dismissing a rule because you think it means something that was never actually written is not RAW.

[Crake]

"Game rule information" is pretty explicit. It's an uphill battle to try to warp that around. Dismissing a rule because you think it means something that was never actually written is not RAW.

I imagine “ may not cast any spells of that level.” comes with an implied “through the merits of this class feature”. Its not a ban on the ability to do so, its merely stating that the class does not grant them such ability.

Otherwise, if youre a level 19 wizard, and take 1 level of any other spellcasting class, like say, sorcerer, you lose the ability to cast 2nd-9th level spells, because, for sorcerer, the table says “-“, therefore they cannot cast spells of those levels.

Theres a distinction between “cannot do it due to lack of capability” and “cannot do it at all, regardless of capability.”

I would argue, 9/10, dnd rules text is the former. If a rule says you cant do something, most of the time its not forbidding you, its reminding you of your (normal) limits, but if another ability bypasses, or surpasses said limits, then the rule no longer applies.

[Elves]

"Game rule information" is pretty explicit. It's an uphill battle to try to warp that around. Dismissing a rule because you think it means something that was never actually written is not RAW.
I didn't say it wasn't game rule information, I said it's clear what it's saying in context. That clause is called "Spells per day" and it's about the spells per day entry. It's saying that — means you don't get any spells per day of that level.

If you're willing to take lines out of context, there are lots of false rules you could construct.

[Darg]

I imagine “ may not cast any spells of that level.” comes with an implied “through the merits of this class feature”. Its not a ban on the ability to do so, its merely stating that the class does not grant them such ability.

Otherwise, if youre a level 19 wizard, and take 1 level of any other spellcasting class, like say, sorcerer, you lose the ability to cast 2nd-9th level spells, because, for sorcerer, the table says “-“, therefore they cannot cast spells of those levels.

That is so off base I don't even know how to respond. Multiclass characters have their own rules to keep spellcasting separate.


Theres a distinction between “cannot do it due to lack of capability” and “cannot do it at all, regardless of capability.”

I would argue, 9/10, dnd rules text is the former. If a rule says you cant do something, most of the time its not forbidding you, its reminding you of your (normal) limits, but if another ability bypasses, or surpasses said limits, then the rule no longer applies.

The rules just say you can't do it. If you can't do something, that means you lack the capability to do it.

Empower spell doesn't say I can't empower an empowered spell. Does that mean I should be able to even though there is a general rule that says I shouldn't be able to do that? In the same way versatile spellcaster doesn't say you can't cast spells of a level you can't cast. What specifically makes them different? What makes ruling them differently not arbitrary.

[Crake]

The rules just say you can't do it. If you can't do something, that means you lack the capability to do it.

Great, so we agree. The rules text is not describing something forbidden that cannot be overcome, merely that, all other things being normal, said action would be out of your capabilities

[RedMage125]

It is not added to their spell list. If it were it would have said so. There is precedence for this too. Domain spells aren't added to a cleric's spell list, they are held separate even though they can prepare and cast from the domains they access. There is no rule that says all spells you know must be on your spell list.
No, but for Warmages, there is a rule saying those two are the same thing. If "A=B", then "B=A", remember?



Warmages are spontaneous casters which explicitly must choose the domain spell when they select a new known spell.

The rules about selecting a domain spell are more specific than the warmage's class feature.
The other poster did extrapolate a bit too much from what the Complete Divine says about Extra Domains.



I mean, there's a lot of dysfunction if the name of a feature can't confer it's own meaning. For example, a psion's Maximum Power Level Known feature doesn't say you have a maximum power level known unless you take the name as part of the explanation.
That's not a hill you want to die on.

Trap sense: confers a bonus to Reflex saves and AC after a trap has been triggered, does not sense them.
(Improved) Uncanny Dodge: keep Dex bonus to AC, and later unable to be flanked. Not obvious.
Inspire Courage/Greatness/Heroics: provide bonuses to hit, temp hp, and AC/saves. Not obvious.
Still Mind: bonus to Will saves against Enchantment. Nothing about stillness or calm.
Purity of Body: immunity to non magic diseases. Not obvious.
Diamond Body: immunity to poison. Name sounds like it would be DR.
Abundant Step: teleport, not "stepping" at all.
Diamond Soul: SR. No connection to the soul at all.
Empty Body: move to Ethereal plane. Not obvious.
Divine Grace: saving throw bonus. Not obvious.

That's just from the PHB. Nothing about the name of the feature conveys anything factual or of mechanical weight with regard to the rules text. Let's just go ahead and call any claim regarding the name of the feature debunked.



Clerics don't learn or "know" spells in the mechanical sense. The term "known spell" is baseline reserved for wizard, bard, and sorcerer by definition.
I'm breaking up this paragraph to stop here because this is consistently an issue with your claims. You can't just bounce back and forth between colloquial use of "know" and "learn" whenever it's convenient for you to make your point, and be fickle about how others use it. This whole tangent was about you bringing up how "logically" it must follow that one must "learn" before one can "know". That's colloquial use of those terms. That's exactly why I brought up the parallels of cleric abilities and knowledge.
Colloquially, clerics DO "know" their spells. After all, they know what their spells do and how to cast them. And that knowledge is imparted to them. So, by that same metric, a Rainbow Warsnake who is likewise casting divine spells from that cleric list could have such knowledge imparted on them.
On the other hand, if we want to stick with pure mechanics use of the term, then we must acknowledge that a Warmage (even a single classed one) never "learns" any spell. They simply "know" them. So again, no issue.

Your whole objection stems from saying "because one must colloquially learn before one can know, a Rainbow Warsnake knowing (in the mechanics sense) without learning (in the mechanics sense) causes dissonance with me". But when it's pointed out to you that clerics can "know without learning" (in the colloquial sense)", you want to fall back on "know doesn't have mechanical meaning for clerics". That is LITERALLY moving the goalposts after I attempted to meet you where you were at. So going forward, we'll have none of that. It's one or the other, only.



Other books have included other spellcasters, but always by explicit inclusion. The reason why a warmage bypassing the learning stage is wrong is because for it to work the feature would have to be permissive enough to do the same for all classes. Why would the warmage know all the divine spells all at once when a wizard or sorcerer has to put in time and effort to learn these spells? That doesn't make any sense, nor does the feature say that happens.
Why? Because Rainbow Servant has that Cleric Spell Access feature work the same way for all classes. It makes the cleric spell list accessible to them in the same way their own base class spell list is. A Wizard RS may pick a cleric spell to add to her spellbook when leveling up, or may copy a divine spell scroll into her spellbook. A Sorcerer or Bard may choose a cleric spell to be one of his spells known when gaining a level.
So...what happens when a Warmage RS treats the cleric spell list exactly like he treats his own base class spell list?



First, drown healing doesn't actually work by RAW because once you fail your first save to start drowning, you don't make anymore. In 3 rounds you're just dead.
This answer only make it clear to me that you don't know what "drown healing" is. It has nothing to do with making saving throws, and you don't hold them for 3 rounds.

Here's the RAW for drowning in the DMG. I'm going to bold the most relevant bit.
"Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1.
When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp).
In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns."
So "drown healing" is when you take a character who is already at negative hp (let's say, for example, that Tordek has -7 hp). So he's already unconscious, and cannot hold his breath. You drown Tordek for 1 round. By the RAW, he falls unconscious (redundant), and his hit points become 0.
Congratulations. You have just "healed" Tordek for 7 hp. Pull him out of the water.
Is this illogical and absurd? Yes. Does it fly in the face of logic and common sense? Absolutely. Do we expect any DM on earth would let this work? No. But none of that is the point. The RAW explicitly say after one round of drowning, the person is at 0 hp.
Here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?137046-Drown-Healing) is a link to a thread of people discussing this, in case you doubt that what I am telling you is how "drown healing" works. But it is a well-known Rules Dysfunction of 3e.

The whole point of bringing this up is to point out that the RAW sometimes fly in the face of logic and common sense. That's why I invited you to look up "drown healing", which you clearly did not. A pedantic adherence to the semantics of what's in the text is what a RAW discussion calls for. It does not matter if this causes dissonance with you.
And to the point of this: the RAW say that Warmages "know" their spells. It never uses "learn" as a verb to describe adding spells to their list (the 3 PHB arcane casters do). It even says explicitly that "he automatically knows all the spells for that level listed on the warmage's spell list." Note the singular possessive. HIS spell list. Not just "the warmage spell list" (language used just a few sentences up). So, by strict RAW text adherence, and without worrying if logic and common sense fit, what happens when a warmage is explicitly given access to a whole additional spell list?

Like I have said, all 3 of the possible interpretations have validity from what the text says. To include only giving access to cleric spells of the spell level of warmage spells he just accessed (i.e. when the Rainbow Warsnake gets access to 7th level warmage spells, he only gets 7th level cleric spells, not any of the lower ones). I am playing Devil's Advocate here, because I can understand where the most permissive reading gets its text support.



Second, your argument contradicts itself. Warmages and the other two classes only cast known spells. According to the definition of a known spell in the glossary, a known spell is one they have already learned. To know a spell means they must have learned them at some point. Unlike wizards or sorcerers, a warmage doesn't have text stating they learn spells as they level. If they can't learn spells from levels, but they automatically know the spells and must have learned them at some point prior; then the only viable explanation is that they learn their spell list at level 1 and unlock mechanical knowledge as they level. Just like the background description describes.
You're mixing colloquial and mechanics use of those words again. Let's just stick with mechanics, shall we?
The glossary specifies what a known spell is for the 3 PHB arcane casters. The PHB also refers to acquisition of new "known" (mechanics sense) spells as "learning" (but not consistently with the Wizard, see for yourself).
The Complete Arcane, OTOH, specifies that a Warmage "knows" (mechanics sense) his spells. All of them. It doesn't matter how you want to justify with narrative about any kind of "learning" (which is colloquial use of that word), because the RAW state that he just "knows" them (mechanics sense).
You don't like it. Fine, log your opinion somewhere, but stick to facts when making an argument.



Third, yes they do. It's in the name of Advanced Learning. Adding a spell to a warmage's spell list adds it to their known spells which means by definition they learned the spell.
As I pointed out, the name of a feature doesn't always convey anything. The Monk feature Diamond Body does not make her body any physically harder, after all.



Fourth, a specific exception is explicit in what it does. Cleric spell access doesn't overwrite anything, it doesn't conflict with another rule, nor does it add to spells known or to a spell list. In order to get rainbow warsnake to work, you have to add more to or subtract from what is there to get it to work. Whether by ignoring the "learn" which literally causes every caster to have the ability to cast every cleric spell without having to learn them. Or by saying it adds to the warmage's spell list; which is much less destructive, but still not RAW.
OR, as I pointed out, you let cleric spell access work the same way, unilaterally. You allow each caster to access the cleric spell list in the same way that their base class does. You're not "ignoring the word 'learn'" unilaterally. That's an appeal to absurdity, and I think you know it. Wizards will treat the cleric spells like they do Wizard spells. Rainbow Sorcerers and Bards will treat cleric spells like they do their own. But Warmages, specifically, do not need to "learn", they just "know". All of the specific exceptions are contained within the warmage class itself.



It only has ramifications if you try to make the text say something it doesn't. Arcane disciple adds to the spell list and therefor the spells known of a warmage. Cleric spell access does neither. Sometimes the simplest answer IS the answer even if it isn't the one you want. Then again, arguing RAW for PrCs is kind of like arguing about homebrew RAW because by RAW PrCs are under the full purview of the DM, not the player.
And the simplest answer is: Cleric Spell Access allows each Rainbow Servant to treat the cleric spell list like it is the spell list of their own base class. Man, that was SO EASY.



While I agree there are a lot of flaws in the rules in general (like an elf wizard killing you with enervation and you rising as an elf), but RAW is RAW. Personally I don't think there is a conflict between the table and the text. Other irregular progression classes state the exact same thing in the text that rainbow servant does, but do have a parenthetical notation to mention the exception. Not having a notation wouldn't automatically disqualify the table because of this precedence. But that's just the way I rule things: if there is a way for the rules not to conflict, then that is the correct way to read them.
You don't think there is a conflict? Other Prestige Classes that do not have full spell progression specify in the text which levels that do add progression.

Black Flame Zealot, a 5/10 caster from the same book: "At every other Black Flame zealot level beginning with 2nd, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in a divine spellcasting class to which he belonged before adding the prestige class level."
Contemplative, a 10/10 caster from the same books:"A contemplative who was previously a divine spellcaster continues to gain access to more powerful divine magic while following the contemplative path. Thus, when a new contemplative level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in the divine spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class."
Rainbow Servant: "When a new rainbow servant level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in whatever spellcasting class in which she could cast 3rd-level arcane spells before she added the prestige class."
The text clearly matches the text of PrCs that give spell progression every level. The table does not. It's utterly disingenuous to pretend that there's not a conflict, especially when this is one of the well-known errors in that book.
RAW says that "text trumps table". (DMG errata says:"Primary Sources When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry").


This clause is about how to read the Spells per Day entry and seems to just be communicating that "—" means "none". Taking it out of context to mean more than that seems like willful misinterpretation.

I agree you could spin that quote into a technically-RAW argument, but I think it would be a misreading. The problem is that the actual spellcasting rules are silent on this. IIRC there was some fireball example in the PHB that used the word "level" in a way that some argued referred to class level instead of caster level, but the example was removed in RC, so it's irrelevant. The only thing the actual spellcasting rules give us is minimum CL.

This does change my view to it being something you could at least argue for. Thank you for bringing evidence instead of accusing people of fallacies.
I never just "accused you of fallacies", play the victim somewhere else. I've provided evidence the entire time. The spellcasting rules in the PHB are not "silent on this". It's been quoted to you so many times that this statement is blatant and intentional lie. But here it is again:
(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.)"
Bolded, italicized, and underlined for you. In black and white text. The very thing you claim the rules are "silent on".

"Game rule information" is pretty explicit. It's an uphill battle to try to warp that around. Dismissing a rule because you think it means something that was never actually written is not RAW.
I've been fighting that battle for awhile. I've cited the actual text, as well as the English language Grammer and syntax rules that prove that "(see chapter 3 for details)" is supplemental to the line about requiring high enough class level (due to it being a complete sentence in parentheses following a complete sentence). He made some spurious claim about what is "common in a citational reading of non fiction" (without supporting that claim in any way), and then just ignores rules text because he finds it inconvenient to a TO theory he was positing.

[Crake]

This answer only make it clear to me that you don't know what "drown healing" is. It has nothing to do with making saving throws, and you don't hold them for 3 rounds.

I think darg’s point was that, once you fail the con check, you begin drowning, and will die in 3 rounds, even if you’re pulled out of the water.

Which kinda makes sense, since you’re unconscious, and your lungs are filled with water, even if you get pulled out, youre still gonna be drowning

[RedMage125]

I think darg’s point was that, once you fail the con check, you begin drowning, and will die in 3 rounds, even if you’re pulled out of the water.

Which kinda makes sense, since you’re unconscious, and your lungs are filled with water, even if you get pulled out, youre still gonna be drowning

Interesting point. This made me go back and see if I could answer this with RAW, and not rely on "Common Sense".

I found this, right above the drowning rules, in the DMG, under the heading "Water Dangers":
"Water presents adventurers with five general problems. First, it’s an obstacle that can block their movement. Second, characters in the water face the danger of drowning or losing gear...*snip*"
This tells me, unequivocally, that once the character is removed from the water, that the "water danger" of drowning has been eliminated. Thus stopping the drowning process.

So while I believe that answers that point, I do appreciate the challenge to my assumptions! I do enjoy pedantic semantics analysis of RAW.

[Crake]

Interesting point. This made me go back and see if I could answer this with RAW, and not rely on "Common Sense".

I found this, right above the drowning rules, in the DMG, under the heading "Water Dangers":
"Water presents adventurers with five general problems. First, it’s an obstacle that can block their movement. Second, characters in the water face the danger of drowning or losing gear...*snip*"
This tells me, unequivocally, that once the character is removed from the water, that the "water danger" of drowning has been eliminated. Thus stopping the drowning process.

So while I believe that answers that point, I do appreciate the challenge to my assumptions! I do enjoy pedantic semantics analysis of RAW.

When you leave the water the danger of drowning has been eliminated, yes, but if you are already drowning, its too late, its no longer a danger, its a reality. Youre not IN DANGER of drowning, you ARE drowning

[RedMage125]

When you leave the water the danger of drowning has been eliminated, yes, but if you are already drowning, its too late, its no longer a danger, its a reality. Youre not IN DANGER of drowning, you ARE drowning

Yeah, no. That's not in the text.

Even a completely pedantic RAW analysis shows that "characters IN the water" are the ones who face the danger of drowning.

"Drowning" is under its own subheading below. Only a character IN the water* has to deal with the rules for drowning. Once no longer "IN the water", one is no longer facing that danger, and thus using those rules. You're making things up, now. And that's not how RAW work. I get that you're implying that there's not specific text telling you "if you remove a character from the water, the drowning process stops". But that's covered by clarifying that the dangers are for characters "in the water". Unless you're also claiming that a character who has left the water also has to deal with the movement impediment as well, which I don't think you are.

*or other substance, as the DMG adds "It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain."

[Crake]

Yeah, no. That's not in the text.

Even a completely pedantic RAW analysis shows that "characters IN the water" are the ones who face the danger of drowning.

"Drowning" is under its own subheading below. Only a character IN the water* has to deal with the rules for drowning. Once no longer "IN the water", one is no longer facing that danger, and thus using those rules. You're making things up, now. And that's not how RAW work. I get that you're implying that there's not specific text telling you "if you remove a character from the water, the drowning process stops". But that's covered by clarifying that the dangers are for characters "in the water". Unless you're also claiming that a character who has left the water also has to deal with the movement impediment as well, which I don't think you are.

*or other substance, as the DMG adds "It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain."

You may have a misunderstanding of what the noun "danger" means. A danger is a possibility. While in the water, you face the possibility of drowning. Once you are removed from the water, the possibility of drowning is gone, but if you are already drowning, then drowning is no longer a possibility, it is a reality, you are drowning, you're not in danger of drowning.


danger
/ˈdeɪn(d)ʒə/
noun
noun: danger

the possibility of suffering harm or injury.

[RedMage125]

You may have a misunderstanding of what the noun "danger" means. A danger is a possibility. While in the water, you face the possibility of drowning. Once you are removed from the water, the possibility of drowning is gone, but if you are already drowning, then drowning is no longer a possibility, it is a reality, you are drowning, you're not in danger of drowning.
This tangent is absurd and getting out of hand. You have no RAW text to support this. I have cited text to support what I have said. If something is "no longer a possibility", then it isn’t happening.



Possibility
noun: possibility; plural noun: possibilities
a thing that may happen or be the case.

Impossibility
noun
the state or fact of being impossible.
"the impossibility of walking anywhere in this jungle"

Impossible
adjective
not able to occur, exist, or be done


This tangent is closed. Can we get back on topic?

[Crake]

You have no RAW text to support this.

Its literally the english language. For someone who’s such a stickler for “the RAW”, you are very confident, while being very clearly unable to grasp certain language concepts, all wrapped in the arrogance of you being certain you’re right. Makes you very unpleasant to discuss with.

[RedMage125]

Its literally the english language. For someone who’s such a stickler for “the RAW”, you are very confident, while being very clearly unable to grasp certain language concepts, all wrapped in the arrogance of you being certain you’re right. Makes you very unpleasant to discuss with.

If someone pointing out to you that you did not do something which you know you did not do makes you feel that person is "arrogant", then it says more about you than it does that person.

You still haven't supported your claim -with text from the rules- that drowning continues after the person has been removed from the water. And there's no way you aren't aware of that. You attempted to circumvent that by posting word definitions. And now you want to play the victim when you're called on it.

I, on the other hand, pointed out that drowning, just like being an obstacle to movement, is parsed as a danger to those "IN the water". Not relying on any kind of extrapolation from the text, nor common sense.

You directly insulted my understanding of language in your post before last, and you clearly take no accountability for how YOU come across to others. So you attempting to take me to task for how I come across to you is absurd.

You blithely posted the definition of "danger", immediately after making an incorrect and uninformed declaration about "possibility" vis "reality". Because something that is "certain" (i.e. a "reality") remains in the realm of "possibilty", linguistically. That's why I started with the definition of possibility. And if something is "no longer a possibility" (to use your own words), it means it is the opposite, "an impossibility" instead. Which I also posted the definition of. And the subsequent definition of "impossible", because "impossibility" used that.

I matched your energy, by posting dictionary definitions of words, without resorting to insults to your intelligence or understanding. If you can't handle someone addressing you like you do them, it again, says more about you than anyone else.

Back on topic:

If someone is no longer "in danger", then they are not subject to the "possibility of harm or injury", are they? Is dying "harm or injury"? Unequivocally, yes.

I invite you to support your claim, but as I have just read the rules AGAIN, I'm certain you're not going to find it.

[Crake]

I invite you to support your claim, but as I have just read the rules AGAIN, I'm certain you're not going to find it.

Nah, your general attitude shows a real lack of openness, or capability to see a discussion from multiple angles, you view it as a competition, and you think winning means relentlessly and blindly insisting your point of view is correct, while religiously pointing to “RAW”.

So no, I’m not really interested in engaging with you, because I’m interested in discussion and a mixing of ideas, not a competition of who can insist they’re right for the longest. Its the same reason I didnt bother continuing the other conversation about versatile spellcaster with you earlier in this thread, because you showed no capability of even conceptualising the notion that your interpretation of the rules may not be the literal gospel of “the RAW”.

[RedMage125]

Nah, your general attitude shows a real lack of openness, or capability to see a discussion from multiple angles, you view it as a competition, and you think winning means relentlessly and blindly insisting your point of view is correct, while religiously pointing to “RAW”.

So no, I’m not really interested in engaging with you, because I’m interested in discussion and a mixing of ideas, not a competition of who can insist they’re right for the longest. Its the same reason I didnt bother continuing the other conversation about versatile spellcaster with you earlier in this thread, because you showed no capability of even conceptualising the notion that your interpretation of the rules may not be the literal gospel of “the RAW”.

So...no acknowledgement of your own bad behavior, and since you can't find any text in the books to support what you're claiming, you're just going to outline yourself in chalk, and walk away, putting on the facade of a moral high ground.

Do you want some kind of slow clap as you trot off in your little huff?

I'm absolutely open to discussion of the text that disagrees with my reading. The actual topic of this thread is an example. While I contest Elves' absurd claim that "there is no rule requiring class levels to cast spells of a given level" (because there is, on page 7 of the PHB), I absolutely said the way he reads the abilities for Rainbow Warsnake is a valid way to read the text. I just also see the justification for 2 other readings. I, personally, don't even LIKE the most permissive reading, and have been very open about that in my debate with Darg. That I am playing Devil's Advocate with regard to showcasing the support that the most permissive reading DOES have. Elves' claim may very well be correct. The way the RAW is worded with regards to the way these game elements interact is unclear, even from a mindset of pedantic adherence to the semantics of what is written (as in, the kind of mindset that acknowledges "drown healing" as a thing).

You have shown a trend of not actually citing the text to support claims you make about what is true. Before I joined the thread, you were cutting lines of RAW out of context (while accusing Darg of the same). Darg beat me to posting the entirety of that paragraph.
And let's be honest, you backed out of the other discussion, because it was pointed out that the thrust of that section (both paragraphs) was about the relationship between ability scores and spellcasting -you know, like the header above it states- of which bonus spells are only one part. That, and having no response to the point:
In any context, text which says:
"In addition to [restriction], an individual must [X] in order to [do the thing]" Means that [X] is also a restriction to doing the thing.
You also attempted to claim that "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" somehow applies to more than what the rules say they do.

If you don't like citing support for things you claim to be true about the RAW, then maybe RAW discussions aren't a thing you enjoy. But that doesn't mean anyone else is wrong for engaging them. You don't join a pick up game of soccer as a forward and complain when you get fouls called on you for using your hands. This is a discussion about what the RAW do or do not say. That means citing the RAW as proof, because in a RAW discussion, only what is in the text is true. Any claims you make about minimum class levels to cast spells, adjustments to caster levels, or drowning needs to be based on words written in the text, or be dismissed as "not true".

It's not something everyone enjoys, but don't try and paint me as the villain or yourself the victim because you're not abiding by the rules of engagement.

[Crake]

So...no acknowledgement of your own bad behavior.

I’ve been nothing but cordial, don't project your attitude onto me.

I didnt read the rest, because as I said, I’m not interested in discussing any topics with you while you maintain this style of discussion.

[RedMage125]

I’ve been nothing but cordial, don't project your attitude onto me.
So...this wasn't you?


You may have a misunderstanding of what the noun "danger" means.


For someone who’s such a stickler for “the RAW”, you are very confident, while being very clearly unable to grasp certain language concepts,

If you're going to lie about what you said, you could at least be clever enough to edit your earlier posts, so it's not so easy to prove that you're lying.



I didnt read the rest, because as I said, I’m not interested in discussing any topics with you while you maintain this style of discussion.

Of course you're not. You're interested in painting yourself as "the poor victim of mean old Redmage".

When you first posited this idea, I was cordial, and accepted it as a challenge. For which I was even grateful to you for challenging my assumption, and giving me the opportunity to support it with RAW.

You responded with essentially re-iterating what you said before, but with some CAPS. You didn't even try to bring up any kind of text that would support it, you just made an assertion as if it were fact.

When I pointed out that you didn't bring any rules up to support thay claim, the insults began. Any every other person reading this thread can see that such is true.

So your attempt to "play the victim" and act like "[you're] here for discussion and a mixing of ideas" are bull****. You escalated into personal attacks, and while I did not respond in kind, I matched the tone of the rest of your post (citing dictionary definitions of the words). When that mirror got held up to you, you promptly outlined yourself in chalk. And you have the unmitigated gall to talk to me like you're dressing me down for bad behavior, when YOU initiated hostility when you condescendingly asserted that "I may have a misunderstanding" of an extremely common noun. Grow up and take accountability for yourself.

[Crake]

So...this wasn't you?





If you're going to lie about what you said, you could at least be clever enough to edit your earlier posts, so it's not so easy to prove that you're lying.

Theres nothing uncordial about what I wrote. Calling you out for your attitude, and pointing out your misunderstanding of the language is not flaming.

What you’re doing is projecting your own tone onto my posts, and reading it with malintent.

[Darg]

This answer only make it clear to me that you don't know what "drown healing" is. It has nothing to do with making saving throws, and you don't hold them for 3 rounds.

Here's the RAW for drowning in the DMG. I'm going to bold the most relevant bit.
"Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1.
When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp).
In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns."
So "drown healing" is when you take a character who is already at negative hp (let's say, for example, that Tordek has -7 hp). So he's already unconscious, and cannot hold his breath. You drown Tordek for 1 round. By the RAW, he falls unconscious (redundant), and his hit points become 0.
Congratulations. You have just "healed" Tordek for 7 hp. Pull him out of the water.
Is this illogical and absurd? Yes. Does it fly in the face of logic and common sense? Absolutely. Do we expect any DM on earth would let this work? No. But none of that is the point. The RAW explicitly say after one round of drowning, the person is at 0 hp.
Here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?137046-Drown-Healing) is a link to a thread of people discussing this, in case you doubt that what I am telling you is how "drown healing" works. But it is a well-known Rules Dysfunction of 3e.

The whole point of bringing this up is to point out that the RAW sometimes fly in the face of logic and common sense. That's why I invited you to look up "drown healing", which you clearly did not. A pedantic adherence to the semantics of what's in the text is what a RAW discussion calls for. It does not matter if this causes dissonance with you.
And to the point of this: the RAW say that Warmages "know" their spells. It never uses "learn" as a verb to describe adding spells to their list (the 3 PHB arcane casters do). It even says explicitly that "he automatically knows all the spells for that level listed on the warmage's spell list." Note the singular possessive. HIS spell list. Not just "the warmage spell list" (language used just a few sentences up). So, by strict RAW text adherence, and without worrying if logic and common sense fit, what happens when a warmage is explicitly given access to a whole additional spell list?

First round it just says you fall unconscious. There's a "(0 hp)" but the rules don't tell you what to do with that information. Any assumption that you drop or rise to 0 hp is just that, an assumption that isn't RAW. Hence the fallacy of the drown healing. The only time drowning tells you to move your hp is on the second round and "she drops to -1 hit points." You can't drop up so no healing there.


I think darg’s point was that, once you fail the con check, you begin drowning, and will die in 3 rounds, even if you’re pulled out of the water.

Which kinda makes sense, since you’re unconscious, and your lungs are filled with water, even if you get pulled out, youre still gonna be drowning

You can drown without having a fluid or other substance enter the lungs. Drowning is simply having your breathing be impaired by a liquid (or in D&D's case a liquid-like substance), whether externally or internally.

The rules assume you are able to breathe when the environment allows. The drowning rules don't contradict that when you are pulled out of the water while drowning. If you are out of the water your breathing is no longer impaired so technically wouldn't be drowning any more

[RedMage125]

Theres nothing uncordial about what I wrote. Calling you out for your attitude, and pointing out your misunderstanding of the language is not flaming.

What you’re doing is projecting your own tone onto my posts, and reading it with malintent.
No, projecting on to me that I "may have a misunderstanding of the noun danger" (an extremely common word) is absolutely an insult to me, personally.

Be an adult, and take accountability for how you come across.

I have never, at any point, insinuated that your intelligence or understanding were deficient. I pointed out that you didn't cite anything in the text to support the idea that a character who was no longer "in the water" would continue to drown. Because you didn't. On the contrary, I pointed out that the RAW specified that characters "in the water" faced problems such as obstacles to movement and the danger of drowning. If you are no longer in the water, you have removed the conditional prerequisite to facing those problems. And if one is not "in danger" of drowning, then it isn't a possibility, is it?

First round it just says you fall unconscious. There's a "(0 hp)" but the rules don't tell you what to do with that information. Any assumption that you drop or rise to 0 hp is just that, an assumption that isn't RAW. Hence the fallacy of the drown healing. The only time drowning tells you to move your hp is on the second round and "she drops to -1 hit points." You can't drop up so no healing there.
Okay, again...this is a commonly referenced Rules Dysfunction. And the RAW say "unconscious (0hp)". This is brought up to highlight the kind of pedantic text adherence (even in the face of common sense) that most of us on the forums mean when we talk about "literal reading of the RAW". This is only a tangent to frame the kind of mindset I'm trying to explain when we talk about how Warmages "know" without ever having to "learn" (both of those only in the mechanics sense, not colloquial sense).

So, from the understanding of the same kind of pedantic adherence to the text of the RAW that says "drown healing" is a thing, do you understand that Warmages have no need to "learn" before they can "know"?



The rules assume you are able to breathe when the environment allows. The drowning rules don't contradict that when you are pulled out of the water while drowning. If you are out of the water your breathing is no longer impaired so technically wouldn't be drowning any more
While you are correct in your conclusion, the main thrust of the disagreement between Crake and myself was the the RAW specify that drowning (and thus the rules thereof) is a danger to those "IN the water". That's why I went hunting for support for that that didn't rely on Common Sense.

[Darg]

So, from the understanding of the same kind of pedantic adherence to the text of the RAW that says "drown healing" is a thing, do you understand that Warmages have no need to "learn" before they can "know"?


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.

All arcane casters must learn before they can know a spell. The difference is in the when the learning takes place. Wizards when it's in their spellbooks. Sorcerers when they select it at level advancement. Wizards can learn spells way before they could ever cast them. As that is the case, it makes sense that warmages can mostly learn their spells and then when they reach a particular level fit the puzzle piece that makes it known like their background says it works.

[RedMage125]

All arcane casters must learn before they can know a spell. The difference is in the when the learning takes place. Wizards when it's in their spellbooks. Sorcerers when they select it at level advancement. Wizards can learn spells way before they could ever cast them. As that is the case, it makes sense that warmages can mostly learn their spells and then when they reach a particular level fit the puzzle piece that makes it known like their background says it works.

That is the General rule, yes.

This is getting tedious, because each time you get so focused on one element of a point, you lose track of how it applies to the larger point.

So, once again, the RAW support for those that claim the most permissive view is based on Specifc Overrides General. The specific exemption being the following text from the Warmage:


Spells: A warmage casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to sorcerers and wizards), which are drawn from the warmage spell list. 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. Warmages also have the option of adding to their existing spell list through their advanced learning ability as they increase in level (see below).
Warmages -specifically- do not need to "learn" their spells. They automatically know them. Again, we're going off a pedantic and literal reading of the RAW that takes the words at face value (the same mindset that says "drown healing" is a thing). As it is written as "warmage's spell list" (singular possessive), that means we are talking about the spell list of that particular warmage (which is why I used Billy as an example, it's Billy's spell list). And the Cleric Spell Access ability of a Rainbow Servant explicitly "grants access" to the spells of the cleric spell list. It is an entirely valid reading of these texts to say that it means the Cleric Spell List is now also "Billy's". A level 10 RS "can learn" cleric spells, but if he was a warmage, beguiler, or dread necromancer, he doesn't need to.

I have tried very hard to be clear that I am not trying to get you to accept the most permissive view. I don't like it, myself. My most literal reading says that "ONLY when a new spell level is gained (which, if you're using the table version of RS progression, will take another 2 levels), does the Rainbow Warsnake get access to all the cleric spells of that spell level, not all the lower level ones".

But there IS text supporting the most permissive option. The way you've been arguing, it seems like you're trying to claim that there isn't. And I have been very clear that I am playing Devil's Advocate when I present these points. But a good chunk of your argument hinges on the following:
* Switching back and forth between colloquial and mechanics use of "know" and "learn".
* Insistence that the mechanics of "know" follow the logic of colloquial use.
* Insistence that flavor text in the class intro has mechanical weight. And/Or the name of the ability, rather than just the rules text of the ability.
* Ignoring the RAW that warmages (from a pure mechanics use of the term) never "learn" spells, they simply "know" them. Even for single-classed Warmages, this is a Specific Exception to the General rule in the glossary.

I also believe that the most permissive view plays too fast and loose with "can cast from the cleric list", "access to the spells", and "spell list is the same as spells known list". I am just able to look outside my own opinion and recognize that such is a valid reading of those rules. But so is what Elves posits (which you also seem to support). I think insisting that they have to use Advanced Learning to get a cleric spell has RAW support, too. And what I espoused. All have valid support from the text. This is one of those areas that isn't entirely black and white, unlike Class levels being a requirement to cast spells of a given spell level, for example. That's a hard fact.

Regardless, the Sage Advice FAQ says that the intent is that they can cast all cleric spells. They also say that the intent is to be a 6/10 casting class, but the RAW says "text trumps table".

[Darg]

And the Cleric Spell Access ability of a Rainbow Servant explicitly "grants access" to the spells of the cleric spell list. It is an entirely valid reading of these texts to say that it means the Cleric Spell List is now also "Billy's".

Except it relies on an assumption never stated within the rules. Rule precedence is that "access" does not equate to adding it to your spell list. Cleric got access to domain spell lists which explicitly are not added to the cleric's spell list. They are kept wholly separate. The only times the rules mention access to spells or spell lists is for domains or cleric spell access and neither ever mention adding spells to a spell list. Arcane disciple is conspicuously missing "access" even though it adds the spells to your list.


I have tried very hard to be clear that I am not trying to get you to accept the most permissive view. I don't like it, myself. My most literal reading says that "ONLY when a new spell level is gained (which, if you're using the table version of RS progression, will take another 2 levels), does the Rainbow Warsnake get access to all the cleric spells of that spell level, not all the lower level ones".

But there IS text supporting the most permissive option. The way you've been arguing, it seems like you're trying to claim that there isn't. And I have been very clear that I am playing Devil's Advocate when I present these points. But a good chunk of your argument hinges on the following:
* Switching back and forth between colloquial and mechanics use of "know" and "learn".
* Insistence that the mechanics of "know" follow the logic of colloquial use.
* Insistence that flavor text in the class intro has mechanical weight. And/Or the name of the ability, rather than just the rules text of the ability.
* Ignoring the RAW that warmages (from a pure mechanics use of the term) never "learn" spells, they simply "know" them. Even for single-classed Warmages, this is a Specific Exception to the General rule in the glossary.

I also believe that the most permissive view plays too fast and loose with "can cast from the cleric list", "access to the spells", and "spell list is the same as spells known list". I am just able to look outside my own opinion and recognize that such is a valid reading of those rules. But so is what Elves posits (which you also seem to support). I think insisting that they have to use Advanced Learning to get a cleric spell has RAW support, too. And what I espoused. All have valid support from the text. This is one of those areas that isn't entirely black and white, unlike Class levels being a requirement to cast spells of a given spell level, for example. That's a hard fact.

If we want to talk about colloquialism, it's literally the only source of support for rainbow warsnake. It's a spell list you can learn and cast from, therefore it must be "yours" right? But from the same logic, nothing gave it to you. You're claiming something that isn't yours. Which to be fair is a very common English speaking thing to do. If I have access to a bank vault and have permission to use and organize the contents of the vault for my benefit, is the bank vault mine? Not necessarily. It could be owned by someone else who gave you permission and access. By law it's still their's. However, it wouldn't be wrong colloquially to say that it's mine, within the context of my right to access it. In the same way "warmage's spell list" is yours because you are the warmage, but the "cleric spell list" isn't yours because you aren't a cleric.


Regardless, the Sage Advice FAQ says that the intent is that they can cast all cleric spells. They also say that the intent is to be a 6/10 casting class, but the RAW says "text trumps table".

I take the FAQ with a dump truck of salt for anything they say. It's a nice collection of house rules, but I can't say all of them are coherent in the context of the rules in which they are supposed to represent and a couple times have been contradicted by the writers of the rules they are ruling on.

That said, extra domains and cleric spell access just needs good houseruling to work well with warmage and the other two classes as they're in a book that assumes they don't exist.

[RedMage125]

Except it relies on an assumption never stated within the rules. Rule precedence is that "access" does not equate to adding it to your spell list. Cleric got access to domain spell lists which explicitly are not added to the cleric's spell list. They are kept wholly separate. The only times the rules mention access to spells or spell lists is for domains or cleric spell access and neither ever mention adding spells to a spell list. Arcane disciple is conspicuously missing "access" even though it adds the spells to your list.
That's where you keep getting it twisted. Arcane disciple adds it to the CLASS Spell list, which means for that caster, they're all arcane spells.

Meanwhile, for Wizards and Sorcerers, Rainbow Servant does in fact, allow them to access it in the same manner they do their own. But the spells remain divine spells, which is the distinction. They are accessing a different spell list, via the only manner in which they access spells, they are not adding it to their own, either.

Warmages just have a more advantageous relationship with their spell list than those other classes. This is usually offset by the fact that the Warmage's class spell list is pretty terrible compared to them.

By the way, what other "precedence" do you speak of with regard to "access" to a spell list?



If we want to talk about colloquialism, it's literally the only source of support for rainbow warsnake. It's a spell list you can learn and cast from, therefore it must be "yours" right? But from the same logic, nothing gave it to you. You're claiming something that isn't yours. Which to be fair is a very common English speaking thing to do. If I have access to a bank vault and have permission to use and organize the contents of the vault for my benefit, is the bank vault mine? Not necessarily. It could be owned by someone else who gave you permission and access. By law it's still their's. However, it wouldn't be wrong colloquially to say that it's mine, within the context of my right to access it. In the same way "warmage's spell list" is yours because you are the warmage, but the "cleric spell list" isn't yours because you aren't a cleric.
Welcome to exactly my stance. I have said, like 4 times now, that the most permissive reading plays it too fast and loose (in my opinion) with "may cast cleric spells", "access the spells", and "[your] spell list is the same as your spells known list". Because it draws from ONE WAY to read the words of the text. And doesn't really ignore any specific text forbidding it, because warmages have no need to "learn" spells, mechanics wise. But other casters do. But considering it "yours", while potentially a correct reading, seems a bit greasy to me.



I take the FAQ with a dump truck of salt for anything they say. It's a nice collection of house rules, but I can't say all of them are coherent in the context of the rules in which they are supposed to represent and a couple times have been contradicted by the writers of the rules they are ruling on.

That said, extra domains and cleric spell access just needs good houseruling to work well with warmage and the other two classes as they're in a book that assumes they don't exist.

More correctly, I would say it's a look into RAI, rather that hpuse rules. During most of the 3.5e run, Sage Advice in Dragon Magazine was run by WotC employees who were on the 3.5e design team (Skip Williams, and Andy Collins). RAI is only as useful as people want to make it. Actual contradictions with any writers are rare, and that's assuming you know of some, because I never heard any.

And again, the Complete Divine is one of the worst books to ever be published in the 3.5e era. The Miniatures Handbook is up there, too (fun fact, that is the original source of the warmage and the favored soul). It was so badly edited, that the errata didn't even cover all the errors. It feels to me like they gave up.

But better errata would have fixed the issue to keep it in line with RAI. Something along the lines of putting the following after the first sentence: "The Rainbow Servant may access the cleric spell list in the same manner as the spell list of her original arcane casting class. So a RS who entered as a Wizard may learn cleric spells from a scroll and write them in her spellbook, and a Sorcerer or Bard may select spells from the cleric spell as a spell known when they level up." A line like that would make it clear that the most permissive Rainbow Warsnake interpretation is the correct one.
Also errata to be clear if spellcasting is supposed to be 6/10 or 10/10.

Also...I just realized something...a Wizard 5/Rainbow Servant 10 who learns Mass Cure Moderate Wounds from a cleric spell scroll...still casts it as an arcane spell, and not a divine one, because the spell appears on the Bard spell list. I don't know why, but that strikes me as funny.

[redking]

Regardless, the Sage Advice FAQ says that the intent is that they can cast all cleric spells. They also say that the intent is to be a 6/10 casting class, but the RAW says "text trumps table".

I started a thread about this before (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?662012-Is-a-6-10-spelling-casting-warmage-rainbow-servant-worth-it) and the consensus was that 6/10 with automatic access to the cleric spell list is not broken. I would definitely allow it, but not at 10/10.

[RedMage125]

I started a thread about this before (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?662012-Is-a-6-10-spelling-casting-warmage-rainbow-servant-worth-it) and the consensus was that 6/10 with automatic access to the cleric spell list is not broken. I would definitely allow it, but not at 10/10.

I suppose, but I've taken this thread to be more about whether or not the RAW actually permit it, as opposed to whether or not it's overpowered.

But as far as power...
A Tier 4 class losing 4 levels of spell progression to suddenly have spontaneous access to a Tier 1 class list at level 16, and getting a max of L8 spells at 20...sure, that's not really too overpowered.

As for 10/10...I guess it would depend on the rest of that party makeup. If the rest of the party is high-OP and averages above Tier 3...maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing to allow.

[redking]

I suppose, but I've taken this thread to be more about whether or not the RAW actually permit it, as opposed to whether or not it's overpowered.

If the plain language of Rainbow Servant does not grant Warmages true access to the Cleric list, then it is effectively non-functional for these characters. In the end, the DM must make a ruling, not only about the cleric list access, but about the spell progression as well. RAW arguments face challenges too. I've seen many RAW based arguments where the root issue was comprehension, rather than any ambiguity in the text. I am not saying it is the case in this instance, but it is often the case.